234
The Green Bag
citizens of the state, who choose their Senators. But as to one main purpose,
men seem to think that in discussing political questions property and the
the House of Lords and the Senate of the United States are substantially identical. They both represent the maturity, the wisdom, and as has been well said, the second thought of the
minority interests must be considered secondarily. Indeed they are often not
referred to at all. The class of which I speak regard it as a quick road to public
property and substantial rights and
favor to frame an issue of the people against wealth. But personal rights and private property are so entwined that in
interests of the people; they are a break water against the seas of passion and
fundamental legislation it is impossible to separate them. Indeed, nothing is
prejudice of the excited masses which sometimes roll in against the vested interests and rights of the people. At
more superficial and evanescent than legislation,
times the people must be protected
issues reach the final stage of adjustment
against themselves. Willoughby ("The Nature of the State") well expresses the thought:—
-— when the chafi is separated from the wheat, when a true analysis is made
nation.
They protect the wealth, the
The people even when acting in their most direct manner cannot always be trusted to act wisely and according to their own best interests; that passion and prejudices of the moment will urge
an
electorate
Ol'
to
(P. 399.)
On such occasions, happily rare in
our history, the Senate checks attempted encroachments upon the rights of persons
or things urged by the other house, it balances
the
scales—and
for,
when
such
political
it is found, especially in this country, that all classes of the people are property owners— they have their farms; their small houses in the city; their deposits in the savings banks; their various
measures
destructive as well to the welfare of the state as to its stability, and that at times the despo tism of the multitude can far exceed in severity that possible of exercise by the most autocratic
of monarchs.
to ignore these interests, in any class of
maintains
the equilibrium of the Constitution. A select council or an upper House of Legislation exists for the twofold pro tection of minority interests and of property. A nation with one house chosen by popular vote cannot live long, and it would not alter the result that there were two parliamentary
bodies chosen by popular vote instead of one; or that the term of one was two
and the other six years. The same breath would blow them into a two fold rage-and the eventual conse
quences would be the destruction of the form of government. Some public
businesses, and interests in industries; and in many different ways the working classes (in which I include all men
who employ or are employed)
the
merchant, farmers, professional men, clerks and laborers, are the substantial owners of the property of the country. These interests — of incalculable value— the result of years of toil and sufl’ering, are entitled to the some protection as the purely personal rights of the proletariat ——
a word again coming into use but which in this country is yet happily limited to the individual who can pack his belongings in a satchel and segregate himself from society. Let us not be chary or timid in asserting and upholding the rights of property, not only to a full protection of the law, but to a distinctive
participation in legislation. The true and ultimate interests of all of the people require it. This phrase "the people" is a very popular one—but it is frequently misunderstood or mis applied. In all discussion respecting
