The Weekly University Courier.
The Largest College Journal Circulation the United States.
Published Every Friday Morning by the GOSCUNNY FOR Kansas University Students.
O. B TAYLOR,
President.
DENT. HOGERBOOM,
Secretary.
ASSOCIATES
EDITORIAL STAFF:
JOHN A. PRESCOTT, EDITOR-IN CHIEF.
CHAS, JOHNSON,
M. E. GAMBLE,
FRED LIDDEKR,
HAREY BUKGINGHAM
V. L. KELLOGG,
AGNER LOVE,
MAIR CHAPMAN,
MAYAH
MAYAH
MAYCHUCHILL
BUSINESS MANAGERS:
WILL, A. JACKSON, | S. T. GILMORE
Entered at the post-office at Lawrence, Kansas as second-class matter.
THE PRIZE ORATION OF THE INTER-
STATE ORATORICAL CONTEST.
Delivered by R. G. JOHNSON, DePauw University, Greencastle, Ind.
We live under a government of majorities. Through party organization alone can the will of the majority be ascertained. If there were no parties, no principles enunciated, no tickets nominated, each citizen must write his own ballot, and from the multiplicity of interests, the conflict of desires, endless confusion would result. Parties represent ideas, convictions concerning the rights of men in government. To secure majorities parties must be organized under the broadest political principles. As the principle narrowed the number of followers is correspondingly decreased. Parties representing narrow issues can no more secure majorities than can a religious denomination, representing details in worship, include a majority of Christians. Without organization upon the broadest principles majorities are impossible. Two fundamental principles give two parties.
Whence are these principles derived? They are found in the universal law of action and reaction. This law exists in the nature of all matter, of all force. Consider a shooting star, a sweeping hurrican, a political revolution, a religious reformation; they are but manifestations of a universal conflict between two forces, one tending to produce change, the other to resist it. Progress, social or political, is the resultant of this conflict. This law, inherent in mind and matter, divides men into radicals and conservatives, and upon this division are established political parties around whose principles the people gather and cluster as bits of steel about the poles of a magnet. What is all political history but the record of the action and reaction of radical and conservative ideas crystalized about contending principles of government?
The conflict has always been between the ideas of strong central and local self government—a constant struggle to maintain an equilibrium of these forces. The dagger of Brutus sought not so much to stab the body of Caesar as to destroy the tendency toward centralization. The ruins of rich cities upon the Rhine stand solemn monuments of the reaction against that declaration of absolutism, "I am the State." In Russia, in Austria, in Germany, this conflict prevails. The last seven centuries of Irish history is but a
esperate struggle between these same antagonistic forces. The principle of the Whig party in England, "that all positive institutions exist for the general good," stood arrayed against the Tory principle "of the divine rights of kings." It flamed, like the motto of Constantine, an inspiration to the Commons; it fired with dauntless courage Hampden and Pym and Cromwell and Milton. Constantly resisted by the conservative idea that "the King can do wrong," it steadily gained the vantage-ground securing self-government for the Englishman at home, rising victorious in New England, winning the day at Lexington, at Bunker Hill and Yorktown, until we behold its legitimate fruit in the fundamental principles of our government, that "the people are the true source of all political power."
At the formation of our constitution, these ever active and opposing principles were at work, contending for the shaping of the Republic's destiny and creating the two great parties that must ever control it—one advocating strong central, the other local self-government. But did the acceptance of the Federal principle in the constitution destroy the logic by which Hamilton urged a strong central government, or that by which Jefferson contended for the opposing principle of State sovereignty? By no means. The same parties, actuated by the same presistent principles, divided upon the interpretation of that constitution, and have passed down the century in unbroken parallel lines. Whatever their name, they have never lost their identity; whether denominated Federalist or Anti-Federalist, Republican or Democrat, one has been the liberal, the other the strict constructionist in the interpretation of the constitution, and because of this, one has always desired more, the other less, legislation on measures of national reform and progress. Hamilton's tariff policy, internal improvements, the disposition of the public lands, Calhoun's nullification resolutions—all involved the question of the relative functions of state and national government. It was this when Webster met in matchless eloquence the champion of the South; the same conflict when our fathers shouldered muskets and marched to the fields of death. Back of the lines of steel at Gettysburg and Appomattox, aiming every bayonet, loading every cannon, inspiring every charge, sublime in the smoke of conflict, stood colossal the opposing principle of State and Nation. Ah! there was more than a social and moral issue in that contest. Our Lincolns, our Summers, our Grants met the Davises, the Stephenses, the Lees, not on the moral issues of slavery only—they fought for a broader idea, a political principle. They fought for the integrity of the nation.
The war wrote in characters of blood, "Each state is subordinate to the nation;" but it left human nature unchanged, and the silent conflict of centralization and local self-government, agitated by new issues, goes on.
An era of good feeling, as during
Monroe's administration, may prevail, hiding temporarily, these differentiating principles from public view; nevertheless, they exist. They are the criteria to which every political issue is referred. Because one believes that the national government should foster home industries by protection, the other that the function of government ceases with securing "tariff for revenue only," the two great parties are divided upon the tariff question. Opposition to the interstate commerce, the government postal telegraph and the Blair educational bills is based upon the fundamental idea that such legislation is an invasion of the rights reserved to the States.
Both from necessity and expediency two great parties exist. By mutual criticism both are kept within the bounds of reason. As the suspension of one physical force would disperse the myriad planets into chaos, or the suspension of the other bring them to a dead center, so the removal of the motive force underlying one party would bring despotism, as the suspension of the other would drive us to anarchy and confusion.
When these great principles are in abeyance, minor parties, based upon social and moral issues, spring into existence. Such parties fail because they involve no political principle broad enough to subject that of a dominant party.
