Betts-Roosevelt letters

Front matter

4 O

4 o

4 o o

Dedication

TO THE FATHERS, WHOSE WISDOM, STATES- MANSHIP AND PATRIOTISM FOUNDED THE AMER- ICAN REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC THE ONLY

FREE REPUBLIC THAT EVER EXISTED THIS

WORK IS DEDICATED.

Preface

There is in this country a widespread movement to overthrow the American constitution and undermine and destroy our American system of representative government. The purpose of this movement is to supplant our system with what is known as a pure or direct democracy. The most conspicuous manifestation of this movement is the adoption of direct primary nominations, the initiative, the referendum and the recall in many states.

This movement is not progressive, but reactionary. It is a species of political atavism. It is a reversion to the diseases, disorders and deformities of the primitive political state. This whole movement, which is promoted largely by noise, is being carried on in blissfully ignorant disregard of the plain teachings of history and experience, and in bold defiance of the enlightened statesmanship of the civilized world.

Therefore, it has been deemed wise and timely, to present to the public in this form the Betts-Roosevelt letters, which contain a somewhat spirited and illuminating discussion of this whole subject.

There is so much general ignorance on this subject, — largely because there has been no systematic study of it, — that it is high time the American system of government was thoroughly discussed and its merits presented to the public in a true hght.

For the purpose of aiding in this necessary work, the writer has added to the Betts-Roosevelt letters a large number of quotations on this subject from philosophers, statesmen, historians, scholars and students of political science, past and present. It is his aim to marshal and present to the reader the best thoughts and conclusions of the greatest thinkers of the world on the subject.

The writer hopes that these opinions, arguments and philosophical observations will throw an added light upon our system of representative government, and he is of the opinion that those who take the trouble to read the arguments and conclusions herein presented will gain a new appreciation of the American system of representative government, so wisely founded by the fathers of the Republic, who by the universal voice of posterity are admitted to have been a galaxy of the greatest statesmen ever assembled at a given time, to frame a constitution and found a government.

It was the great world renowned English statesman, William E. Gladstone, who speaking of the American constitution, said:

"It is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

6 PEEFACE

The writer believes that the American system is the best form of government ever instituted among men and that a pure or direct democracy is a primitive and impractical form of government, not adapted to this great nation, and that its establishment in this country would result in weak, inefficient and bad government, and thereby do irreparable injury to the whole country.

Therefore, he submits this Httle volume for the candid consideration of all intelligent and patriotic citizens.

CHARLES H. BETTS.

Introduction

{Reprinted from 90th Anniversary Issue The Lyons Republican)

In this Ninetieth Anniversary of The Lyons Republican, we are printing letters of former President Theodore Roosevelt and the Editor of The Lyons Republican, Charles H. Betts, which will explain themselves.

Mr. Betts has always been a friend and great admirer of Colonel Roosevelt and stood with him and voted on the State Committee for him, and in the last Republican State Convention, when many of his old friends opposed him. Mr. Betts did not agree with Colonel Roosevelt on the question of direct nominations, yet he supported him in spite of this fact.

He, however, frankly told Colonel Roosevelt that he was against the proposition and he voted for the Wadsworth amendment to the platform in the RepubUcan state convention. At the state convention. Colonel Roosevelt, after he was elected chairman, in his speech, came out openly in favor of a Pure Democracy and in addition to direct nominations he has since embraced and advocated the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, all of which are destructive of Representative Government.

In a recent article in the Outlook, Colonel Roosevelt vigorously denounced the decision of the New York State Court of Appeals in what is known as "The Workmen's Compensation Case," the Court having declared this law to be unconstitutional.

Mr. Betts, after reading this article in The Outlook, wrote Colonel Roosevelt a letter criticising his attitude on the question and especially his intimation that the courts should render decisions in harmony with public sentiment.

Colonel Roosevelt replied in his usual vigorous and emphatic style, defending his position and criticising the position taken by Mr. Betts, alleging that it was not his own position but the position outlined in Mr. Betts' letter which would "lead to revolution."

Mr. Betts replied in a long letter in which he vigorously defends the decision of the Court of Appeals and then takes occasion to express his own views, freely and frankly, without reserve, upon the governmental questions, on which he differs with Colonel Roosevelt.

The letters, in the order they were written, follow:

MR. BETTS' FIRST LETTER

Col. Theodore Roosevelt,

The Outlook Office, New York City.

