Chapter VIII: Introduction

I. The present method of electing the President of the United States
has been both praised and condemned ever since the adoption of
the Constitution.

A. Two methods of electing the President are under consideration:
the present system whereby the President is elected by the
electoral college, and the proposed system whereby the
President would be elected by a direct popular vote.

II. These two systems may be described as follows:--

A. The present system has the following characteristics:--

1. Each state elects a number of electors equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives to which the state
is entitled in Congress.

2. These electors are chosen as the Legislature of each state
may direct.

3. The electors meet in their respective states and vote by
ballot for the President.

4. Since the year 1800 the electors have always voted for the
candidate nominated by the national party which elected
them, though the Constitution does not make this
requirement.

5. The ballots are sent in sealed packages to the President of
the Senate, who counts them and declares the candidate
receiving a majority vote elected.

6. If the electors fail to elect, the House of Representatives
chooses a President from the three candidates that
receive the greatest number of electoral votes.

B. The proposed system has the following characteristics:--

1. The people vote directly for the President, the candidate
receiving a majority of the votes being elected.

2. If there be no majority, the President is elected as under
the present system when the electors fail to elect.

III. The real question to be answered is, Should the direct method be
substituted for the present method?

A. The comparative value of each method must be judged by the
following standards:--

1. Which would be the more practicable?

2. Which would give the voter fuller enjoyment of his right of
suffrage?

3. Which method would have the better effect upon the general
welfare of the nation?

IV. The affirmative will uphold its side of the proposition by
establishing the three following facts:--

A. The direct popular vote system would be more practicable.

B. The direct popular vote system would be more democratic.

C. The direct popular vote system would be better for the general
welfare of the nation.

EXERCISES.

A. (1) Criticise the following Introduction to a brief, and
(2) Write a suitable Introduction to a brief on this subject.

City Location for College.

Introduction.

A. This question is important.

I. The following explanation will aid--

(a) In the understanding, and

(b) In the discussion of the question.

1. Primarily men come to college to study.

2. Men can study better in the country.

3. But is this really the case?

B. A college is an institution of learning higher in rank than a high
school or an academy.

C. The issues of the question are the following:

I. Which college location is more favorable to health and
intellectual development?

II. Is the student able to enter athletics?

III. Does the student in the lonely country college form more
lasting friendships?

IV. Which is the cheaper? Which is the better location?

B. Put into brief form the Introduction found above, Chapter 3,
Exercise #7, dealing with Henry Ward Beecher.

C. Put the following Introductions into brief form:--

(1) HOW TRUSTS AFFECT PRICES.

Perhaps no subject in connection with the Industrial Combinations of the last few years has been more discussed than that of their influence upon prices. Opinions have differed widely, the opponents of the Combinations usually believing that they have increased prices materially, their defenders claiming with equal positiveness that they have reduced prices. Differences of opinion have probably originated largely from the fact that the subject has been approached from different points of view; and mistakes have also, in many cases, been made through lack of a careful interpretation of available facts. It by no means follows that the Trusts have lowered prices because prices have fallen within a few years after their formation; nor, on the other hand, that Trusts have raised prices because prices have been increased. Neither does it follow that, because the Industrial Combinations might through their economies lower prices, they have, as a matter of fact, actually done so; nor again that, with the possible ability to increase prices through the exercise of monopolistic power, they have not found it advisable under certain circumstances really to lower them. Any careful discussion of the subject will involve, first, what the influence of combination would enable the Trusts to do regarding prices; second, what the Combinations actually have done; and, third, what effects upon society may be anticipated from any changes in prices made by Industrial Combinations. [Footnote: Jeremiah W. Jenks, North American Review for June, 1901, p. 906.]

(2) Mr. Chairman: This bill (H. R. 17019) which I shall ask this House to pass to-day is one of that general class usually called "private bills"; and while the usage of this House might catalogue it under that head, it is in reality a "public bill," because it has to do with the interests of many people--indeed, an entire city of 75,000 population.

This bill provides that the legal title to a certain tract of land situated near the city of Tacoma, the title to which is now in the United States Government, shall be transferred to the city of Tacoma.

However, I wish to assure this House that as a matter of fact the Government practically loses nothing by the passage of this bill. I realize that these two statements placed side by side seem to involve a contradiction. Therefore I will make a brief explanation of this matter.

