" i-
feSM
'2
The Commotiet.
VOLUME 7, NUMBER 24
'...
TSyTT'vjFs
rtlny platform that might he adopted," or support
'any candldato who might be selected, for these
questions must ho loft to th,e conscience of each
votor, but when I say that he expects to support
the ticket, I mean that ho desires to do so and
will do bo unless good and Sufficient reasons
can ho given for refusal. I may add that his
jnombcrohlp in tho democratic party can not bo
thoroughly democratic unless ho considers other
members equally entitled with him to a voico
Jin tio p'ftrty's dollboratlons and to an influenco
'in tho party's management. No intelligent man
becomes a member of the party with Ahe ex
pectation that ho wjll1, agree Upon all stibjects
with ovory niiJmbor 6f tho party, but he ought
to expect 'to agree with other members on tho
general policy" of tho party and be willing to
Confer on equal terms with other members as
to details and methods, content that the voice
of the majority shall bo the voico of the party
, unless the majority violates some fundamental
(principle or demands of him tho surrender of a
conviction.
I think, however, that your question calls
for a broader consideration of the subject. If
the democratic party is entitled to tho name, it
must bo true to tho ideas of democracy, and
v , if wo can for a moment lay aside party defini
tions I will dgflno a democrat as ono who be
lieves in the rule of the people. The word,
democracy, is derived from the Greek, and the
two words, demos (tho people), and krateo (to
rule), leave no doubt that a democracy is a
government in which the people rule. A demo
crat, thorefore, if the meaning of the name is .
considered, must be one who believes in the
rule of tho people.
This view of the subject is sustained by
the writings of Jefferson. A short time before
his death in a letter to Mr Lee ho said: "Men
by their constitutions are naturally divided into
two parties: ' First, those who fear and distrust
tho people and wish to draw all power from
jthom into the hands of the higher classes;
(second, those who identify themselves with, the
'people, have confidence in them, cherish and
consider them as the most wise depository of
the public interests. In every country these
"X two parties exist, and in every one whore they
, are. free to, think, speak, and write,, they will
declare themselves." Then, speaking of itie va
rious names which had been applied in different
countries to these two parties, he said: "The
last appellation of aristocrats anjd democrats is
the true one, expressing tho essence of all."
It will be seen that Jefferson used tho word
democrat to distinguish those who have cOn-
fidence in the people, and the word aristocrat
'to describe those who fear and distrust the
people, and no one can torture the word demo
crat into any other meaning or apply it accu
rately without considering the distinction which
Jefferson points out.
What Jefferson said was true at the time
ho said it, and it is as true today. These two
parties are to be found in every country, and
I no matter by what name they are known, they
represent the two elements in society. Those
i who trust the people are everywhere endeavor
ing to bring tho government nearer to the peo
ple and to make it more responsive to tho will
!of the people. Those who distrust the people
aro everywhere endeavoring to obstruct each
now step toward popular government.
We have in this country the distinction
which Jefferson pointed out, and from tho
earliest time have had among our inhabitants
both the aristocrat and the democrat. Hamil
ton represented the aristocratic idea of his day
and proposed a plan of government which pro
vided for a president holding office during good
behavior, for senators holding office during good
hehavlor, and for , governors appointed by the
federal government and holding office during
good behavior. Hamilton distrusted the people
and wanted to remove the government as far
from tho people as possible. He feared the
"passions of the multitude," "the influence of
the mob." etc., etc. We have some today
who take Hamilton as their ideal and who, like
Hamilton, distrust the people and seek to build,
complicated systems of representation between
the people and their mihlin mrvnnta mi
however, do not represent tho mass Qf-ihervoteri
in any party and can only be successful when
they can deceive the party as to their real
purpose.
Hamilton's idea was related aWheme
of the adoption of the cotitUtiionriWVe
ideas of Jefferson were triumphant. The pop
ular idea has continued to grow and the doc
trines of Jefferson were never stronger than
they are today. Our United States senate is
more Hamiltonian in Its method of election than
the house, and the constant growth of sentiment
in favor of the popular election of United States
senators is evidence that tho democratic idea
is larger than tho membership of any party.
I can remember very well when the resolution
submitting the necessary constitutional amend
ment passed tho national house of representa
tives for the first time. A number of democratic
senators were fearful of the effects of tho
changer it was a now departure and they -were
very conservative, but time has either cPn
vinced them or forced them tv keep silent, and
the sanie influence is at work converting- repub
lican leadors or silencing them. The popular
election of senators by the people was endorsed
by tho democratic national convention of 1900
and by the democratic national convention of
1904. While the committee On resolutions spent
sixteen hours on the 1904 platform, this was one
question upon which there was no division of
sentimont. Today a man can hardly claim to
be democratic in his ideas and yet oppose the
popular election of United States senators.
There is a question, however, upon which
there is at present a division of opinion among
democrats, namely -the initiative and the refer
endum or, as the system is sometimes called,
direct legislation. These terms are used to de
scribe tho system which gives to the people a
larger control over their own affairs by per
mitting them to vote directly on propositions
submitted to them. This reform will not abolish
representatives but it will enable the-voters to
coerce the representatives into obedience to the
popular will. As the subject is better under
stood, its harmony with democracy will become
more 'and more apparent,- and I have no doubt
that the time will come when the people will
understand the subject of direct legislation as
well as they do the popular election of senators,
and then it will be as difficult for a democrat
to oppose the former as It now iB to oppose tho
latter.
