Here, for example, is the old question of campaign funds: If I take a hundred
thousand dollars from a group of men representing a particular interest that
has a big stake in a certain schedule of the tariff, I take it with the
knowledge that those gentlemen will expect me not to forget their interest in
that schedule, and that they will take it as a point of implicit honor that I
should see to it that they are not damaged by too great a change in that
schedule. Therefore, if I take their money, I am bound to them by a tacit
implication of honor. Perhaps there is no ground for objection to this
situation so long as the function of government is conceived to be to look
after the trustees of prosperity, who in turn will look after the people; but
on any other theory than that of trusteeship no interested campaign
contributions can be tolerated for a moment,-save those of the millions of
citizens who thus support the doctrines they believe and the men whom they
recognized as their spokesmen.

I tell you the men I am interested in are the men who, under the conditions
we have had, never had their voices heard, who never got a line in the
newspapers, who never got a moment on the platform, who never had access to
the ears of Governors or Presidents or of anybody who was responsible for the
conduct of public affairs, but who went silently and patiently to their work
every day carrying the burden of the world. How are they to be understood by
the masters of finance, if only the masters of finance are consulted?

That is what I mean when I say, "Bring the government back to the people." I
do not mean anything demagogic; I do not mean to talk as if we wanted a great
mass of men to rush in and destroy something. That is not the idea. I want
the people to come in and take possession of their own premises; for I hold
that the government belongs to the people, and that they have a right to that
intimate access to it which will determine every turn of its policy.

America is never going to submit to guardianship. America is never going to
choose thralldom instead of freedom. Look what there is to decide! There is
the tariff question. Can the tariff question be decided in favor of the
people, so long as the monopolies are the chief counselors at Washington?
There is the currency question. Are we going to settle the currency question
so long as the government listens only to the counsel of those who command
the banking situation?

Then there is the question of conservation. What is our fear about
conservation? The hands that are being stretched out to monopolize our
forests, to prevent or pre-empt the use of our great power-producing streams,
the hands that are being stretched into the bowels of the earth to take
possession of the great riches that lie hidden in Alaska and elsewhere in the
incomparable domain of the United States, are the hands of monopoly. Are
these men to continue to stand at the elbow of government and tell us how we
are to save ourselves,-from themselves? You can not settle the question of
conservation while monopoly is close to the ears of those who govern. And the
question of conservation is a great deal bigger than the question of saving
our forests and our mineral resources and our waters; it is as big as the
life and happiness and strength and elasticity and hope of our people.