My dear Colonel: I want to congratulate you upon the article which you wrote in a recent issue of The Outlook, entitled "Murder is Murder." I agree fully with the sentiments expressed in your article and you are entirely right when you say that the labor leaders are injuring their cause by the course they are pursuing in raising money as labor organizations to defend those charged with the crime of murder.

I have read, however, with regret your article in The Outlook of May thirteenth attacking the decision of the Court of Appeals and to the sentiments you express in that article I dissent as strongly as I approve of the sentiments expressed in the other article. If the time ever comes when the courts of this country interpret the laws in harmony with ignorant public sentiment, fanned into flame by uninformed and ignorant yellow journals, it will be a sad day for this Republic.

If the time ever comes when the courts through fear of public clamour, fanned into existence by muck raking reporters, render decisions not in harmony with the law and with precedent, but in harmony with public clamour, it will be a sad day for this Republic.

If the time ever comes when the courts for the same reason throw written constitutions into the waste basket and anarchy takes the place of constitution, law and order, it will be a sad day for this Republic, and to my mind any man who advocates such a course, however honest he may be, must of necessity be an enemy to the best interests of his country and to mankind.

The three requisites of good government are order, stability and progress. These essentials of good government can only be maintained by constitutions, law, order and a fearless judiciary. I have always had for you the sincerest admiration. I have not always been able to agree with you upon all public questions and particularly the question of direct nominations, but your attack upon the Court of Appeals and your intimation that in the future it may be necessary to force the courts to render decisions in favor of the views of particular men or the temporary sentiment of the hour and ignore constitutions and laws in rendering their decisions, seems to me to go so far that even your intimate and sincere friends must not only regret your action, but dissent from your views.

I am one of those who believe in giving every other man the same right that I claim for myself, and that is the right to express his honest views. This is an age of intellectual hospitality and toleration is the rising sun of our twentieth century civilization. While I grant to you the rights which I claim for myself, yet I, so far as I am concerned, must do all that I can to combat the theory laid down in your article in The Outlook of May thirteenth, because I firmly believe that in the end it would lead to political anarchy and useless revolution.

With kind regards, I am, as always.

Your friend, C. H. BETTS.

COLONEL ROOSEVELT'S REPLY

THE OUTLOOK

287 Fourth Avenue, New York

Office of Theodore Roosevelt, June 2, 1911.

My dear Mr. Betts : Really, it is hard to believe that you read my article on the Courts, because it is an absurdity to say that I had desired the Court to "render decisions in favor of the views of particular men or the temporary sentiment of the hour, and ignore Constitutions and law." My contention is that the Court of Appeals in this case rendered a decision simply in accordance with the temporary sentiments of certain particular men at this hour, and ignored the Constitution and laws, as Marshall always interpreted both Constitution and laws, and that their conduct was a most flagrant and wanton abuse of a great power, an abuse which, if continued, will render it the duty of all patriotic men to take steps that will at least minimize the chance of such action in the future. If the course I advocated in The Outlook is combated with permanent success, it will in the end bring about just what you say you fear, i. e., "political anarchy and useless revolution." It is simple nonsense to suppose that this country will tolerate permanently a line of action like that you are upholding on the part of the Court of Appeals. Isolated acts of the kind our people may tolerate from ignorance, but they would be unfit for self-government if they submitted permanently to such a course of

10 BETTS-EOOSEVELT LETTEES— A SPIEITBD DISCUSSION

conduct; and if the position outlined in your letter was taken as a permanent course of policy, it would bring about a revolution. My plea is for rational growth ; my plea is that the Court act with ordinary statesmanship, ordinary regard for the Constitution, as a living aid to growth, not as a straight jacket; ordinary regard for the laws, the rights of humanity, and the growth of civilization. I wish to state with all emphasis that no man who takes the opposite ground to that which I have taken in the article in question has any right to be on the bench; and it is a misfortune to have him there. Four Federal judges, of the United States' Courts, have written me since that article appeared, stating that they absolutely agree with it, that they regarded the action of the Court of Appeals of New York as so utterly reactionary as to be an invitation to revolution, and that they felt I was rendering a real and conservative public service in writing as I did. My dear Mr. Betts, have you forgotten that the Republican party was founded largely to protest against the very type of view concerning the Courts which you now uphold? Have you forgotten Lincoln's repeated strictures on the Supreme Court for the Dred Scott decision? That decision was worse in degree, but not in kind, than the one which I assail. Have you forgotten what Lincoln wrote in his first inaugural (in justifying the position he had repeatedly taken, that he would endeavor to secure a reversal of the Dred Scott decision — just as I wish this New York decision reversed) : ''If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the (court) * * * the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." I protest against this servile view merely as Abraham Lincoln protested.