Since the year of 1866 the Government has owned a tract of land adjoining what is now the city of Tacoma; this tract of land contains 637.9 acres. In the year of 1888 the Government gave the city of Tacoma a right or license to use and occupy this land as a city park, but retained the legal title in the Government, because it was thought that at some future time the Government might need to use and occupy this land for military purposes. Therefore you will observe that the present condition of the title to this land is that the legal title is in the Government, with the right in the city to use and occupy the same. This bill, if it shall pass, will simply reverse and place the legal title to this land in the city of Tacoma, with the right remaining in the Government for all time to come to take possession or use and occupy any or all of this land that it might need for military, naval, or lighthouse purposes.

I wish to explain briefly to this House why the passage of this bill and this change in the title is not only fair and just, but the failure to pass this bill would, in my judgment, be very unfair to the 75,000 people in the city of Tacoma. [Footnote: Speech of Hon. Francis W. Cushman of Washington, in the House of Representatives, Feb. 28, 1905.]

(3) GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES. [Footnote: A. T. Hadley, _Economics_, pp. 390-393.]

By far the most important part of consumers' co-operation is exemplified in government management of industrial enterprises. This differs in two important particulars from the co-operative agencies already described. In the first place the choice of managers of a government business enterprise is connected with the general political machinery of the country, and regulated by constitutional law instead of by statutes of incorporation. In the second place, these managers are likely to fall back on the taxing powers of the Government to make up any deficit which may arise in the operations of a public business enterprise; or in the converse case to devote any surplus above expenses to the relief of tax burdens elsewhere. A government enterprise is managed by the people who represent, or are supposed to represent, the consumers; but the good or bad economy of its management does not necessarily redound to the profit or loss of those who most use it.

In the beginning of history, the government is the power that controls the army. When tribes were in a state of warfare with one another defense against foreign enemies was a matter of primary importance. No man could let his private convenience stand in the way of effective military operations. The discipline and subordination necessary to wage successful war were all-important; and all the powers necessary to maintain such discipline were entrusted to the leaders of the army.

Somewhat later the military authorities undertook the work of maintaining discipline in time of peace as well as war, and of defining and enforcing the rights of members of the tribe against one another, no less than against foreign enemies. This function was not accorded to them without a struggle. The priests, under whose tutelage the religious sanction for tribal customs had grown up, tried to keep in their own hands the responsibility of upholding these customs and the physical power connected with it. In some races they succeeded, but among European peoples the military authorities took the work of enforcing and defining laws out of the hands of the priests, and made it a function of the state as distinct from the Church. As security from foreign enemies increased, this law-making power became more and more important. The Government was less exclusively identified with the army, and more occupied with the courts, the legislatures, and the internal police. Its judicial and legislative functions assumed a prominence at least as great as its military function.

The growth of private property was also coincident with the development of these domestic functions of government. In fact, the two things reinforced one another. The production and accumulation of capital, to which private property gave so vigorous an impulse, placed the strong men of the community in a position where they had less to gain by war and more by peace. It put them on the side of internal tranquility. It thus made the government more powerful, and this in turn still further increased the accumulations of capital. But along with this mutual help, which strong domestic government and strong property right rendered one another, there was an element of mutual antagonism. The very fulfillment of those functions which made the accumulation of capital possible, rendered it impossible for the government to do its work except at the expense of the capitalists. It was no longer possible to support armies by booty, or courts by fines and forfeitures. The expense of maintaining order had to be paid by its friends instead of by its enemies. The growth of private property was followed by the development of a system of taxation, which, in theory at any rate, involved the power to destroy such property.

The existence of such a system of taxation, with the machinery for collecting money in this way, allows the government more freedom of industrial action than any private individual can command. It can make up a deficit by compulsory payments; and this gives it a wider range of power in deciding what services it will undertake and what prices it will charge--a power which affords almost unlimited opportunity for good or bad use, according to the degree of skill and integrity with which it is exercised.

Every extension of government activity into new fields restricts private enterprise in two ways: first by limiting the field for investment of private capital, and second, by possibly, if not probably, appropriating through taxation a part of the returns from private enterprise in all other fields. The question whether a government should manage an industry reduces itself to this: Are the deficiencies or evils connected with private management such that it is wise to give government officials the taxing power which constitutes the distinctive feature of public industrial management?

D. Draw an Introduction to a brief on each of the propositions given
on page 82.