ii w n 't? i ii ip mi" i inif
The Commoner
" Wt-ww rw -
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER.'
Vol. 4. N6i 37
Lincoln, Nebraska, September 30, 1904.
Whol Numbtr 193
IT IS NOT A DIGNIFIED DEFENSE
The more one studies Mr. Roosevelt's letter
of acceptance, the more one is convinced that that
letter will not raise the republican candidate in
the public estimation. It is not a strong and dig
nified defense of his party's position on public
Questions, but a dodging, evasive and petcifogging
plea. It is the artful argument of a cunning ad
vocate, not a candid statement of the issues.
His attack upon the democratic position on
the money question is strategic, but not effective.
The money question is not in tlie campaign and his
attempt to scare gold standard advocator into sup
porting him will scare as many republicans away
from him as it will draw or hold democrats to
him. He tries to make capital of the fact that the
democrats, after denouncing the gold standard in
1896 and in 1900, now ignore the question. The
silver democrats who regret the failure of their
party to reaffirm its position on the money ques
tion will not be drawn to Mr. Roosevelt by his
zeal to prove himself an ultra champion of gold,
and the gold democrats will not forget that Mr.
Roosevelt supported his party as enthusiastically
in 1892 when it declared against the gold stand
ard and in 1896 when it favored international bi
matellism "as"rhe" does ' today " when fiis""platf6rm'"'
openly pledges itsoif to the yellow metal. Neither
can they be blind to the fact that Mr. Roosevelt is
discreetly silent about legislation on other phases
of the money question.
The president's attitude on the tariff question
closes the door of hope against those republicans
who desire tariff reform. He makes it clear that
he is willing to allow the manufacturers a free
hand in making the tariff schedule in their own
interest and he supports his position by the thread
bare arguments that have ceased to have weight
even with weir informed republicans. Instead of
questioning the sincerity of his opponents he ought
to have removed the suspicion resting upon him
self by showing when and why he changed his
opinion on the tariff question.
His discussion of the trust question plainly
exhibits. his lack of frankness in dealing with tho
public. He attempts to take both sides of the trust
question. He seeks to cajole the masses by point
ing to the sporadic and spasmodic suits bi ought
against two or three of the trusts when it is "ap
parent to all -that he has made a compact with the
trust magnates whereby they purchase immunity
by supporting him. His talk of enforcement of' the
law sounds like hollow mockery when contrasted
with his' steadfast refusal to employ the criminal
clause of the Slerman law. The arrest of , any one
of the hundreds of trust magnates would go-farther
toward-s destroying the trusts than all that
he has "said or done. His failure to enforce the
law against monopolists'not only disappoints those
who suffer from trust exactions but it alarms those
who realize ,-how the seeds of anarchy are sown
by those who, when entrusted with authority, use
it to punish petty criminals, and to shield big
ones.
His treatment of the labor question is equally
unsatisfactory. . The Jaborlng men are demanding
and are justly entitled to, certain remedial legis
lation, bub instead of 'considering these questions
upon their merits ho presents tho protective tariff
as a panacea for all ills and this tariff Is given,
not to the laboring man but to tho employer. It
would not, as a rule, be safe for a father to leave
his fortune to one child with Instructions to mako
a fair division with the other children. Tho son
in such a case would bo likely to Keep tho lion's
share, notwithstanding the ties of blood, and yet
tho republican party continues to pour the bene
fits of protection Into tho pockets of tho manulac
turers without giving to the wage-earners any
means of securing their share.
The union is the only instrument that tho
laborer has for enforcing a division of tho fund
given to tho employor in trust and now the em
ployers have organized to destroy the union.
What about arbitration? The republicans have
been in complete possession of the federal gov
ernment for tho past eight years and yet they
have not provided a permanent board for the ad
justment of disputes between labor and capital.
Tho employe must still resort to tho strike it ho
and his employer can not agree.
What about government by injunction? Eight
-.yoarsgp the. jjfinate. .passed bill providlngrellcf,
but the corporations discovered its purpose and
have since that time prevented its passage.
