Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Wednesday, 5 October 1904

Mr GLYNN (Angas) - I suppose it would be almost impossible for any honorable member to increase the intellectual obsession which doubtless this long debate has produced in the House. But, as the honorable member for Wilmot has not yet delivered judgment, we are all expected to emulate the ladies in the Vicar of Wakefield, by continuing the conversation, if not the argument. However, I shall endeavour to attain the merit of comparative brevity, by keeping as clear as possible of any attempt at extemporizing the details of honorable members' political careers by indulging in any personal retrospects, because I firmly believe that the electors are not particularly edified by our excursions into the domain of political inconsistency. By this time they have learned to take it for granted that a capacity to adapt one's self to circumstances is a condition essential to success in public life, and that in times, when principles are so often affected by the proximity of power, all of us, in the opinion of our opponents at least, fairly fit the portraiture of Dryden's lines -

Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong;

Was everything by starts, and nothing long.

It seems to me that the electors are chiefly concerned with policy and method ; with the soundness of principles, and the probable efficacy of machinery, though being like ourselves, indebted for half their parentage to woman, they sometimes indulge in a little curiosity as to -

What's done i' the Capitol ; who's like to rise, who thrives, and who declines.

Perhaps, however, we may find some little consolation in the fact that we are no better, and no worse, than the electors made us. We are, in fact, the chroniclers of the times, such as the public, by inference from their choice, wished us to be. If it be true, as was said by Burke, that the virtue and essence of the House of Commons is that it is the express image of the feelings of the people, we, with our wider suffrage and more frequent elections, must more clearly mirror the wisdom and folly of the public.


Mr GLYNN - I am not speaking for other honorable members just at present. There is one thing, perhaps, about which the electors have some right to, and do, complain. I allude to the growing tendency to abandon power on inadequate occasions - power which is so dearly sought, and which, when given, is intended to be used for greater ends. I say that it is ignoring the true principle of party and responsible government to surrender the power to carry out the bulk of great principles upon a division affecting a subordi nate matter of method in Committee. The fact is it seems to me that if a Cabinet has a majority in the House upon matters of current policy, it' should not resign upon any division in Committee, if that division does not clearly indicate a want of confidence in its general principles or administration. The public who sent us here, as I mentioned previously, have a large interest in the stability of government, and the balance of principles which bind a party together should not be sacrificed owing to a difference of opinion among members generally upon one principle. The essence of party government is that honorable members upon some matters subordinate, while not abandoning, their personal convictions in the interests of unity on a great many others.

Mr Fowler - Is not that something like machine politics ?

