Mr. MATHIAS: “I will introduce as a bill early next year a plan for a pilot program that embodies a proposal made by Thomas Jefferson for the creation for a new basic unit of government that he called “Little Republics.” Watergate surrounds us all with the reminder of the danger our country is in, and, yet we intend to celebrate the Bicentennial of our Republic as though our Government was functioning in the spirit hoped for by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and the other Founding Fathers. Great plans are underway for new coins to be minted, parades with colonial costumes and elaborate fanfare; visitor centers are being readied for the celebrations to be held throughout the 50 States. But these celebrations will be empty trappings if we fail to shore up our democratic institutions.
There is a growing desire throughout the country among the people to be involved in government: It is a desire so deep that it has sometimes unfortunately resulted in acts of violence such as have occurred during some antiwar protests and civil rights demonstrations; but it is a hope as old as the Republic itself. This desire has grown as our country has grown almost in direct proportion to the rise in education, wealth, and leisure, and as these benefits have been extended to a larger and larger segment of the people. And yet it is distressingly true that the ability of the people to participate in their own government has lessened. Correspondingly, the ability of those elected to office, to respond to local desires and needs, has lessened, too. The mathematics of our system of representation is evidence of this, but another more fundamental factor is the failure of both Houses of Congress to adapt their procedures and structures to the necessities of making laws and overseeing the execution of the laws in a superstate of growing size, complexity, and power.
What is at issue here is how to give citizens in local constituencies the ability to involve themselves directly in and have a meaningful voice in the matters that most affect their everyday lives.
Growing unrest and the prevalence of an attitude of general distrust of government in the country reflected in every poll indicate that an increasing number of people believe that their interests are not adequately served in the White House or in the Halls of Congress nor in the statehouses across the land, nor in the county seats of government or in the courthouses, nor in any of the traditional seats of power that have grown up in the course of the Nation’s history. There is only one exception – a romantic vestige perhaps – and that is the system found in towns and villages that have remained relatively constant in size.
I have been struck by an experience which I am sure has been shared by tens of millions throughout the country that the place where political life most impinges upon every citizen and the place where every citizen has the opportunity immediately at hand to affect in some small way the quality of his life is at the local school. An increasing number of Americans are beginning to believe that the cities are too big, that farm life too remote. They have created for themselves a new middle way. In a sense, modern technology has created a new form of life, the suburb with a host of new problems.
Unfortunately, many suburbs have no integral center of government except insofar as they are attached either to a city or to a rural county government. In most respects these older forms of government do not meet the needs of the modern suburbs and because of the growth of the cities and the flight from the farms do not serve their traditional constituencies.
I have gone, as tens of millions of others have gone, to PTA meetings, to Boy Scout meetings, to Cub Scout meetings, meetings on roads, sewers, law and order, pollution, parks, recreation, celebrations, and a host of meetings on small incidents that go into everyday life. Many of these meetings take place at the local school. The local school is most often the polling center for local, State, and National elections. It is certainly the one communal building where the citizen, almost all citizens, can participate in government.
Over the past 4 years I have also witnessed in Congress and particularly in the Senate, the struggle over the issue of getting more revenue to local communities either through revenue sharing, aid to education, or a host of specific local projects, ranging across the whole spectrum of American life from sewers to sex, and it is my view that the several 6-inch thick bills with their hundreds of conflicting amendments reflect the lack of an underlying principle of how local government should function in a modern superstate democracy.
Some time ago I was reading Jefferson’s letters and found that he, too, early in the 19th century, was concerned that the Republic needed a fundamental reform to give to the people the means to have direct participation in government. In a long and thoughtful letter to Mr. Samuel Kercheval, written in [July 12] 1816, on the subject of necessary reforms, Jefferson wrote of the dilemma then facing democratic government in the United States; it is a dilemma no less pertinent now than it was in 1816:
This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the Constitution what they think will be the best for themselves. But how collect their voice? This is the real difficulty. If invited by private authority or county or district meetings, these divisions are so large that few will attend; and their voice will be imperfectly, or falsely pronounced.
Jefferson’s solution to this problem was as follows:
“But follow principle, and the knot unties itself. Divide the counties into wards of such size as that every citizen can attend, when called on, and act in person. Ascribe to them the government of their wards in all things relating to themselves exclusively. A justice, chosen by themselves, in each, a constable, a military company, a patrol, a school, the care of their own poor, their own portion of the public roads, the voice of one or more jurors to serve in some court, and the delivery, within their town wards, of their own votes for all elective officers of higher sphere, will relieve the county administration of nearly all its business, will have it better done, and by making every citizen an acting member of the government, and in the offices nearest and most interesting to him, will attach him by his strongest feelings to the independence of his country, and its republican Constitution. The justices thus chosen by every ward, would constitute the county court, would do its judiciary business, direct roads and bridges, levy county and poor rates, and administer all the matters of common interest to the whole country.
