mirmimmimHtoHimwm'vtmwtow?m00ttMf
The Commoner
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
Vol. 5. No. 27
Lincoln, Nebraska, July 21, 1905
Whole Number 235
CONTENTS
Are the Pkoft-e Powerless?
Why hot "Let Well Ehoitgii Aloke?"
THIS PAHAMA. Faecm
DOES BoHABAKXB StAHD AlOHB?
, A 3T.BAIJD Okdeb
Ihcompleeb BmrcATioir
koosetect ahd tub equitable .
MxIkstohes oh Love's Pathway
A Shadowy Memoiey
CoiOIEHT OH CuRKENT TOPICS
Tins Primary Puedgb
News ov tite Week
ANOTHER TRUST EXPOSED
The International Harvester company sued
Mr. Rodney B. Swift for an accounting, claiming
that Mr. Swift had cheated the company. Mr.
Swift replies' by accusing the Harvester trust of
collecting' rebates from several railroads to the
amount of 5,000,000 and of conspiring to monop
olize Interstate commerce. Whether Mr. Swift
is seeking to force the trust to a settlement or
really intends to expose the lawlessness of the
trust can not now be determined, but it is to "be
hoped that the suit will bring out the facts. The
Harvester trust is a constant menace to agricul
ture and it will be a glad day when its inner work
ings are made known to the public. Why does
the president not prosecute the Harvester trust?
JJJ
" WHY NOT "LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE?"
Chauncey M. Depew has so long posed as a
champion of "national honor" and an uncompro
mising defender of the rules of "common hon
esty" that some people were doubtless surprised
when they learned that for years Mr. Depew
has been carried upon the pay roll of the Equi
table Life Assurance society at an annual salary
of $20,000. But now we are told by the New
York World that in the inquiry made by the
New York state insurance department Senator
Depew admitted that the Depew Improvement
company in which he was interested obtained a
loan from the Equitable of $250,000 on property
which the state insurance department valued
at only $150,000. Mr. Depew admitted that
neither loan nor interest had been paid and that
the mortgage had been foreclosed. While claim
ing that as a member of the executive commit
tee of the Equitable he did not advise the loan,
ho admitted that he voted for it Mr. Depew
further said that he had made a verbal guaranty
to save the Equitable from loss on this loan, but
he added that the promise iras "not legally
binding."
Inquiries of this kind should not be permit
ted. They amount to "an assault upon the busi
ness interests of the country," to an "attack upon
national honor," to an arraignment of "the public
faith" and to various other things the exact de
scription of which is not just now recalled, but
one may refresh his memory by referring to the
speeches delivered by Mr. Depew in 1896 and 1900.
How are the Depews, the Mitchells, and the
Burtons, the Rockefellers, the Rogers and the
Hydes, the patient, plodding, persistent protectors
of public good to succeed in the patriotic effort
of "letting well enough alone" when their prac
tices are inquired into in this ruthless way?
mm imm mmmmmmm . -, - ,
' . "4t si.C .11' ' s. 1
. A"r c .1 f ,ui,' - " . v" ""J" Mi
: iz. I - ' -"?? .. ' : . vc
. -fe5s-- I
r t mm - - - -t u . ' I
ijVt If
& 7l
WHERE WILL HE FATTEN THE STEED?
ARE THE PEOPLE POWERLESS
Thomas W. Lawson has done great work in
arousing the people to the evils of the money
power or as Mr. Lawson has called it, "the sys
tem." But Mr. Lawson is rather pessimistic so
far as concerns the application or the logical rem
edy in a republic and the remedy which must bo
effective unless we are prepared to admit that
popular government is a failure.
In his speeches delivered on his western tour,
Mr. Lawson said that the way to attack "the
system" is for the people to sell their stocks.
But do we not know that the stockholding peo
ple and they comprise a very small proportion of
the population will not be governed so much by
a desire to attack "the system" as they will by an
anxiety to derive profits from their stocks? Mayor
Dunne of Chicago hit the nail on the head when
he said that the cry, "Get rid pf your stocks" is
"the stock-gamblers' way of 'getting even.'" It
is not, however, an available method for the peo
ple to hold in check those powerful influences
through whoso machinations public interests aro
made to suffer.
Mr. Lawson says "there Is small hope from
the ballot box." In his speech at Ottawa, Kan.,
ho said that "the system" has unlimited dollars
and ballots are impotent against dollars. He
said that with $5,000,000 he saw Rogers rob the
democrats of the presidency In 1896 and he asked:
"Do you imagine he would shrink from repeating
the operation in 1908 if he feared that the man
nominated would upset his control?"
Suppose the people should act on Mr. Law
son's advice to sell stock, Does Mr. Lawson think
that Rogers and his associates would shrink from
meeting, in an ingenious way, that move against
them? Of course men who have bought elections
in the past would not hesitate to undertake the
purchase in the future, but Mr. Lawson forgets
that in 1896 thousands of honest people were de
ceived and were really led to believe that the
men who were contributing millions for the re
publican campaign fund wore patriots rather than
individuals who were seeking to perpetuate "the
system." And while Mr. Rogers would not shrink .
from repeating the operation in 1908 it is very
probable that thousands of men who marched to
the ballot box shoulder to shoulder with Rogers
and his associates would shrink from that
association.
Mr. Lawson seems to be wholly hopeless of
rel'' outside of the stock market. Relief is not
to be looked for from the courts, according to
Mr. Lawson, because, as ho explains, the great
corporations "do not hesitate to suborn perjury,
brilic juries and pay judges for favorable deci
sions." In the same speech in which this state
ment was made Mr.. Lawson opposes government
ownership In Its various phases, referring to mu
nicipal ownership as "a will of the wisp." But
when Mr. Lawson admits that the great corpor
ations "do not hesitate to suborn perjury, bribe
juries and pay judges for favorable decisions,"
and says that the people are powerless to pro
tect themselves from this condition, he provides
the very strongest argument In favor of govern
ment ownership. There are many people who are
net yet convinced of the advisability of govern
ment ownership, but who are strongly in favor of
government control and who desire to see an
honest experiment along that line.. But if there '
can be no such thing as government control, then
these people will demand government ownership.
Mr. Lawson's description means that the great
corporations own the government, and if the peo
ple become convinced that no relief under pres-
f
'
yuj. ,j. -. -jff Vpf -fattrtAjhw.,.
