ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

but two of fifty States and Territories, in every one of which party organs have been freely developed and adapted to the varying local conditions. Each one is in a position to make an independent contribution to the solution of the multiplex political problems confronting the nation.

As industrial organization has become more complete, increased attention has been directed in every State to the organization of the political parties. This common tendency is illustrated in what has already been said of the experience of Massachusetts. Party organization there has been seen to have been at first weak and informal, such as was fitted to give expression to a prevailing sentiment; while, as the common sentiment gave place to the perplexing questions of later days, party machinery became more prominent. The large body of legislation of recent years bears testimony to this fact. Opposition to the growing power of the party organs is expressed in the laws. The statutes guard in various ways the rights of the independent voter. Party committees are forbidden to debar a citizen from participation in a party caucus on the ground of refusal to support the party. nominee at a previous election. At the same time, as has been shown, the lawmakers have been led to recognize more and more explicitly the regular party organizations as integral parts of the government. Confronted with the alternative of submitting to the rule of an organization uncontrolled by law, or of incorporating that. organ among the institutions of the State, they have chosen to incorporate. The result is that in a State in which there is a maximum of in

telligent conviction unfavorable to the increasing power of party organs, in which independent voters are numerous and influential, the party system has secured the most complete legal recognition. A clearer demonstration of the increasing vitality of the party system it would be difficult to find.

There are certain States in which the owners of valuable franchises or leaders in some form of capitalistic organization hold the place of supreme power. These organizations are stronger than the legislature, the executive, and the state judiciary; stronger than any state party organization. In other States, of which Pennsylvania is an example, the dominant political party shows a marked tendency toward gaining and holding supreme power. Still others, like Massachusetts, are pervaded by a sentiment in favor of maintaining the several departments of the regular state government in the position of supremacy, and in pursuance of that policy are gradually incorporating party machinery into the general system of state and local governmental organs.

The diverse conditions attending the development of the Republican party in the two States which have been compared in this chapter have necessarily affected more or less the history of the party of opposition in those States. Nearly all that has been said of party organization in Massachusetts applies alike to both the principal parties. Their machinery is practically identical. In respect to the national issues connected with slavery and the maintenance of the Union, the State became substantially unanimous, so that for a time the Democratic organization was almost

extinct. Upon the original questions which called the Republican party into existence, the two parties do not differ. The Democrats have, however, furnished strenuous and sometimes effective opposition to the Republican position upon the various issues which have arisen since the war. The large independent vote of the State has been favorable to the minority party. While the normal Republican majority has been large, local and state elections have by no means been secure. Much of the time the city of Boston has gone Democratic, and twice the Democrats have elected the governor. Like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts is a manufacturing State, and a majority of the population have favored the policy of protection, though free-traders of prominence and influence have not been wanting, while a larger class has advocated more liberal tariff legislation. The Democratic party of the State has been in harmony with the national party in respect to tariff questions, and it has in numerous ways fulfilled the proper functions of a party in opposition. It has kept the party in power upon its good behavior; it has furnished to the independent voter a convenient means of making an impression upon the government; it has promoted intelligent debate and has provided an alternate agency in readiness for assuming the responsibilities of government. In many ways the attitude of the Democratic party in Massachusetts is more commendable than it is in Pennsylvania. At a critical juncture the Pennsylvania Democrats offered serious obstruction to the national party in respect to the tariff. They have not furnished that serious, independent, fighting opposition

which the Republicans have encountered in Massachusetts, and there is much more evidence of collusion between the office-holding or office-seeking members of the two parties in Pennsylvania than in Massachusetts.

Each state has its peculiar history in respect to senatorial leadership. The two here presented represent extreme types. In Massachusetts leadership is personal and is open, in all its parts, to the public observation. The Autobiography of Senator Hoar illustrates in every detail Massachusetts methods and principles. But to understand the Pennsylvania type of political leadership involves knowledge, not of a person, but of an organization. To attempt to explain the phenomena by the life of a senator is to insure failure.

Recent developments in Pennsylvania are suggested by the following articles:

"Masters and Rulers of the Freemen of Pennsylvania," by R. Blankenburg. The Arena, January to August, 1905.

"Fall of the House of Quay: State Treasurership," by I. F. Marcosson. World's Work, January, 1906.

"Great Victory for Honest Politics" and "Great Reforms Secured in Pennsylvania," by W. MacVeagh. North American Review, January and October, 1906.

Same topic discussed in The Independent, February 22, 1906; and The Outlook, March 3, 1906.

CHAPTER XIII

PARTY ORGANIZATION IN A TYPICAL DOUBTFUL

STATE-INDIANA

INDIANA is a typical "doubtful" State. There the two parties have for fifty years maintained an even balance, neither having ever become dominant. Both organizations have, therefore, been kept in thoroughly effective fighting condition, and each recurring election is a real contest for the control of the government. New York is a doubtful State because a Democratic metropolis is balanced by a Republican rural population; but Indiana is doubtful because the voting constituency of the two parties is distributed evenly between city and country in all sections of the State.

Certain marked characteristics are presented by the doubtful States in respect to both party organization and party leadership. They are the natural home of the aspirant for the Presidency, and are more likely than other States to furnish the candidates for the quadrennial struggle. This is because, in the unstable equilibrium which normally holds between the two chief national parties, it is practically the doubtful States which determine the choice of a President. All the local forces and influences in such a State must therefore be utilized. By taking the party candidate

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »