Commoner.
it
it
WILLIAn J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
::
The
.
,,
I ft
' L
lr
1 ::
(
f
vYbL-i. No. 52.
Lincoln, Nebraska, January 17, 190a,
$1.00 a Year
Another Lesson.
' The defeat o Perry Belmont in a strong demo
cratic district ought to show the eastern demo
crats the folly of nominating fqr national posi
tions men who are known to antagonize demo
cratic principles. In 1896 Mr. Belmont was a con
spicuous supporter of the Palmer-Buckner move
ment which was organized in the interest of the
republican ticket. In 1900 he was one of those
.who gave nominal allegiance to the democratio
party, not with any desire to advance democratic
principles, but for the purpose of betraying the
party again into the hands of the enemy. That he
should ask for the honor of a seat in congress
where he could misrepresent the democracy of his
state shows how little respect he has for the in
terests of his would-be constituents. His defeat
was well merited and ought to serve as a lesson
to those who assume that the voters of .the party
will vote for any one who may happen to be
nominated, even though ho be a republican mas
querading as a democrat.
Mr. Belmont has given no evidence of a
change of heart since 1896, and until he does ho
ought not to expect the confidence of those who
.were loyal then. When he does undergo a change
of heart he will be so ashamed of his past conduct
that he will be content with the position of a pri
,vte, in the ranks until he can prove his repentence
toy. hiswqpks..
A Change of Base.
- 'Although we may deplore the lowering of
Ideals that has taken place in the Outlook, we
must give-its editor .'credit for recognizing the in-'
consistency between the Declaration of Indepen
dence and the Philippine policy of the republican
administration. In a recent editorial he speaks
of the principle that "all governments exist for
the benefit of the governed." One does not have to
be learned in the science of government nor far
advanced in the knowledge of language to recog
nize ' the wide difference between the principle
above stated and the self-evident truth that "gov
ernments derive their just powers from the con
sent of the governed." The principle stated in
the' Outlook is one that has been asserted by ev
ery, king and potentate who claimed to rule by
right divine. A man would be a monster who
would defend a government upon any other theory,
but while this is .the theory usually put forward in
defense of monarchies and aristocracies, the all
important question is, Who shall decide what is
for. the "benefit of the governed?" Shall this,
question be decided by a king, or by a few, or
shall it be decided by the people themselves? The
trouble with one who rules by arbitrary power is
that ho insists upon deciding what government is
beat for his subjects, and then he insists upon
shooting them if they do not agree with him in
regard to the merits of the government which ho
proposes, and -under which they must live. The
whole difference between a government resting
upon force and a government resting up the con-"
sent of the governed is involved in the difference
betweon the Outlook's idea of government and the
theory- of government set forth in the Declaration
of Independence. .
Jefferson defended-the view embodied in the
Declaration of Independence. In his first' In
augural message he sad: "Sometimes it is said
that man cannot be trusted with the government
of himself. Can he then be trusted with the gov
ernment of others, or have wo found angels in
the form of kings to govern him?" Lincoln an
nounced the same doctrine when he said that God
never made a man good enough to govern an
other man without the other man's consent.
It behooves us to analyze the principles which
Underlie imperialistic policies, and when those
principles are understood they will be found to
be not new ones just discovered, but the old and
blood-stained ones, trampled under the feet of the
soldiers who enlisted under the banner of Wash
ington. 'J J
Why Not State of Jefferson
Why is there so. much delay in admitting tho
territories? The republicans have in two cam
paigns pledged themselves unequivocally to the
admission of the territories, and yet they seem
more interested in ship subsidy bills and other
measures that they dared not specifically indorse,
than In the measures which they so strongly advo
cated. Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma, including
the Indian Territory, are ready for admission. It
is to be hoped that the controversy over single or
double statehood will not prevent the admission of
Oklahoma. If Oklahoma and the Indian territory
cannot agree upon a jaame, why not drop "Indian
Tirrlfrtr-vif.arid.. ; "OfclDmkadlJifi4ltfei(fllth
iianie i 3 "Jefferson" for both? The state of Ind
iana preserves the Indian name, and tho name of
Oklahoma can be preserved in some local way.
