The Commoner.
" ; WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PUBLI5HER.
Vol. 4, No. 46.
Lincoln, Nebraika, December 2, 1904.
Wholo Number 203
...THE VALUE OF CONSTANCY...
Tlio Baltimore News in a post-election issue
ha the following to say in regard to Mr. Bryan's
consistency:
The comprehensive statement made by Mr.
Bryan of his position, and of his views as to
tlio proper course for the democratic party to
tak6 in the future, is marked by the strength
and clearness that have usually characterized
his leading utterances. It Is marked, also, by
that quality of cast-iron immobility which
evidently forms an ineradicable part of his
code of nolitical conduct. "Whatever his mo
time, whatmer the calculation or absence of
calculation that .may be at the bottom of this
characteristic of Mr. Bryan's political record,
it is one ttat is distinctive of the man and that
differentiates him, we believo, from any other
notable political leader, either in American or
in English hibtory. Mr. Bryan may add new
principles or purposes to his repertory, but the
process of substraction does not exist for him.
Once an f.dvorate of a given course always an
advocate of itthis would seem to be a fun
damental maxim with the Nebraska leader.
Whatever may happen to other men, to parties,
to the nation, to the world, as regards, tho
status of s,i-ver, in. William Jennings Bryan
there must lie no variation, neither shadow of ..
turning., Ue,;was for silver in J89,Gnhe.was fQ
it in' 1900, ho was for it in 190CancHie will be
for it; ho tfclls us; once more now, to the end
of the" chapter. And as it is with silyer so it
is with banks, so it is with tho newly acquired
doctrine of stnte ownership of railroads, so it
is with everything.
There are wo ways, and, so far as we can
see, two ways only, of accounting for this
mpst remarkable phenomenon. Against other
political leaders, from Gladstone down, incon
, sistency is the most familiar of charges; in the
case of Mr. Bryan alone Is there occasion for
the accusation of consistency carried to a
point so extreme as to amount to something
abnormal, srnu thing offensive to a wholesome
political instinct. Of this singular circum
stance, there are, as we have said, two possible
explanations One is that Mr. Bryan is a man
of such ousti.ro virtue as absolutely to ignore
practical considerations which tho most high
minded of his cn temporaries and of his prede
cessors have recognized as entitled to deter
minative weight in the shaping of their polit
ical course The other is that Mr. Bryan,
whether altogether deliberately and conscious
ly or not, has acted from the outset upon the
feeling that his hold on his following is bound
up with his reputation for Inflexible adherence
to the ca..Po his championship of which firt
made him a national figure, and to wh.Ich, in
his first campaign, he vowed undying alle
giance. That it takes remarkable firmness to
adhere to such a position, even if It be one
adopted in large measure upon an intuitive
calculation of its strength, must be admitted;
but It is rot a kind of firmness which calls for
unalloyed admiration, or which is adapted to
tho making or the kind of party leader or tho
kind of statesman that is, needed by tho coun-.
try.
Why nhould Mr, Bryan change his position
upon te questions which he has discussed? -There
is an old saying that "wise men change their
minds, but fools never." This Is always quoted to
justify a change of opinion, but it Is a mistake to
infir that wise men are the only ones who change
their minds, .or that a change of mind is neces
sanlv an indication of wisdom. Motion is defined
a3 change of place; it. may mean an advance or;
a retreat; If a man snakes a mistake -it is credit-
'lUlii- fMlim,l)!ilN!llMHHIH!milJ
aiile to him to chango his mind, but If ho espouses
a righteous cause why should ho recant? Why
should he chango his position simply to gain pop
ularity? When Mr. Bryan was elected to congress in
1SV0, Le ran upon a platform which ho wrote hlm
seli It contained a plank denouncing tho tariff
policy of the republican party as "contrary to tho
spirit of our constitution, Inimical to tho best In
terests of our country and especially unjust and
unfair to the people of the groat northwest." That
was fourteen years ago. Two years afterwards tho
democratic na'tional platform denounced a tarilf
"levied for tho purpose of protection as unconsti
tutional, and tho candidate who ran upon that
platform carried tho country by a largo electoral
vote and by a largo popular voto. Mr. Bryan has
not changed his opinion on tho tariff question, but
is even more firmly convinced than ho was in
1890 that protection for protection's sake Is merely
robbery under the form of the law. Tho tariff Is
given in tho ostensible interest of tho wage-earners,
but it Is given to the manufacturer and tho manu
facturer is not compelled to share its advantages
with the employes. Very few republicans would
be willing to leave their estates to ono child and
trust the one child to deal fairly with tho rest of
the children, and yet for thirty yoars they havo
voted hundreds of millions of dollars into the
pockets of manufacturers whom they have never
seen1 and have trusted the manufacturers to deal
fairly with their employos.
When "the money question became paramount
the tariff question was pushed into tho background,
and again when imperialism became paramount
tho tariff question was not much discussed, but tho
principles that underlie a revenue tariff have not
changed and there Is no reason why Mr. Bryan
should surrender his belief in tho correctness of
those principles merely because the republican
party has been successful in three campaigns.