Tho president's attitude ought to bo satisfac
tory to tho corporations but laboring men can
find nothing In it to commend. On the contrary
the men who toil must see in the president's advo
cacy of an army more than twice as large as we
had eight years ago a menace to them. To say
that our army is not large enough to endanger
the whole population Is no argument. Why should
we tax ourselves to support a larger army than we
actually need? Twenty-five thousand soldiers
were enough In 1896; .what, except a republican
administration, has occurred since to mako sixty
thousand necessary now? Is the vaunted prosper
ity so difficult to see that ltmust bo pointed out
with bayonets? It our imperial policy makes the
army necessary what commercial advantage do we
secure that will off-set tho additional expense?
In discussing the subject the president evades
the principle involved. He scrambles dut and
destiny and dollars together as if he was not sure
of either if examined on Its own merits. He boasts
of liberty given to the Filipinos as if liberty were
a commodity which we were generously bestowing
upon them as a favor. His language is not es
sentially different from that employed by George
til when boasting of his generous treatment of tho
American colonies. It would be a reflection upon
his intelligence to assume that he does not know
that a colonial policy is antagonistic to our prin
" ciples of government his own utterances in for
mer years furnish conclusive proof of this. Why
then does he not meet the question boldly? Why
does he hesitate to state his party's position with
the reasons for it? To say that we can not tell
yet what we should promise the Filipinos is like
saying that the finder of a pocketbook can not tell
whether to return it to the owner until he counts
the money and ascertains whether the owner ia
likely to make a wise use of it. He quotes copi
ously from Judge Parker's speech of acceptance
but there is ono portion of tho speech to which
ho was carorul not to refer, namely, the pledge
not to bo a candidate for a second term. There
is a wide-spread suspicion that tho president ex
pects to be a candidate again In 1908 and he might
have followed Judge Parker's example and an
nounced his purpoao, but ho may bo as much op
posed to giving such a promise to the public as he
is to promising independence to tho Filipinos.
Tho president's letter contains no promise of
reform; ho boasts of what tho administration has
done as freely as If he were not himself tho Alpha
and tho Omega of the administration and appeals
to those only who arc entirely satisfied with exist
ing conditions. Those who want tho tariff high
and are friendly to private monopolies; those
who sympathize with capital In all its demands
and want to turn tho laborers over to the war
department; those who prefer tho spirit of war
to tho spirit of poaco and colonialism to consti
tutional government; those who are willing to
blindly trust tho republican party without pledge
or promise such will bo pleased with tho letter,
but thoughtful and patriotic citizens who look
ahead and sc.o the plutocratic tendency of all re
publican policies will find nothing reassuring' in
this latest emlnation from the chief 6l tho repub
lican, hosts.
JJJ
The Colorado Situation
The political and Industrial situation in Colo
rado at the present time Is attracting much more
tlian tho average amount of attention, and Is
In direct contrast to the situation in a majority of
the states. The supporters of Governor Fcabody
claim to be the friends of law and order and as
sert that they arc only doing what Is necjssary to
suppress lawlessness. The Denver News, lu a
strong editorial, points out that instead of sup
porting law and promoting order they favor ft
continuance of tho present situation which is really
a reign of lawlessness.
Under Governor Peabody constitutional rights
have been ignored and the militia turned over to
private corporations to inforce their decrees
against their omployes. Men have been arrested
without charges being filed against them and held
in prison at the caprice of the governor and his
military subordinates. Men have been taken from
their homes and deported without trial and the
writs of civil courts have been ignored. The peo
ple in whoso interests Governor Peabody has made
himself a czar are allowed to organize vigilance
committees, condemn men as disturbera of the
peace and execute their decrees without any regard
for the processes of the law. Claiming to protect
property the exponents of Peabody Ism have dis
regarded the property rights as well as the' natural
and civil rights of laboring men and have be
more harsh and arbitrary in dealing with labor,
both union and non-union, than they ever accused
the union men of being toward men outside of
their organization. Having re-nominated Peabody
the republicans ask for an endorsement of the
governor's administration.
The democrats condemn the official lawlessness
that has characterized Governor Peabody ad-