Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1904)
""" The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. f . Vol. 4. No. 24. Lincoln, Nebraska, July 1, 1904. Whole No. 180. The Republican Platform Boastful, But Neither Truthful Nor Courageous Somo one has described the republican party as like the potato vine ''the best part of it being under ground." The platform adopted last week at Chicago by the republican national convention seems to justify this description. It is devoted to reminiscence and glows with funereal phrases. The eulogy pronounced in the platform would seem immodest if it described the work of those present in the convention and, as the republican leaders are nothing if not modest, their language must be construed as referring to the dead or tho absent. The pledges for the future are so meager, as compared with the praise of past achievements, that the party's attitude resembles the attitude of a prisoner at the bar who refuses to testify and relies for acquittal upon the testimony of friends as to former good character. . Tho most emphatic part of the platform, so far as it deals with pending issues, is that devoted to the tariff question and tho language on this sub ject seems intended as a rebuke to tho tariff re yisionists in the republican party. ' Republican, leaders sqem to go on the theory that their platforms supply the only authentic his tory of the country and that instead of being un der obligation to recite facts they can by their simple statement create facts, Witness the gross misrepresentation contained in one sentence. The platform says: "A democratic tariff has always been followed by business, adversity; a republican tariff by business prosperity." Now what are the facts? The democratic tariff of 186 was followed by an era of prosperity so widespread that when the republican party wrote its first national plat form in 1856 the platform did not mention a pro tective tariff. Here, then, is an historical fact which shows that adversity does not always fol low a democratic tariff. How about the panics of 1873 and 1893? Did they follow democratic tar iffs? When the panic of 1873 occurred the repub lican party was in power in all the branches of the federal government and the country was in tho undisturbed possession of a republican high tariff law. Not only that, but the panic came just -after tho overwhelming republican victory of 1872 that put the party in pdsition to make the tariff still higher if that was deemed necessary. Did the republican leaders forget the panic of 1873, or Were they simply Indifferent to the truth? Here, then, is an historical fact which proves conclusively that prosperity does not always fol low a republican tariff. But what of the panic of 1893? It came while .the McKinley tariff was still in force a year before the Wilson law went into effect. They may reply that the panic was caused by the.threat of. the repeal of the McKinley law in volved In. the election of Mr. Cleveland, but there is no force in that argument, for if the people Were pleased with the McKinley law why did the democrats win a sweeping victory in 1890 and two years later, defeat by nearly 400,000 votes the republican candidate who as president signed the McKinley bill? The republican platform claims too much. It -boastfully asserts that the republican party has controlled the government during near ly all of the forty-four years since 18G0. It declares that tho democrats had un disputed control during but two years of tho forty four (and it might have added that tho so-called democrat who occupied tho White houso during those two years helped to elect a republican suc cessor). Why, then, does It try to escape re sponsibility for the two disastrous panics which have occurred since 1800? The platform says: "When the only freo trade country among the great nations agitates a return to protection tho chief protection country should not faltor In maintaining it." If the writ ers of that platform had been entirely frank they would have said that the policy of protection in the United States has raised tariff barriers against this country in most of tho countries of Europe and that retaliation against the United States is tho main argument of those who advocate pro tection in England. So much for tho tariff plank of the platform. In discussing the trust question also the plat form appeals to memory rather than inspires hope. It claims credit for republican anti-trust laws "which the democratic party failed to en force" and declares that they have been "fear lessly enforced by a republican president." Here again Mr. Cleveland is charged up to the demo cratic party. The odious record of his plutocratic administration still hangs like a millstone about the democratic party's neck. It is base ingratitude on the part of the republican leaders to seize tho White house through Mr. Cleveland's treachery to his party and then use his administration as a horrible example. Only by contrast can Presi dent Roosevelt's administration seem to be fear lessly anti-trust. , Shown against a black back ground of Clevelandism almost any color looks bright, but standing alone and judged on its mer its the Roosevelt administration is anything but an anti-monopoly administration. The existence of a multitude of trusts is well known; tho ex tortion practiced by those trusts is enormous and everywhere apparent. What is the president do ing to destroy them? His friends point to the decision in the merger case, but it has not been followed up by the enforcement of the principle established by it, and the temporary chairman of the convention is one of the most conspicuous corporation attorneys in the country. Tho plat form not only fails to promise any specific rem edy, not only declares the party content with the' little done by the administration, but com placently classes the trusts with the labor organi zations. It says: "Combinations of capital and of labor are the result of the economic movement of the age." This is a defense of the trusts not a condemnation. Then the platform adds: "But neither must be permitted to infringe upon the rights' and interests of the people." Here again the laboring man is used as a companion piece for the trust. "Such combinations," continues the platform, "when lawfully formed for lawful purposes are alike entitled to the protection of . the laws, but both are subject to the laws, and neither can be permitted to break them." ,As the trusts are now breaking tho laws with impunity, this must bo intended as a warning to laboring men only. The trusts aro holding tho laboring man botween themselves and tho flro of public opinion. Aa a declaration against trusts tho plat form is a hollow mockery ono must bo anxious to deceive himself. if ho accopta the republican platform as offering any hope of relief from trust exactions. There are no words of encouragement for tho laboring man. He is promised punishment if he violates the law, but he is offered no relief from government by injunction. He is assured that the Dlngley tariff has givon him raoro em ployment and higher wages, but nothing is said about an eight-hour day. Tho platform pledges the party to "tho peace ful settlement of international differences by ar bitration," but nothing is said about arbitration between American corporations and their em ployes. Why is the laboring man thus Ignored? The answer is easy: It is because the republican party as now organized is a party of the corpora tions and it acts for tho corporations. In enumerating the deeds which thoy regard 'am0ritorioiis,tbe writer,-of tke platform call attention lb tariff legislation, the establishment of the gold standard, the reduction of taxes after the Spanish war, the restoration of public credit, the freeing of Cuba, the suppressing of insurrec tion in the Philippines, tho preservation of the integrity of China, tho securing of a canal route, tho encouragement of irrigation, tho reorganiza tion of the army, the Improvement of the mllltla, and the increase in the navy, but there Is in all the enumeration no act which is declared to be in the interest of labor, although without the labor vote the party would not have a majority in a half dozen states. Even in pointing with prido to President Roosevelt's action In settling the coal strike they did not dare to Indorse arbi tration as a permanent method for settling dis putes between capital and labor. On the great question of imperialism the re publican party announces no policy and gives no pledge. It refers to the subject and declares that tho republican party has established order In tho Philippines, given security to life and property and "conferred upon the people of those Islands the largest civil liberty they have ever onjoyed." What a proud boast! They were subjects of a king and were ruled by arbitrary authority and they are better off under our rule than under Spanish rule! Is this all they are to hope for? Then, too, "civil liberty" has been "conferred" upon them! What a departure from the doctrine of Jefferson and Lincoln! Instead of being great republic holding before the world the light of self-government we have shrunken to the stat ure of a benevolent despot doling out liberty la broken doses to "inferior races," assuring them meanwhile that our medicine is more pleasant to take than the medicine which they formerly re ceived at the hands of kings! The platform contains a plank threatening reprisals on the south if black suffrage is inter fered with, but contains not a word about the 6 II ii fl IM . i"rkiA. J.a