Mr GLYNN - I do not care by what name it is called. I am afraid that we are too much the slaves of names. Undoubtedly it is the true principle of party government that, for the sake of power, members have, in some respects, upon matters of current policy to subordinate their opinions in order to gain momentum upon others. It may be that upon a division in Committee the vote of an honorable member may be cast with a view to keep in power a Government which will further his views upon other questions rather than upon the matter immediately engaging his attention.- I would ask, is it a matter of precedent even on the second reading of a Bill that Ministers when defeated should resign? We know that it is contrary to the usual custom. Much less then, should they throw up the reins of government upon a division in Committee. Some divisions which were taken in Committee upon the Tariff were very far-reaching in their effects. But no Government would dream of throwing up the reins of office because they were defeated upon them. In the last session of the first Parliament, we had a far-reaching division upon the question of borrowing for the purpose of carrying out certain lines of expenditure. But the Government never thought for a moment when such a sweeping reversal of custom was insisted upon, that it was a matter upon which their existence should depend. The bulk of the principles of a party may be sacrificed through over sensibility as regards the carrying out of one. Men then come into power as a mere political accident, and not as emphasizing the main lines of policies acquiesced in by the country. I say that, because it is applicable to an extent to both sides of the House. We get as the result an abnegation of the true principles of party and representative government. . We get, when men are so forced to seek other lines of cohesion and of separation, such a farrago of halting opinions as the alliance programme of the Opposition. I do not wish to enter into an analysis of that programme ; but I find from a perusal of it that it consists of twenty-two planks, seventeen of which deal 'with matters of general policy, whilst the, others relate more particularly to the elections. Plank one is certainly deserving of some commendation. It introduces a novel principle of union. It is a marriage after the latest fashion, in which the tie. is temporary, and the sense of personal independence and ethical laxity remains as active and agreeable as before. The parties to this somewhat ' sexless union are, we are told, to retain their separate identities. It is an arrangement which the lawyers would describe as sui generis - a marriage unaffected by any old-fashioned ideas of marital or moral responsibility, in which the vinculum is dissolved when the honeymoon ends; in fact, one which even the most confirmed of political bachelors might enter without foreboding, as he certainly might leave it without regret. As regards the seventeen items of the alliance programme, I find that nine of them, such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the Trade Marks Bill, the. Fraudulent Trade Marks Bill, the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, the Papua Bill, the Anti-Trust Bill, the question of exchanging ideas in connexion with preferential trade, the Quarantine Bill, and the submission hereafter of other matters to the consideration of the joint caucus, are really subjects which most members of this House, judging from their votes, might accept without any possible forestalling of their better judgment. Then there are four lines in the programme to which any honorable member, owing to the qualifications which surround them might subscribe, without prejudicing his future action, whilst three others, which are somewhat radical iri their principle - though not, perhaps, in the method of carrying *hem out - such as the establishment of a tobacco monopoly, the Iron Bonus Bill, and the question of old-age pensions are also subject to conditions which leave an easy open ing for any subsequent variation of policy or action. But, in the seventeen general planks, there is not one single item in which a positive, and, therefore, dangerous opinion is asked of any one as a condition of his admission to the party. Not one single profession is he expected to make without qualification which would tie him down to a definite radical policy. I am measuring what is best upon the Opposition side by the aspirations of the Labour Party. There is not a single contentious line which would pin a man down to a definite democratic opinion. There are three matters which possibly may be far-reaching, two of which it is therefore proposed to refer to Commissions - an easy way out of a difficulty - and another upon which it is proposed to appoint a committee. ' From the point of view of a democrat, such a policy seems to me to be neither stimulating nor sincere. It lacks the pluck and candour of true propagandism. Let us take the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill as an example. That measure is to be restored by the Alliance Party to its original shape, a claim for which there is no doubt a good deal of reason on the side of supporters of the Bill. But that has to be accomplished without any member of a party changing any vote which he has previously recorded. How, then, is it to be done? Do honorable members think that the result can be attained by their internal inconsistencies of ' voting being compensated for by possible defections from this side of the House?

Mr Mauger - Let us get into Committee, and we will fix the matter up.

Mr GLYNN - No doubt the honorable member has a faculty for reconciling incompatibles, but for the life of me, I cannot see - in view of the close divisions which have been recorded upon matters declared to be vital to the machinery of the Bill - how it can, with the liberty of action permitted bv the alliance, be restored to its original shape. I say that the policy of the alliance upon this Bill alone is not as candid and as sincere as generally the programme of the Labour Party has been. Then, as regards Tariff legislation, is not the reference of the question and of the interference with the last adjustment to a Commission a surrendering of responsibility? Or, rather, is it not an easy way out of a difficulty created by certain clamourous representatives of the protectionist class? I have not much faith in these Commissions. The general result of them is that same men - those who ask for an increase of duty - secure that their case, at all events, is well put before the Commission, but that the bulk of the trades which are indirectly interested, and the raw material of whose industries may be burdened by the proposed increase of the duties, are not represented. Because it is only after the increased duties are imposed that they become alive to their interests, and recognise the extent to which they are affected by the alterations proposed.

Mr Mauger - How would the honorable and learned member suggest that the Tariff should be revised?

Mr GLYNN - By the vote of this House. But I should say that there is no justification at all, even from a protectionist point of view, for a revision of . the Tariff after an experience of its operation extending over only two years. Then, again, the interests of the consumer are not likely to be represented before any Commission. Thev are too general and appeal too little to direct personal interests to induce any, except, perhaps, some patriotic men, who, apart altogether from possible effects upon themselves, take a sympathetic view of these larger matters of politics, to be concerned with them. The interests of the con- ' sumer are too indirect to secure representation before any Commission. We know also that if we grant a Commission in obedience to the importunities of some manufacturers, we cannot refuse its application of it to all; and we shall thus be introducing into Australia one of the greatest curses of America, the system of lobbying in connexion with a revision of the Tariff.

Mr Mahon - Is not lobbying done now ?