These wards, called townships in New England, are the vital principle of their governments, and have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for its preservation. We should thus marshal our government into, 1. The general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2. That of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3. The county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4. The ward republics, for the small, and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs.”
Jefferson believed that the “Little Republics” would be the best way to address national issues to the people and provide a method of referring fundamental questions to the people for their vote. Imagine how much more useful than opinion polls Jefferson’s system would have been for determining the public will on the issue of Vietnam or of race or impeachment? He suggested:
“Here, then, would be one of the advantages of the ward division I have proposed. The mayor of every ward, on a question like the present, would call his ward together, take the simple yea or nay of its members, convey these to the county court, who would hand on those of all its wards to the proper general authority; and the voice of the whole people would be thus fairly, fully, and peaceably expressed, discussed, and decided by the common reason of the society. If this avenue be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on, as other nations are doing, in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation, again; and so on forever.”
In other letters, the idea of the “Little Republics” was developed in somewhat more detail. Writing Maj. John Cartwright in [June 5] 1824, commenting on some views of constitutional theory, Jefferson said:
“Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts. Yet we did not avail ourselves of all the advantages of our position. We had never been permitted to exercise self-government. When forced to assume it, we were novices in its science. Its principles and forms had entered little into our former education. We established, however, some, although not all its important principles.
The constitution of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of the press.
In the structure of our legislatures , we think experience has proved the benefit of subjecting question to two separate bodies of deliberants; but in constituting these, natural right has been mistaken, some making one of these bodies, and some both the representative of property instead of persons; whereas the double deliberation might be as well obtained without any violation of true principle, either by requiring a greater age in one of the bodies, or by electing a proper number of representatives of persons, dividing them by lots into two chambers, and renewing the division at frequent intervals, in order to break up all cabals.
Virginia, of which I am myself a native and resident, was not only the first of the States, but I believe I may say, the first of the nations of the earth, which assembled its wise men peaceably together to form a fundamental constitution, to commit it to writing, and place it among their archives, where everyone should be free to appeal to its text. But this act was very imperfect.
The other States, as they proceeded successively to the same work, made successive improvements; and several of them, still further corrected by experience, have, by conversion, still further amended their first forms. My own State has gone on so far with its premiere ébauche; but it is now proposing to call a convention for amendment. Among other improvements, I hope they will adopt the subdivision of our counties into wards.
The former may be estimated at average of twenty-four miles square, the latter should be about six miles square each and would answer to the hundreds of your Saxon Alfred. In each of these might be, first, an elementary school; second, a company of militia, with its officers; third, a justice of the peace and constable; fourth, each ward should take care of their own poor; fifth, their own roads; sixth, their own police; seventh, elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of justice, and eighth, give in at their Folk-house, their votes for all functionaries reserved to their election, and every man in the State would thus become an acting member of the common government, transacting in person a great portion of its rights and duties, subordinate indeed, yet important, and entirely within his competence. The wit of man cannot devise a more solid basis for a free, durable and well-administered republic.”
Jefferson’s proposal for a new basic unit in American government, closer to the people is based upon his ideas for public education which he developed in the days prior to the Constitutional Convention. The germ of the idea is in “A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” presented in 1788. He developed this idea further in a letter to John Adams dated October 28, 1813. He wrote:
“At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture, and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the axe to the foot of pseudo-aristocracy, And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been complete. It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every country into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subject from these schools who might receive, at the public expense, a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at an university, where all the useful sciences should be taught.
Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts. My proposition had for a further object, to impart to these wards those portions of self-government for which they are best qualified, by confiding to them the care of their poor, their roads, police, elections, the nomination of jurors, administration of justice in small cases, elementary exercises of militia; in short to have made them little republics, with a warden at the head of each for all those concerns which, being under their eye, they would better manage than the larger republics of the county or state. A general call of ward meetings by their wardens on the same day throughout the state would at any time produce the genuine sense of the people on any required point, and would enable the State to act in mass, as your people have so often done and with so much effect by their town meetings…
There are two subjects, indeed, which I shall claim a right to further as long as I breathe: the public education and the subdivision of counties into wards. I consider the continuance of republican government as absolutely hanging onto these two hooks. Of the first, you will, I am sure, be an advocate, as having already reflected on it, and of the last, when you shall have reflected.”