Mr. Bryan's platform of 1890 condemned tho
giving of subsidies and bounties of every kind, and
added: "our merchant marine can best be restored
by a repeal of the laws which have caused its
decline." He still opposes subsidies and bounties
of every kind, and believes them to bo a perver
sion of tho taxing power. Why should he chango
his views on thi3 subject?
His platform also contained tho following
plank: "Wo favor an amendment of the federal
constitution which will take the election of United
States senators from the state legislatures and
place it in the hands of the people, where it be
longs." He still believes in this doctrine. When
that plank was written the house of representa
tives had never passed a resolution proposing the
necessary amendment, but since that time the
house has four time passed such a resolution twice
with a democratic majority and twice with a re
publican majority. But each time tho senate has
. blocked the way to the submission of the amend
ment More than two-thirds of tho states of the
' union have adopted resolutions favoring this re
form. The democratic national platforms, both
- in 1900 and in 1904 endorsed this doctrine. Is
there any reason why Mr. Bryan should change
his position on this subject?
His platform of 1890 also-favored "the Aus
tralian or some similar system of balloting which
will insure to every citizen tho right to cast his
voto according to his own judgment, free from
corruption and intimidation." Since that plank
was written the Australian ballot has been adopted
in .a large number of states and has been of great
service to the country. Is there any reason why he
should change his views upon this subject?
His platform also contained the following
plank "Wo are opposed to tho trust in all its
forms; and, favor vigorous .measures,, for. its pre-
vontlon and suppression." This plank was writ
ten In tho beginning of tho anti-trust fight, the
very yoar that tho Shorman anti-trust law wai
enacted, and Mr. Bryan has scon no reason to
chango his position. He Is still opposod to tho trust
in all its forms, and was instrumental in having
insortcd in tlio national platforms of 1S9G and 1900
tho declaration that "a prlvato monopoly is indc
fonslblo and lntolorablo." Every year adds to his
conviction that tho princlplo of prlvato monopoly
must be eradicated. It is as absurd to pormlt thorn
to flourish and thon try to restrain thorn from
harming tho public as It would bo to kcop a lot
of rattlesnakes in one's houso and expect to protect
the members of tho family from their poison. God
never made a man good enough to stand at the
head of a prlvato monopoly, and tho effort which
tho republicans promise to make to regulate mo
nopolies will provo a futile offort. Prlvato monop
olies must bo destroyed, not merely controlled.
His platform in 1890 also denounced tho fore
bill as "aa encroachment upon tuo rights of the
citizens and an attempt to pcrpetuato tho repub
lican party In power by overruling tho election
laws of tho states;" and it also condomnod the re
publican congressman from tho Lincoln district for
the support,of that measure. Is there any reason
why Mr. Bryan should change bis views upon
this subject?
His platform of 1890 said "tho public domain
should bo preserved for tho actual settlers, and
wo demand tho enactmont of a lav prohibiting
tho holding of lands by non-resident aliens." He
has seen no roason to chango his views upon this
question.
His platform of 1890 denounced Speaker Reed's
rules as "having tho intent and operation not only
of overruling the rights of tho minority but also
of enabling an actual minority, it being a majority
of tho party in power, to enact legislation at the
dictation of tho secret caucus without deliberation
or debate, thus enormously increasing the Influ
ence of a corrupt lobby." Mr. Bryan has not
seen any reason for changing his views on this
subject The purpose of tho Reed rule was not to
enable a majority to govern, because It was not
necessary to count a quorum when there were
present enough in favor of the bill to constitute a
majority of tho entire house. A rule to prevent
fllllbustoring is a very different rule from the
one providing for the counting of a quorum. In
most of tho states tho constitutions provide for
a roll-call on tho final passage of a measure and
require the concurrence of a majority of the mem
bers to be made a matter of record. There Is no
such provision in the federal constitution, although
there should be. By refusing to voto a minority
could compel tho concurrence of a majority in
legislation and the intent and effect of the count
ing of a quorum was to deprive the minority of
this privilege, or rather right Since tho adoption
of the rule many measures of Importance have beon
passed by less than a majority, enough of the mi
nority being counted to show that a majority of
the members were present at the time. According
to tho new rule, one more than one-fourth of the
entire house can pass a law if another fourth is
present and not voting, the two-fourths, plus
. one, making a majority of the house. Since the
adoption of tho Iteed rules the house has ceased
to bo a deliberative body, and measures are often,
put through without discussion and without de-
bate, and the majority has thus 1 een able to avoid
being put on record on amendments where a
record vote might be embarrassing. Mr. Bryan
still adheres to his opposition to the principles
involved in the rule for the counting of a quorum.
Besides containing the planks above referred
to, Mr. Bryan's platform of 1890 contained a pen
sion plank and the following plank on the silver.
M
?
l
siirfkijjj:, M-uk . u--