Mr GLYNN - No doubt, but it is a question of extent when a principle becomes pernicious in operation. We must not give an opportunity for the increase of an evil because we cannot suppress it to the extent to which it already exists. We shall find as the result of all this that we shall have a halting report, and one that does not represent an honest and really deliberate opinion in favour of the required change. We have had some experience lately in' connexion with Mr. Chamberlain's self-appointed Commission on the coridition of Imperial trade. A few weeks ago, in September, a section of the report of that body was published.

Mr Mauger - It is a very good report.

Mr GLYNN - No doubt the honorable member thinks so, as I am sure he would do if peculiar deductions from imperfect statements of facts were made a test of the acceptance of its principles.

Mr Mauger - Has the honorable and learned member seen the report ?

Mr GLYNN - I have seen the extracts from it published in the Times.

Mr Mauger - I have a copy of the original document.

Mr GLYNN - The honorable member obtains so much information on these matters that he has not time to digest its meaning. I believe in political fechterizing in connexion with these matters. The Tariff report of Mr. Chamberlain's Commission, dealing with the iron and steel trades, discovered an array of facts as regards the increase of iron production in the United States and Germany, with which every one apparently, except the members of the Commission, had been previously familiar; and they deduced from these novel premises conclusions with which perhaps not one man in ten in England would agree.

Mr Mauger - The honorable and learned member: said that he had not read the report.

Mr GLYNN - I said that I had read the full text of portions of the report published in the Times. Surely the honorable member for Melbourne Ports does not say that he has read the many hundreds of pages appended to the report?

Mr Mauger - The report itself consists of sixty-seven large pages.

Mr GLYNN - It was known to every one familiar with the circumstances, into which I need not enter - one of which is undoubtedly the tremendous increase of manufactures throughout the world during the last thirty or forty years, and therefore the great demand that accompanied that increase for the raw material of those manufactures in the way of iron and steel - that production had been greatly stimulated in Germany and in America ; and though England had maintained an absolute increase, the comparative increase was greater in the United States and Germany. This is one of the great, discoveries of Mr. Chamberlain's Commission, but their explanation is one that will be accepted by exceedingly few. That explanation is that the increase is due to the arrangements for export in Germany and the United States, and to the high Tariffs that prevail in those countries. Now I do not intend to go into the question of preferential trade, but I am just going to show that these calculations of party Com- missions are not to be relied upon, and how futile they are, owing to the manner in which the questions inquired into are approached, and the sometimes prejudiced reports that are framed, I shall do so by pointing out that in the Times of a week or two after the report of Mr. Chamberlain's Tariff Commission was published there are reports of lectures delivered before the British Association by Professor Lotz, of Munich, on the operation of protection in Germany, and another by M. Yves Guyot, a French authority on the effects of protection in France. Professor Lotz shows that in Germany, as the result of Tariff legislation and the restriction of exports of the produce of a good many industries, the raw materials of some industries are touched. He says that -

Some very important branches of German industries suffered severely from the protection given to others. Thus, a body of monopolists exercised supremacy over the makers of finished, articles, though the latter were three times more numerous.

Mr Mauger - What did Professor Price say on the same subject ?

Mr GLYNN - I should like to read what he says, but I do not desire to trespass too long upon the time of honorable members. M. Yves Guyot, in his lecture 0(1 protection in France, pointed out that the French workman is under-fed, owing to the taxes which are imposed upon his general necessaries, but particularly upon his food. He said -

Not 5 per cent. - not one person in twenty - could be found who was interested in protection.

There were leagues in France against tuberculosis which made noise enough, but the hygiene of the beefsteak was forgotten, and it was that of which the working man was mostly in need, especially the working man in France.

Again, in the last file of the Times that reached us an account is given of the working of the bounty system in favour of the production of pig iron in Canada, that altogether discounts the report of Mr. Chamberlain's Commission. The Times in a cold-blooded report - because it is one of the reports of the Board of Trade, not made for the occasion, but presented to the House of Commons on the iron and steel industry - referring to Canada, says -

Though the bounty is on a higher scale in the case of pig iron made from native ores, the pig iron produced in Canada from native ores is much less than that produced from imported ores, and the greater part of the Canadian ore is exported.

Here, again, we have an experience of the working of the principle of bounties on iron production and manufacture, which is one of the chief planks, though not their's alone, of the alliance. I find, sir, that even on the question of old-age pensions, one which appeals to radical instincts and to our sympathetic natures, the views pf the Labour Party have been somewhat modified, at least in expression, by the alliance into which they have entered.