I think the country is ready now in a way that it has not been for 200 years for Jefferson’s proposed reform of American democratic government that would directly embody “the genuine sense of the people.” Jefferson very clearly understood the respective roles of the Federal, state, and county governments. I have drawn upon Jefferson extensively because in a clear and a foresighted way he understood the necessity for the creation of a new basic unit of government. I suggest that Jefferson’s proposal can be practicably adopted and it would do much to strengthen the fabric of participatory democracy.
There are those who maintain that giving power to the people would be dangerous, inefficient and corrupt. They base this view on examples of inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption that have taken place at local government in the past. But no level of government is exempt from grievous examples of inefficiency, waste, and corruption. It is before our eyes every day. At the same time, at every level of government including the local level there have been examples of government operating efficiently, in an economical fashion and with full probity, In my view a government is no better than the people who are in the Government and in the case of the United States, are no better than the people who elect them to office. What is at issue here is to broaden the ability of citizens to directly control the quality of their own lives.
We have chosen democracy as our political system; but for democracy to be a reality it requires the maximum participation of the people in ruling themselves.
The Federal Government would still establish laws and patterns and overall standards for every citizen below which the State or country or wards could not go. For example, questions of civil liberties, civil rights, ethical standards for dispensing and accounting for funds, foreign policy and defense, are a proper Federal concern. The States in turn have their area of responsibility concerning matters affecting citizens within a State jurisdiction. There is no reason why a State, a country or a ward cannot establish higher standards, but it cannot in any way abridge the law of all the land.
There is no reason why a local jurisdiction, in size somewhat equivalent to some local school districts, or about 10,000 people, should not have the final say in peculiarly local concerns. Our country is made up of diverse peoples who have come from every country in the world, our geography has affected the way in which people live; and in an age of homogenization and uniformity, many of these differences are of value, not only to the individuals who hold them, but also to the heritage of the country as a whole.
There is no reason why the most democratic, most fortunate and most educated country in the world cannot, for its own betterment, have effective participatory local government. Jefferson provided the formula and the time is right now for the country to debate and consider his wise proposal.
We are all witnesses to the twilight of parliaments and the decline of democratic representative government the world. Recent history bears out the contention that democratic governments are becoming the exception among nations. We are all gradually awakening to the danger that the United States, if it continues in the pattern of the last 40 years, could become an authoritarian state.
Watergate is the turning point in our Nation’s history. If we turn our backs to the grievous attacks that have been made on the Constitution and the laws of the land under the vague incantations of one man’s view of national security, we will have lost our right to hold the precious gift of freedom won for us almost 200 years ago by men of courage, integrity, and intelligence.
Mr. HATFIELD: Mr. President, will the Senator from Maryland yield?
Mr. MATHIAS. I yield.
Mr. HATFIELD Mr. President, I would just like to commend the Senator from Maryland because, as he indicated in his introductory comments, we seem to be in an interesting legislative coupling this morning. Having made some comments with respect to our having made an idol of national security, the distinguished Senator from Maryland has probably put together one of the most scholarly and careful documents I have read in the current day, as it relates to the things that have been done under the name of national security, which have really in effect threatened the liberties of the people. And in addition there is a further evidence of our interest in a national self-righteousness. However, we are talking about the faith of the people in the comments being made now by the senator from Maryland and evidences where the political leadership has become so arrogant that it has taken unto itself not only great authority to challenge the rights of the people, but has also demonstrated in a very strong way its lack of faith in the people. After all, complete truth is the source of sovereignty in this country.
And there has been this sort of paternalistic attitude that, “We know what is best for the people, and we shall do as we please; and this is in the best interest of the people.”
I cannot help but be moved to say at this time that the Senator has not only set forth the situation in a very clear way, but he has indicated further in his presentation some of the answers. It is one thing to identify problems, but it tis another thing to offer solutions, and I commend the Senator for his commitment to decentralization because here again it shows similarity- I suppose of like minds- to a proposal for neighborhood government that I have made, as I see his proposal coming for little republics.
I think this document should not only be distributed to our colleagues through the Congressional Record, but as a former educator I would like to see every student in our universities, colleges, and high schools given an opportunity to read it. I do not know when I have been so much impressed by such detail, such scholarly and academic preparation, as that which has gone into the Senator’s statement; not in any other statement on this floor in my memory.