The Commoner.
i
without any security for the' payment of those
notes is "sound money."
It cannot bo doubted that the tendoncy
among our great financiers is toward the estab
lishment of just such a bank as is proposed by
Mr. Morgan. Such a bank would be able to
control not only the purse strings of the na
tion but the purse strings of the people. Be
cause of this enormous power, such, a bank
would be able to control elections, dictate gov
ernment policies, crush great principles, and
shape the business of the country according to
the ends and advantages of those in authority
in this central bank.
Such a bank, if these men had their way,
would be endowed with money issuing powers
"without the pre-requisite of bond deposits."
There are many things nowadays which
threaten the welfare of the people, but ot all
of the propositions so far made none promise
greater detriment than the suggestion that
there be established in this country a Nick
Biddle institution.
And yet it may be that out of the threat
ened disaster great good will come. The crea
tion of another Nick Biddle may thus provide
a call for another Andrew Jackson; and at no
time in its history has this country been so
sadly in need of a man of Jackson's mould as
it is today
:
f '
W
Holding, to a Part.
Among the strange things about the impe
rialist's position is that while discarding the
constitution as a guide for congress in its deal
ings with our new possessions, he justifies his
position by one clause in the constitution.
This clause provides: "The congress shall' have
power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the "United
States." . ,,;"
It is not claimed that the words "dispose
of" give congress the authority to sell terri
tory. On the contrary it has long been the
claim of the imperialist that once' we are in
possession of territoiy there iB no authority
for getting rid of it.
With this understanding we may read this
constitutional clause and better understand by
comparing its powers and authorities with the
powers and authorities possessed by the agent,
say, of a piece of real estate.
The land owner who does not care to give
personal attention to his property might retain
an agent to transact this business for him. He
wouid give to that agent power to make all
"needful rules and regulations" respecting the
property entrusted to his care.
Would the agent have authority to do any
thing which, his client did not authorize?
Would he not be prohibited from doing,
with that property, anything in contravention
of the policies and principles of his em
ployer? If his employer was a man of high moral
ideas, would the agent dare to rent a piece of
that employer's "property for iiiimoral pur
poses r
. The people of tho United States have given
to their agent, congress, certain ' powers with
respect to tho property of tho United States.
This property does not embrace peoples be
cause there is no property in peoples in tho
contemplation of the law in this country. But
so far as tho right to make "needful rules and
regulations' respecting the territory or other
property belonging to tho United States, con
gress is in the attitude of tho agent of a care
ful, high-minded client, who is so jealous as to
the rules and regulations to be made respecting
his property that ho has formulated certain
fixed rules and plans by Which, the agent must
be guided and governed. Outside of thoso
plans the agent has no authority. If the exi
gencies of the time require new and enlarged
authority, it is in tlio agent's province to apply
to his client for new powers. No intelligent
agent would contend for a moment that he
could do anything with respect to that prop
erty simply because tho thing sought to bo
done was not prohibited in tho rules given him
by his client. He would know that whatever
power he possessed was a grant of power from
the man whom he was presumed to servo and
if he wanted additional authority ho must ap
ply to the only source of power.
.U-t 'v;i
w..
:'i -ru. j?:"
'l
I -, Mr. Schurman's Lament.
Mr. Schurman, President ; o Cornell col
lege, claims that during our history as a nation
covering a century and a quarter we have pro
duced no one to rank with Shakspearo and
"Goethe. This much was said by way of mild
criticism of tho accomplishments of this na
tion. This point is worthy of careful examin
ation. It may bo admitted that we have pro
duced no poets that may rank with Shakspearo
and Goethe, but it must be some consolation at
least to Mr. Schurman that England has pro
duced no other to rank with Shakspearo and
that Germany has produced no other to rank
with Goethe.
England may boast of its Shakspeare and
Germany may boast of its Goethe, both enjoy
ing that fullness of fame that comes to things
and men, time-honored as well as deserving on
their merits, but the United States during its
century and a quarter is to be credited with a
large number of poets whose writings will be
read so long as time shall laBt, and' whoso
standing will, like wine, improve, with age.
There 'are Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Foe,
Lowell, Holmes, and many others,,, whose
splendid verses have endeared, the memory of
their authors to men and women who love real
poetry.,
Mr. Schurman should, also find consolation
in the reflection that the people of the United
States have no cause to. be ashamed of their
literature. To be sure there is a vast amount
of useless stuff written and holding a place
as literature in this country, but it is true that
the orators and the authors of America have
had much to do with inspiring their fellows
. toward the erection and maintenance of a na
tion, dedicated under God to liberty. While it
is true we have no Shakspeare and no Goethe,
it is likewise true that our history is filled with
tho writings and tho utterances of men and
women who have contributed to tho Bum of
human happiness more than tho contributions
of a thousand Shakspearcs and Gocthcs would
have done.
Our poets havo been poets of tho people.
Our orators havo boon champions of liborty.
Our writers of fiction and our writers of fact
who havo taken recognized positions have done
so because their work has aided in tho up
building of a poople's nation and contributed
to tho general welfare.
Wo are a nation of writers and a nation of
poets. There iB hardly a state in thiB union
but what may count among its citizens several
poets of recognized standing, and some of tho
humblest of these have produced some of tho
most beautiful of verses.
From our revolutionary period to the pres
ent day our public men havo excelled the pub
lic men of all other nations in their writings.
Tho Declaration of Independence, written by
Thomas Jefferson, has properly been referred
to as "a stately and- passionate chant of human
freedom," "the most pathetic utteranco of any
age," and the best written public document
eVer issued by any people. Thomas Jefferson
himself was a star in tho literary firmament.
Tho Federalist, written by Hamilton, Madison
and Jay, might with great - advantage serve as
a text book for anyone in England or America
who sought to state simple truths in tho most
brief and yet most effective way. Our revolu
tionary record is filled with writings whiclr
will compare more than favorably with tho
writings of any other men of any other period.
Take a glance through American history
and see tho contributions made to literature by
Americans, which contributions would grace a
collection of the very best literature of tho
world. Read Benjamin Franklin, that prince
of letter writers; read Henry Adams, John
Adams and John Quincy Adams; read Lincoln
and Douglas, Phillips and Channing; read
Prentiss and Yancey, Blaine and Stevens, Conk
ling and Cox. Better things in better way were
never said than were said by these men. We
need not refer to our Henrys, our Websters, our
Clays, our Calhouns, our Gradys men whoso
voice and pen contributed much to the pro
gress not only of this people, but of liberty
throughout the world.
America's books are filled with the valu
able writings of America's men and' women,,
and if we must accept Mr. Schurman's conclu
sion that we have produced no one to rank
with Shakspeare and Goethe, we may have the
pleasure of knowing that in this weak, incom
petent world there can be but ono Shakspeare
and but one Goethe, exactly as there can be
but ono Thomas Jefferson, but ono Abraham
Lincoln, but one Henry Wadsworth Long
fellow, and we have the further consolation
that the contributions of tho Jeffersons, the
Lincolns and the Longfellows have been as
valuable to humanity as the contributions of
the Shakspearcs and the Goethes.
-'