Mr Mauger - Not a bit.

Mr Fowler - I am afraid it is too true.

Mr GLYNN - How is it, then, I ask honorable members, that on this question of old-age pensions we find, instead of a straight-out advocacy, that the principle is to be advocated - on a basis fair and equitable - whatever the distinction between the two may be; the words seem to be multiplied when the sense is small, to the several States and to individuals.

Here, again, an opening is left to individual shiftings of position, a way out of difficulties that attach to definiteness of statement. I ask honorable members if, in reply to one of those election circulars with which we are complimented from time to time by electors, an expression of that kind was used, what would the societies which send out the circulars think of the candour of the candidate?

Mr Mauger - Why worry about us?

Mr GLYNN - Why worry about honorable members who are asking that there shall be an immediate change of Government, not on a question of administration - because there is no attempt to contest that - but on policy ! There can be no ground for an attack upon the Ministry on account of its administration within a week or a fortnight of its being formed.

Mr McDonald - I have known an attack to be made upon a Ministry within a week of its formation.

Mr GLYNN - Not on the ground of its administrative incapacity. There being no experience of administration, the only test which can be applied now is the test of policy.

Mr McDonald - The honorable and learned member was in a Government which only lasted twenty-four hours'.

Mr GLYNN - No doubt, but that Government went out, and that Government might have remained in had it agreed to widen. as some of its members wished, ' its democratic lines. I said that the policy of this alliance is equivocal and halting, scarcely up .to the morale of a party which has hitherto aspired to lead in matters of social amelioration. Policy seems to have become attenuated with the view of power, so that the policy of the Labour Party, as the result of new associations, is not up to the standard of men who aspire to represent the working class - a class whose leaders have hitherto, with most unswerving fidelity and courage, held fast to principles until they came by force of reason to prevail - men who always believed that what has been the experience of one reform may be made the experience of all, feeling, as they do, with Carlyle, that the truth that was yesterday a restless problem, has to-day become a belief burning to be uttered. I should like to mention also the result of this frequent change of power. Through the more accidental features in it, and tlie rearrangement of parties on lines less of principles than petty expediency, the members of the alliance cannot, if they come into power, give the country a Cabinet with the essential British characteristic of unity of opinion in great matters of policy. Unanimity amongst the members of the Government on the broad matters of current policy is the essential feature of the British system for the past 150 years.

Mr Mauger - Let us abolish party government altogether.

Mr GLYNN - I am afraid that I am harassing my honorable friend, the member for Melbourne Ports, and, as I wish to be fair, as well as candid, let me say a few words on this much-confused issue of Socialism against antiSocialism. Personally, I always refuse to take the platform on any cry of anti-Socialism, because I believe Socialism covers an immense amount of what is good in policy as well as sometimes mistaken in method. As the honorable member for Grampians yesterday suggested, the definitions differ very widely. We have a general consensus as to what are the aims of Socialism, but very often the true meaning is misrepresented, owing to the prejudiced ignorance of even writers of assumed authority. I find that Professor Ely, ah unprejudiced authority, in his little handbook on Socialism, says -

Even a hasty examination of the vast majority of books written on Socialism or Communism shows how utterly worthless they are. The authors start out with such an intense hatred of all socialistic systems that it is simply impossible for them to understand those systems. But the worst of it is, they couple their misunderstanding with such hard words and severe epithets as to excite bad blood and drive the various classes of society farther apart than ever.

I say that when we find men like Professor Foxwell. who, I think was a lecturer on political economy in the Oxford University, and Professor Caird, of the University of Glasgow, saying that many of the principles of Socialism are legitimate deductions' from economic doctrines, we must not, with the cock-sure dogmatism of economic tyros, endeavour to blast it with a name. Its aim, as distinct from its methods, and there it is often less a matter of design than mistake, is, as we all admit, distributive justice. Its meaning is well suggested by the great master-poet of our nation, in the splendid aspiration which he puts into the mouth of Lear as- he stands bareheaded against the elements -

That distribution should undo excess, and each man have enough.