Sincerely yours,

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

MR. BETTS' REJOINDER

Lyons, N. Y., July 8, 1911.

Col. Theodore Roosevelt,

287 Fifth Ave., New York City.

My dear Col. Roosevelt: On my return from a several weeks' vacation, your letter of June 2nd is before me, and I am very glad to receive the same. I am always glad to read your vigorous and frank expressions of opinion, whether in a personal communication or a public periodical, but it is a source of deep regret to me to be unable to agree with the opinions of a man whom I so much admire. You say that four Federal judges have written you stating that your criticism of the decision of the Court of Appeals of New York State is correct. I have talked with a great many lawyers and judges, every one of whom expressed the opposite opinion. This only illustrates how honest men may differ, and proves conclusively that the opinions of men are as different and numerous as the leaves upon the trees. In your letter you say:

" Really, it is hard to believe that you have read my article on the Courts, because it is an absurdity to say that I had desired the Court to render justice in favor of the views of particular men or the temporary sentiment of the hour, and ignore constitutions and law. My contention is that the Court of Appeals in this case rendered a decision simply in accordance with the temporary sentiments of certain particular men at this hour, and ignored the constitution and the laws, as Marshall always interpreted both constitution and law, and that their conduct was a most flagrant and wanton abuse of a great power. An abuse which if continued, will render it the duty of patriotic men to take steps that will at least minimize the chances of such action in the future."

IN HARMONY WITH THE CONSTITUTION

Passing over the implied threat contained in the last sentence that the Courts must render their decisions in harmony with public sentiment or suffer the consequences, let me call your attention to the fact that the decision of the Court of Appeals is in harmony with the Constitution of this State, and I can hardly conceive how you could make the statements which you have made, if you had read the full text of the Court's decision.

Article 1, Section 2, of the State Constitution says:

"The trial by jury in all cases where it has been heretofore used shall remain inviolate /orever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law."

This section of the State Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to a hearing before a jury of his peers. The act of the legislature which the Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional took this right absolutely away from a certain class of citizens, who happen to be employers.

Section 219a of the act of 1910, provides for the scale of compensation an employer must pay to an employee's heirs when such employee is killed by an accident. This compensation is awarded by legislative fiat, without giving the employer a hearing before any court or before any jury.

Not only this, if the employer has obeyed the law, has provided the necessary safe-guards in his manufacturing establishment required by the factory inspection law, and all other law, and one of his employees is killed by his own negligence or carelessness, through his own fault and no fault of his employer, yet the employer must pay over a certain amount of his property to the widow or next of kin of the man who was killed in an accident through his own negligence or carelessness, and the innocent employer who has obeyed the law and who has committed no fault and is in no way responsible for the accident, under this statute is to have a part of his property taken away from him and given to another, without ever having a hearing in court or the justice of the claim against him passed upon by a jury. If this is not taking property in violation of the Constitution and without "due process of law," then words have lost their meaning and acts have been divorced from their consequences.

THE COURTIS OPINION

The learned court, in its decision, says:

"In all cases where there is a right to trial by jury there are two elements which necessarily enter into a verdict for the plaintiff:

First — The right to recovery.

Second — The amount of the recovery.

It is as much the right of a defendant to have a jury assess the damages claimed against him, as it is to have the question of his liability determined by the same body.

It is equally obvious it seems to us that it is the intention of the section of the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 2) to provide that in all controversies in the Courts of law either side should finally have a right to a jury trial on the question of liability, and however successful or unsuccessful jury trials may be in cases of employers' liability or any other cases, the solemn mandate of the Constitution cannot be set aside."

These clear and emphatic words cannot be misunderstood by any intelligent citizen. They carry conviction to every open mind. The decision of the Court of Appeals is in harmony with the Constitution, is sound in law, is sanctioned by justice and confirmed by reason and common sense.

And right here I wish to say, and I say it without fear of successful contradiction, that there is no place on earth, since the dawn of civilization, where the sacred goddesses of liberty and justice have so often met in fond embrace, as under the impartial folds of the ermine of an Independent Judiciary.

I will not stop here to discuss elaborately the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Workmen's Compensation case, and your attack upon that decision. I have both your article and a full text of the decision of the Court before me and I am preparing an article on that subject, which I shall publish later, in which I shall endeavor to do both you and the Court justice.