The land embraced in the Indian and Oklahoma
territories is the last of the Louisiana Purchase
to be. incorporated into a state. It would be a
fitting tribute to Jefferson to thus give his name
to a part of the territory purchased under his ad
ministration. It would probably require a year
for the necessary formalities, so that the admis
sion of the state and the adoption of the name
would be a fitting celebration of the one hundredth
anniversary of the purchase of the great trans
Mississippi region.
Washington's name has already been given to
a state, and Jefferon stands next to Washington
among the presidents and beside him in services
rendered to the American people.
JJJ
; Is Mr. Babcock a Deserter?
Republican circles are considerably agitated
these days because of the proposition made by
Congressman Babcock, a republican member, that
the products of trusts be placed on the free list.
In spite of the fact that the republican party has
made a very consistent record as a high protective
organization, the fact remains that Mr. Babcock
has eminent republican authority for the position
he takes.
On October 15, 1888, John Sherman, then a
United States senator, in a speech delivered ri
the senate, said: "Whenever this free competi
tion is evaded, or avoided by combinations of in
dividuals or corporations, the duties should be
reduced and foreign competition invited."
On August 26, 1890, Senator Plumb of Kansas,
in a speech delivered against the then pending tar
iff bill, said: "There are dozens of lines of manu
factures covered by the terms of this bill which are
controlled by trusts. I do not know of ' any better
way to start in, at least to reduce ihe exactions of
the trusts, than to cut down the sholter behind
which trusts aro created."
The late Governor Mount of Indiana, in De
cember, 1899, in a public speech said: "I emphat
ically favor removing all tariff protection from
every industry that belongs to a combination
formed in restraint of trade."
In 1899, whon tho papor trust was bearing heavily
upon newspaper publishers, republican newspapers
throughout tho country declared that if tho paper
trust did not becomo less exacting, republi
can newspapers would insist upon tho removal of
the tariff duties by which tho paper trust found It
possible to impose upon tho nowspaper publishers.
It may occur to republican newspapers that, after
all, Congressman B'abcock may have high repub
lican authority for tho position he now takes.
Probably some republican newspapers and republi
can statesmen will repudiate their former utter
ances in order that they may make it appear that
Mr. Babcock Is a traitor to his party.
As a matter of fact, Mr, Babcock, in his atti
tude upon the trust .question, stands on the demo
cratic platform as adopted at Kansas City In 1900.
That platform declared, "Tariff laws should be
amended by putting the products of trusts upon
the free list, to prevent monopoly under tho plea
df protection." It need not be expected, however,
that the republican party will adopt Mr. Babcock'8
plan, because to do so would bo an IndorsQmfnfr-
o'fyfcbKanSM GJ typlatf orm ; butand " th.UfriiF? ,
mimok imp?brtant--reasonth a'doftfolWf 'W' '
Babcock plan would mean the destruction of con
siderable advantage which certain trusts now
enjoy.
JJJ
The Nicaraguan Canal.
. The Nicaraguan canal bill passed the' house
January 9 by a vote of 308 to 2. Although but two
votes were cast against tho measure, it was evi
dent that there was considerable opposition be
cause of the various amendments proposed dur
ing the bill's consideration. For instance, the
proposition that the president bo empowered, if,
in his judgment it seemed best, to purchase and
complete the Panama route, providing the same
could 'be purchased for $40,000,000, received 102
votes, 170 votes being cast in the negative. Mr.
Cannon of Illinois led the fight In favor of ttfo
Panama route, or rather, against the bill Itself;
and yet, on the final proposition as to the passage
6i the bill, Mr. Fletcher, a republican member"
from Minnesota, and Mr. Lassiter, a democratic
me'mber from Virginia, were the only members
voting' against the measure. It is to be hoped
that the senate will, without unnecessary delay;
pass the Nicaraguan bill. It Is Important that the"
construction work on this great enterprise be com
menced as soon as possible. It is true that the
eleventh hour offer of ' the' Panama canal people
may persuade" some to the notion that, "all "things
considered," the Panama route would be the bet
ter oner butv those who have no particular reason
aside from the question of public interest for pre
ferring one route over the other, will find it diffi-
cult to escape the conclusion that, however disin
terested the offer of the Panama people may be
with respect to the primary question of the ca
nal's prompt construction, there are some inter
ests that would take advantage of this late-day
offer to delay the building' of any canal across the
.isthmus. ' Senator Hanna, for instance, is; by tho
- .fl