Now in the opinion of Profesor Ely, it seeks to improve the common lot of the working classes by the application of thoroughgoing measures. It refuses to believe, no. matter what the concomitants of an apparently heartless social evolution may have once suggested, that in the words of Mirabeau, " the oppression of the poor, like the hail and thunder, is a thing inevitable, the ordinance of nature." But the method is the great difficulty and subject of difference, and here I hope we shall be ready to be a little tolerant of each other's opinions, or perhaps mistakes. Buckle was not a man of conservative views; but he points out that the great difficulty is the method in legislation. It is on methods we differ ; the means of carrying out principles acknowledged to be good. Where the theorist suggests improvement, the difference of opinion in point of view of methods shows how many mistakes we are liable to. make in the furtherance of good aspirations. Continental Socialism is one thing, British Socialism is another.

Mr Mauger - And Australian Socialism is another.

Mr GLYNN - Between, for instance, on the one side, the methods of Lassalle and Marx, both of whom condemn capital, describing it as theft, and, on the other, the methods of, say, Professor Thorold Rogers, who, I think was a professor of political economy in the University of Oxford, and? of the Rev. Dr. Fairbairn, who a few years ago held the position of President of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, and wrote some very able works on social questions, the difference is very great. We find that Professor Ely, in dealing with methods, says there are very sharp lines of difference between Socialists. You have, for instance, pure Socialism, State and professional Socialism, Christian Socialism, French Collectivism, French Blancqueists, French Anarchists. Social Democracy, and international Socialism, all of which are radically different in method. John Stuart Mill, strange to say - and it proves my point that method is the difficulty in legislation - is regarded by some as the protagonist of Socialism, and by others as the great champion of Individualism.

Mr Fowler - He was distinctly socialistic in his old" age ; the older and wiser he grew, the more socialistic he became.

Mr GLYNN - It shows again the difficulty of labelling people by abstract names. Professor Ritchie, who exhibited socialistic leanings, and was, I think, a professor of Oxford, speaks, in one of his books on this question, of John Stuart Mill as the protagonist of Individualism, and yet we find that this John Stuart Mill wrote that :

The social problem of the future we consider to be how to unite the greatest individual liberty of action with a common ownership in the rawmaterials of the globe, and an equal participation in all the benefits of combined labour.

John Stuart Mill was not one of those pseudo-reformers who would attempt to frame in a day a programme for eternity. With the modesty of all great men and all deep thinkers, Mill said that he had not the presumption to suppose that he could foresee by what precise form of institutions these objects could most effectively be attained, or at how near or distant a period they would become practicable. He pointed out that it was only by co-operation between the various classes of society, between capital and labour, and through a system of culture, prolonged through successive generations, men could be brought up to the point of efficiency. The method here, again, is the difficulty ; but are we, therefore, to allow our faculties to rust, and to sit idly by whilst human destitution calls for remedial means? I say "No." Some experiments must be made. Every healthy politician knows that there is a clear line of demarcation between the sphere of private enterprise and the sphere of Government interference. I say that nearly all the ameliorative measures which have been adopted during the last fifty or sixty years, were originally deemed to be socialistic. Factories Acts, Health Acts, and agrarian laws, that changed the relations between landlord and tenant, were all expressions of socialistic interference. I remember reading that when the great Devon Commission of 1844 inquired into the state of affairs, respecting landlord and tenant in the Old Country, and particularly in Ireland, Lord Brougham, who was then described as a fingerer of all things, condemned the probable outcome of the Commission as socialistic, and cautioned the members of it, and particularly Lord Devon, the chairman, against any interference with the sacred rights of property. The Times, replying to him, asked what were the limits of the interference asked for ? Did they not mean this in effect : the assertion of the, right of the poor man under God's charter to live and breathe upon this, the Almighty's world?

Mr King O'Malley - The honorable and learned member should come over to this side.

Mr GLYNN - I have not quite done yet. If I may become a little personal, and only at mv own expense, I may say that if a belief in, or a leaning towards direct, as' against indirect taxation ; if a belief in the leasing, rather than the sale of Crown lands, in the State ownership of railways, the State ownership and control of the post and telegraph system, of our printing offices, in municipal enterprise in connexion with gas - I do not exhaust the list, I am simply giving a few examples - waterworks, the health of the people, public parks', trams, is an expression of sympathy with Socialism. I confess that I have such a sympathy.


Mr GLYNN - If an admiration of the excellent municipal enterprise for the benefit of the citizens that has been displayed in England during the last thirty or forty years, in Glasgow, in particular-

Mr Ronald - That is not in England - that is in Scotland.