WOULD BRING ABOUT A REVOLUTION

In your letter among other things you say:

"If the position outlined in your letter was taken as a permanent policy, it would bring about a revolution."

In view of this charge I feel warranted in communicating to you freely, frankly and without reserve, my ideas. This is my justification for the length of this communication.

I have always been one of your devoted admirers, and nine times out of ten, I have been able to agree with you throughout your distinguished public career. I fully appreciate the great service which you have rendered to your country and to mankind, and I have always contended, and still contend, that you will take your place in history beside Washington and Lincoln.

Whatever difference of opinion we may have upon questions of government will never lessen in any degree my personal regard for you, or my appreciation of your magnificent achievements. You have done more than any other one man in this country to awaken public interest and quicken the public conscience and set in motion needed reforms, and for this you are entitled to the respect and esteem of every one of your fellow countrymen. But it does seem to me that in the last year you have been drifting away from the fundamental principles of our government and teaching doctrines inconsistent with our enlightened representative system.

You know that I have never been able to agree with you upon the question of Direct Nominations, and I was pained and surprised to see you go so far as to advocate the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall. I always supposed that you were a statesman of the Hamiltonian school, and if I know anything about the statesmanship of Hamilton, Direct Nominations, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall are as far from the teachings of Hamilton as the north pole is from the south pole.

TWO SCHOOLS OF STATESMEN

There have been in this country two different schools of statesmen. One school was founded and led by Hamilton, the other by Jefferson. Hamilton was one of the greatest creative and constructive statesmen the world has ever known. Jefferson was one of the most plausible phrase-makers and sophists.

I believe that these two schools of statesmen are necessary; that they were and are a necessary outgrowth of conditions. I regard Clay, Webster, Seward, Lincoln, Blaine, Conklin, McKinley, Lodge, Depew, Black, Root and Taft as the direct descendants of the Hamiltonian school of statesmanship. I regard Bryan, Borah, Bourne, Bristow, Poindexter, La Follette and Hearst as the direct descendants of the Jeffersonian school of statesmanship.

These two contending schools of statesmanship have ever been a check on each other and the conflict between the conservatism of the one and the radicalism of the other has resulted in a steady and reasonable progress. But there is one thing that I have always noticed in reading history and that is, when the phrase-maker and the sophist gets in office he is always obliged to discard his impractical theories and square his performance with the doctrines of the practical and constructive statesman.

For instance, when Jefferson became President of the United States, instead of putting his theories into practice, he was obliged to adopt the principles laid down by Hamilton, and Prof. Edward Elliott, in his splendid work entitled "The Biographical Story of the Constitution," in summing up Jefferson's career, very truthfully says:

"His success was in his faith, not in his works. From the standpoint of achievement in national affairs, only the Louisiana purchase saves him from complete failure; from the standpoint of political influence his faith in the people makes him a vital force in the world today. His greatest fault was that ' he died as he lived, in the odor of phrases.' His greatest virtue that he was wise enough to sacrifice phrases to reality, to accept in practice what he rejected in theory."

In direct opposition to his own teachings Jefferson put into operation the doctrines of Hamilton relative to the acquisition of new territory in the purchase of Louisiana, his only great achievement.

What a contrast the career of Hamilton presents. There is hardly anything of permanence in our institutions today that was not originally conceived by him. It was largely through his genius that the foundation of this Republic was laid so deep and broad that upon it has been reared the grandest governmental structure the world has ever known. In speaking of Hamilton, Daniel Webster said:

"He smote the rock of the national resources and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth; he touched the dead corpse of Public Credit and it sprang upon its feet."

Prof. Edward Eliott, speaking of Hamilton's statesmanship, says:

"The great passion of Hamilton's hfe was love of an orderly direction in human affairs; mankind in the mass he regarded as weak, and the weakness demanded the strength of government if the human race was to enjoy the blessings of liberty. A strong government was necessary to restrain the natural disorders of society, whatever the character of its organization. Order and strength were inseparable in all his thoughts of government, his practical experience had demonstrated that social disorder and governmental weakness were correlative terms and the verdict of history has confirmed his experience."

Frederick Scott Oliver, an English writer, in his great work declares that Hamilton was a world statesman. He says:

"The qualities of his statesmanship, the nature of that inarticulate desire for Union on which he built the strength and obstinacy of those difficulties which he encountered at every turn, are subjects of universal interest. He is no local hero, but one whose work and greatness has a meaning for the Whole World."

