VOTES VERSUS GOVERNMENT

The recent reappointment of Haines, henchman of the Anti-Saloon League, to the direction of Prohibition enforcement in the United States seems to have been a piece of the rankest and most craven political expediency. It was contrary to the advice of General Andrews; it was contrary to the wishes of the cabinet members who had seen Haines at work; it was in all probability decidedly against the desires of the president himself. It means that the administration has placed itself partially under the control of a not too savoury organization. It is proof positive that a partisan organization with sufficient vote-getting power can bully the American government into submission.

But the most alarming thing about the incident is the apathy with which it has been received. The New York Tribune was one of the few Republican papers to comment on Haines' return to grace. It stated quite baldly that the President had to make the choice between incompetence and the loss of support of the Anti-Saloon League. He chose incompetence. Possible votes twenty months from now, then, are of more importance than present and effective administration of government. And no one seems to care a great deal perhaps because no one will cavil at ineffective dry administration.

The last session of Congress was rather striking evidence that the mere fact of holding office seems to be of more importance than what is done with office. The session was more interested in preliminary jockeying for the 1928 elections than in completing the budget.

There is something essentially unethical in all this. It seems a truism to say that the raison d'etre of a Senator is to legislate rather than to perpetuate his lease of power and that of his party ad infinitum if possible. Yet the senatorial attitude seems to be the reverse of this. And Haines' reappointment seems to indicate that the president shares the senatorial viewpoint.

It is undoubtedly too much to expect American politics to turn back toward the great tradition of English statesmanship set by Peel and Gladstone, which set principle before party, reform before office, or toward the precedent set by the first President of the United States who intentionally gave up the reins of power at the end of his second term. But it is an insult to the electorate to allow mere vote-getting to be so brazen.

Plato's Republic was to be ruled by men who took leadership as a necessary duty, rather than as a pleasure. Democracy in his mind rated only next to tyranny as the poorest form of government. The McNary-Haugen bill put through merely to discredit the administration, advice of Joseph Daniels to the democratic party that they base their 1928 platform on Republican corruption, Haines' recent reappointment --all these go to suggest that Plato was right.