Mr GLYNN - It is only a Scotchman who would correct a geographical mistake of that kind. I here use the term, " England " in the larger sense, as even including the better part of the United Kingdom, Ireland. I say that if the acceptance of the results of municipal enterprise in Glasgow, Birmingham, Berlin, and other great centres of population indicates a leaning towards Socialism, I confess to being affected' somewhat in that way. But I stop where monopoly ends. I say it is the duty of the State to control monopoly, but not to interfere with the true sphere of private enterprise, not to obtrude upon the thousand and one other lines of our industrial activity.

Mr Mauger - One step at a time.

Mr GLYNN - I stop at that,, the honorable member may go beyond it. The test I endeavour always to apply is this : The test that Government is formed to protect the individual against oppression, whether it be the oppression of physical duress or industrial monopoly. But beyond that it is not right to go, and the chief reason is that the State in its guiding power, the Legislature, is of a comparatively low intellectual level. As an organization it does not express the individual intelligence of its component members. The level of every deliberative assembly, if we may trust men like Lambroso and others, is lower than that of the individuals who compose it. There is, he said, such a thing as the madness of popular assemblies. Buckle, to whom I have already referred, mentions that the history of every civilized country is the history of its intellectual development, which kings, statesmen, and legislators are more likely to retard than hasten. Almost every Empire of modern times, from the Roman to the Spanish, went down through the corruption or folly of its Legislature. I say, therefore, that except where monoply is clear, we must distrust the capacity of the legislative machine. Let us take, . for instance, the Socialist Marx, and the quotation I shall read shows how many mistakes may be made in the endeavour by Utopian methods to carry out a principle acknowledged to be moral. In dealing with Liberals, whose policy was somewhat analogous to what is best in the policy of modern Radicals, he says -

Although the Liberals have not yet carried out their principles in any land as yet completely, still the attemptswhich have been made are sufficient to prove the uselessness of their efforts. They endeavoured to free labour, but only succeeded in subjecting it more completely under the yoke of capitalism; they aimed at setting at liberty all labour powers, and only riveted the chains of misery which held them bound ; they wanted to release the bondman from the clod, and deprive him of the soil on which he stood by buying up the land. They yearned for a happy condition of society, and only created superfluity on one hand, and dire want on the other ; they desired to secure for merit its own honorable reward, and only made it the slave of wealth ; they wanted to abolish all monopolies, and place in their stead the monster monopoly, capital; they wanted to do away with all wars between nation and nation, and kindled the flames of civil war; they wanted to get rid of the State, and yet have multiplied its burdens ; they wanted to make education the common property of all, and made it the privilege of the rich ; they aimed at the greatest moral improvement of society, and only left it in a state of rotten immorality ; they wanted, to say all in a wotd, unbounded liberty, and have produced the meanest servitude ; they wanted the reverse of all that which they actually obtained, and have thus given a proof that liberalism in all its ramifications is nothing but a perfect Utopia.

That is a condemnation of the methods of some of the most logical minds of the times, teaching us again humility in our empirical legislation. Might I refer, On the danger of trusting to the omnipotence of legislators, to the Federalist, one of. the great organs of Federation in America ? Speaking of the legislators down to 1787, it says -

It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged to the blunders of our Governments; and that they have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining and amending laws which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom, so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session, so many admonitions to the people of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well constituted Senate ?

But we are told by Foster in his recent work on the American Constitution, that the chief advantage of the Senate is to stop the mischievous measures of the House of Representatives. Should it not teach us modesty in our experiments, when we learn that in almost every case in America where the States have changed their Constitutions, they have made elaborate provision for checks upon legislative folly, whether by the referendum or otherwise, and also when we are told by Bryce that the Governor is appointed to watch and check the legislators as a cat watches a mouse? I decline to accept this legislative machine as one to direct our intellects and morals. I decline to allow it to obtrude its ineffectiveness into every sphere of our industrial and social life, to endeavour to lay down, as if with the eye of omniscience, the lines and scope of development of a civilization which, whereever it has been stable and sound, has been the result of a growth for generations, and' of unconscious adaptation and sustained evolution. Considering the record of mistakes that legislators have made, we ought to keep the State to its true province, which is to destroy monopoly, to afford to all equal opportunity, arid to leave to private enterprise, to individual intelligence and guidance, the task of perfecting and sustaining what is best in our industrial and social civilization.

Suggest corrections