Now, my dear Col. Roosevelt, it seems to me that the descendants of the Hamiltonian school have been keeping step with the onward march of civilization and progress, but they propose to go only so fast as they can go and remain within the line of reason, of law and of the Constitution. On the other hand it seems to me that the descendants of the Jeffersonian school have become so radical that they are willing to supplant reason with hysteria and leap over the law and the Constitution into the maelstrom of Democratic Socialism.

16 BETTS-KOOSEVELT LETTERS— A SPIEITED DISCUSSION

It is this head-long course, away from the fundamental principles of representative government into the Populistic schemes of Direct Nominations, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, which in the last analysis means Democratic Socialism, against which I protest and shall forever fight.

I still believe in our enlightened system of representative government, and I believe that it has been the greatest success of any government that was ever instituted among men, and I appeal to the history of this country to prove it. I contend that wherever the machinery of our representative government has been clogged or deranged, it has not been the fault of the system, but it has been the fault of men. It has been the fault of human nature. It has been the weakness and wickedness of men that has deranged our system wherever it has been deranged, and no system of government will produce perfect results with imperfect human nature.

Not only this, but Direct Nominations, the Initiative, the Referendum and the Recall, open a wider field for the exhibition and display of the very weakness and wickedness of which you and others now complain. Under this system the very elements in human nature which have been responsible for clogging and deranging temporarily in some cases our present system, will have a larger field for activity, and will multiply our present evils a hundred fold.

THE TWO POSITIONS DEFINED

You say that the doctrines which I teach will lead to revolution, while I contend that it is you who are sowing the seeds of revolution. My conception of the difference between your position and mine is this : I am, in my feeble way, endeavoring to teach the people that it is always wiser, safer and better for them to take the sober second thought, act on full and correct information, and then follow the steady, white light of Reason.

On the contrary, it seems to me that you are trying to teach the people to act on sudden impulse and uninformed surface sentiment and follow the flickering, fleeting flame of temporary Emotion.

I cannot agree with you when you say that a Judge who will render a decision such as that rendered by our Court of Appeals has "no right to sit upon the bench." My opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York is more accurately reflected by the distinguished Justice Harlan, who, in a recent speech to the legislature, said that the decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals were always received by the United States Supreme Court with high respect and great consideration.

In your letter you express your opinigtcis frankly and with great force and emphasis. I respect you for doing this. I have always admired you for having the courage to tell exactly what you think, and I could not respect myself if I did not follow your example in this regard.

Therefore, permit me to say, that when you returned from Europe and received the greatest ovation ever tendered to an American citizen, you at once ignored the honest advice and kindly warnings of your sincere and life-long friends, including the writer, and surrounded yourself with the Hughes high-brows and the Abbott theologians and courageously assumed all the burdens of both aggregations. You allowed them to place upon your strong and powerful b^ck all of their theories, fads, fallacies and fancies, since which time you have been out of touch with the real pol^feal situation in this country. For a confirmation of this statement consult the last election returns.

In this state you made an ethical and brilliant appeal to the people. Murphy made a strong cash appeal to the same people and on account of their high intelligence and extreme virtue. Murphy won.

In this connection I wish to say, despite all of his influence, with a silver lining, Murphy could not have won if he had been confronted by four years of the solid achievements of a Republican yarty administration, instead of four years of executive -personal exploitation. It was the reaction from the excesses and horrors of the French Revolution that resulted in the restoration of the Bourbon kings, and it was the reaction from the excessive party treason and fake reforms of the Hughes administration that resulted in the restoration of Tammany Hall, and for the first time in our history, has extended the power of that corrupt organization over the entire state, so that at this moment we are in the center of an era of political piracy, spoliation and plunder, such as the state has not witnessed since the days of Tweed.

ROOSEVELT S SPEEOT AT CONVENTION

At the last Republican State Convention at Saratoga, you made the statement in your speech that those who favor direct nominations trust the people, while those who do not favor direct nominations do not trust the people. This is the exact opposite of the facts.

Let us examine this proposition for a moment. We who believe in the system of representative government, do trust the people. We trust them to act for themselves within the circle of activity where they can obtain correct information to act upon.

We are in favor of trusting the people to pick out their candidates and their delegates in their immediate community, in their village, their town or their ward, where they know the reputation, character, standing, ability and general fitness of the men whom they are to select as representatives.