THE INTERESTS VS. THE PEOPLE 



565 



League is harking back to a past as 

 dead as that of chattel slavery. 



If the writers of the League but 

 knew the alphabet of history, if only 

 they were in faintest touch with the 

 great movements of the modern age, 

 led by far-off New Zealand but repre- 

 sented in every progressive country of 

 the world, notably in England, France 

 and Germany, and more feebly, yet cer- 

 tainly, expressed by the great awaken- 

 ing in Russia, Turkey and Persia, they 

 would know that the race has outgrown 

 imrestricted individualism as certainly 

 as, in the fullness of time, it outgrew 

 feudalism. 



Governor Pardee, at Spokane, well 

 said : 



"Countless graves have been filled, 

 countless children orphaned and count- 

 less widows made by individualism 

 since the history of the world began. 

 Caesar was an individualist. Napoleon 

 was an individualist * * * But is the 

 time not ripe when individual rapacity 

 shall be checked and kept in order and 

 regulated so it will not further oppress 

 the people and take away from future 

 generations * * * the things that ought 

 to be of right the property of all the 

 people of the country?" 



Yet the program wdiereby "every 

 natural resource pertaining to the pub- 

 lic domain * * * shall pass ^ * * into 

 the ownership of the individual" is ex- 

 actly what unrestricted "individualism" 

 implies and demands. 



In its individualistic frenzy, why does 

 not the League go the limit, and em- 

 brace the doctrines of Herbert Spencer 

 and the other anarchists, "philosophi- 

 cal" or what not? 



Spencer was an individualist and, 

 being such, he dared to be, for the most 

 part, logical. He demanded not only 

 that government should cease interfer- 

 ing with the operations of individuals 

 so long as they maintained his "equal 

 rights" principle — specious, but un- 

 workable under his scheme — but that 

 the schools, post-offices and even the 

 mints should be turned over to indi- 

 viduals for their private operation. 



Yet despite his prodigious intellect, 

 Spencer, as a political teacher, was re- 



cognized in his own country, years be- 

 fore his death, as "a voice crying in the 

 wilderness." Mr. .Roosevelt, on the 

 other hand, has all history behind his 

 declaration that "every step toward 

 civilization is marked by a check on in- 

 dividualism." 



But does the National Public Domain 

 League represent anybody? Let it 

 speak for itself. 



In its Bulletin No. 2, it says : 



"All but one of the Colorado con- 

 gressional delegation, the chairman of 

 the public lands committee of Congress, 

 three Colorado state senators, and 

 many of our most prominent near-by 

 citizens," are members. 



The solitary exception is that of Sen- 

 ator Guggenheim. From all the other 

 members of the Colorado delegation in 

 Congress the League publishes strongly 

 commendatory correspondence. 



Congressman John A. Martin writes 

 a letter so full and carefully prepared 

 that the League has published it as a 

 special bulletin. 



Senator Hughes wires : "I wish to say 

 that I heartily endorse the objects of 

 the National Public Domain League." 



Congressman Taylor writes: "I am 

 in hearty accord with the League and 

 with your object, and shall be more 

 than pleased to aid in every way pos- 

 sible toward carrying out its pur- 

 poses." 



Congressman Rucker writes: "You 

 can safely trust me with doing all in my 

 power to push the results outlined by 

 your declaration of purposes." 



Congressman Mondell, of Wyoming, 

 telegraphs: 'T am in hearty sympathy 

 with the aims and purposes of the 

 League as set forth in the Articles of 

 Association." 



And there are others. 



11. WHY THE SPOKANE CONTROVERSY? 



As to the inwardness of the Spokane 

 controversy, let no one be deceived. 

 Personal feeling may exist, but the real 

 issue is not personal. "Graft" there 

 may be, but the question strikes deeper 

 than graft. Differences may, and do 

 exist, in interpretations of law ; but as 

 an issue, law is not in this case primary. 