Did the Abolition party enact the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments? The Liberal party, the Free-soilers, the Anti-Masons, the Greenbackers all have folded their tents and sleep in peace, while the two parties representing principles of government ever prevail. Does not the failure of these portend the same fate for the Labor and Socialist parties of to-day?
reason entitled one-third partyists to dictate to twenty sincere temperance men of a dominant party just how prohibition shall come? He points to no law enacted by assemblies of his political faith, to no triumph at the polls. In New York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, third party tickets have defeated temperance legislation, and whenever it fails to co-operate with a dominant party its effect is to put the temperance cause into the hands of its enemies. Five states have already demonstrated the inability of the Prohibition party to accomplish any good results through its own strength and it only remains for the other thirty-three to consign it to oblivion. Every temperance enactment has come through dominant parties; every attempt at reform through a third party has resulted in disaster. A political party is not called into existence to serve a transient issue, then pass away forever. The causes of real political difference are opinions with respect to principles of government; these causes are permanent, inherent in the nature of man. Social and moral issues do not, can not, originate or sustain a political party; for when these issues are thrust into politics they involve the principles underlying the parties which of necessity already exist and upon these basal principles must be politically be finally settled.
The error of outside party reformers, is a misconception of the essential nature of parties and their relation to the people. All problems of law and politics have a real and an ideal side. Neglecting the real, idealists evolve abstract theories, fanatics attempt to put them into practice. Having but one idea, they consider it of supreme importance, and, viewing it alone and not in its relation to the other necessary ideas of government, they have a distorted view of all. Their theories presuppose an ideal state of mankind unattainable so long as human nature is the basis of society. In practice, the third-partyist accomplishes the opposite of his theory. Under the theory of emancipating the slaves, third-partyism defeated Clay and elected Polk, precipitating the Mexican war, and the further extension of slavery. It elevated to the presidency that tool of the slave power, Buchanan, well nigh wrecking the Union. But what of the Independent Prohibition party? Shall six million temperance men forsake the parties of Hamilton and Jefferson, of Jackson and Clay, parties established upon principles of government, for a party based upon a social and moral issue? What superior intelligence or force of
Back of every reform and every statute stands public sentiment, which ests not on parties, statutes or creeds; but upon the perception of right and wrong implanted in the bosom of man. Public sentiment is the omipotent power that enacts, enforces, lethrones. What is your statute, your penalty, unless behind it stands a living public sentiment? The man is a hero who violates the law. What statute will ever stigmatize John Brown as a murderer, or write the name of Benedict Arnold along side that of "the father of his country?" Public sentiment rules a political party with inexorable decree. It said to the Democratic party. "Put Boss Tweed behind the bars," and it was obeyed. It spoke again, and gray haired Jacob Sharp passed to his grave through the same cell. Not third party but public sentiment, dictated that sentence in the Republican platform, "Iowa has no compromise to make with the saloons." "Public sentiment sustained the mayor of an Irish-American city who decreed that only the stars and the stripes should float from the flag staff of the City Hall. It pronounced against a third term. It said to the hero of Appomattox, in whose presence the crowned heads of Europe had stood uncovered, and whose praises had been echoed in every tongue of the civilized world, "thus far and no farther," and the most distinguished citizen of the world retired to the shades of private life. Without public sentiment nothing can succeed; with it nothing can fail. Temperance reform will come, not by reason of third party, but in spite of it. It will come because the sublimest forces of a christian civilization are at work creating a public sentiment before which evil will flee as from the avenging angel of God. Statesmen must adopt the will of their constituents or fall before the flood-tide of popular opinion. Political parties, based upon essential principles of government and commanding majorities, alone wield sufficient power to enforce the dictates of public opinion.
These outside movements are but ripples upon the great sea of political thought; they can never change the direction of resistless ocean currentsIdentified with permanent parties are the rich legacies of patriotic statesmen; the mystic chords of memory, stretching from a thousand battlefields, where sleep the dead, bind men to these parties with ties that cannot be severed by transient issues. The feeling of loyalty, inspired by father's sword, hallowed by mother's tears throws a halo around their principles that can never be extinguished by the will-o'-the wisp of independent parties. Issues come and issues go, but political parties, based upon inherent tendencies of human nature, dignified by brilliant intellects, cemented by the blood of brave men, go on forever. Abstract theorists may battle against nature, cultured independence may seek to degrade their principles, but the parties representing them will stand—they will stand
"As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form,
Swells from the vale and midway leaves the
storm;
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are
spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on its head."
The following is an extract from a letter received this week by Prof. Carruth :
"I wish to take this opportunity to express my pleasure at the gentlemanly manner in which not only your club, but also all the students who accompanied you behaved during our last game. I realize fully all the temptations at such times, especially to a visiting college, and can but compliment you."
Yours very truly,
ROB. STONE,
Mgr. Washburn Blues.
The above speaks for itself. We can only say in return that we deeply regret the remarks made by the Lawrence Journal in regard to the game. They were certainly discourteous, and were not at all in harmony with the feelings of the members of the K. S. U. nine, or of the other students of K. S. U.
Mrs. Atwoods' Recital.
The first concert in the program for commencement exercises was given last Tuesday night by Miss Birdie Atwood. The concert was a success in every particular, and perhaps, has never been equaled by any concert given by the music departments. The best part was the concerto in B minor. Prof. MacDonald playing the second piano, although the whole program was rendered admirably and shows the excellent training given by the music department, and the singing of Miss Ila Williams and Miss Georgie Brown was a good and interesting feature of the program.
W G
chaff a grea man.
have
is the
this s
F
S
Greed