While the application of the doctrine of
direct legislation was naturally made to the
city first and to the state afterwards, the prin
ciple applies just as well to the national gov
ernment as to governments covering smaller
areas. The question is, shall the people Tule?
And that question Is as vital in the government
of the nation as in the government of a state,
a county Or a city. Of course in the nation
the equal position of the" states must be re
spected, and it Is absurd-to' talk- of 'the small
state's being overwhelmed by a popular vote for
those who favor the application of the initiative
and referendum to national questions favor it
with the understanding that the people of a
majority of tho states as well as a majority of
all the people must concur.
One who believes in the right of the people
to rule and in the capacity of the people for
self government naturally accepts the funda
mental democratic doctrine of local self gov
ernment that is that the people can govern
best where they best understand conditions. The
democrat believes that the individual should
be ief t to choose his own course except where
his action would injuriously affect others, that
each community should attend to its own mat
ters, that the state should have control of state
affairs and that federal government should be
supremo in its sphere.
If a man is really democratic in sentiment,
that is, it he really believes in the rule of the
people, this belief dominates him in the consid
eration of all the questions that come before
the people." He looks at questions from the
standpoint of the whole people and not from the
standpoint of a few. His conception of society
is that it Is built from the bottom, not from the
top. While the aristocrat pictures prosperity
as dripping down to the masses from the well-to-do,
the democrat can not imagine a pros
perity that does not begin With the producers
of wealth.
The democrat believes in applying demo
cratic doctrine to every question, There are
those who are constantly democratic, and then
there are those who are democratic in spots;
there are those who apply democratic princi
ples to all questions, and there are others who
apply democratic principles to some questions.
It ought to be the purpose of those who engage
in educational work to enlarge the number of
questions to which democratic principles are
applied. It-Is hardly 'worth' while1 towaste time
tm one who is Jreally aristocratic I'nr sentiment.
It is impossible to' make a democrat out of him
until hennas change of hearty but itHs possible
to show a real'Vlernocrat that he as' failed to
apply democratic .principles to 'tf particular
question. In 1896 a number of persons left our
party who called themselves democrats. Some
of them were aristocratic In sentiment, and their
departure was perfectly natural. They have-not
come back, and they will not come back so
long as the democratic party is democratic, but
a far greater numher of those who left us in,
1896 left from misunderstanding. Most of these
have come back and the rest will come back, a
majority of the republicans ar really demo
cratic in their fundamental ideas, and to these
we can appeal if the democratic party convinces
them that it can be trusted to carry out demo
cratic principles.
To recapitulate, a democrat according to a
party definition is a man who connects himself
with the democratic party and acts politically
with those who bear the same party-name. In
a broader sense, he Is a democrat Tvho Relieves
in th6 rule of the people and who Hesires to
make the government the instrument in. the
hands or the people to carry out their will.
Such a man trusts the people and favors such
reforms as will give to the people an increas
ing power. And a real democrat will not only
favor democratic methods in government and
insist upon the right of the majority to rule,
but he will favor the administration of the gov
ernment in the interest of the whole people ac
cording to the Jeffersonlan maxim, "equal rights
tp all and special privileges to none." If I at
tempted to apply these definitions to particular
questions I would enter the .field, of contro
versy, but I do not understand that there is
or can be any controversy over the doctrine that
one is democratic when he trusts the pe.ople
and undemocratic when he distrusts-them.''
Very truly yours? "
W. J. BRYAN.
., oooo
A WORD ON SPECULATION
The Journal of Finance,, of Chicago, takes
exceptions to Mr. Bryan's remarks before the
board of trade and transportation in New York.
In the speech referred to, Mi Bryan said: "I
want to vofce the complaint of the western
farmer against the form of gambling Indulged
in by some of your institutions. Speculating
in the necessaries of life is "a serious thing.
When the speculators, by betting lower the
price of the wheat, they hurt the farmer; -when
by betting they raise the price of wheat, they
hurt the man "who buys flour. .Both the farmer"
and the consumer are entitled to the price fixe
by the law of supply and demand, and when
outsiders interfere with this law and substitute
a price fixed by speculation, both the! farmer and N
the consumer have a right to. complain." " Thfe
editor of the Journal of Finance makes a de
fense of speculation, and like all others who
attempt to bolster up a weak cause, misrepre
sents the issue. He says: "Would he (Mr.
Bryan) have congress pass a law requiring tho
farmers to sell their products at certain stand
ard prices, no matter what might be the relative
conditions of supply and demand? If specula
tors in Chicago or any other persons are willing
to pay the present price of one dollar per bushel,
for wheat, for-instance, should the farmer be,
compelled to sell his wheat around the prices
prevailing before the recent big speculation in
Chicago advanced wheat from eighty cents per
bushel? On the other hand, if speculators
should discount an Increase in supply aver de
mand of wheat justifying, say, a return to the
price of eighty cents per bushel, Should purch?
asers then be compelled to pay one dollar a
bushel simply that wheat raisers might enjoy -
extraordinary prosperity at their-expense?"
No one is asking-for a law requiring farmr
ers to sell their products at certain standard
prices, but farmers are asking that they be pro
tected from the men who disturb the law of sup
, ply and demand by betting on the price of other
people's goods. If two men want to gamble
'on the future price of wheat, go into a room with
a stake-holder and put up their money, they do
not affect the price of the commodity, and the
only question presented is a moral one, but
when two men in order to make a bet go through
the form of purchasing grain that they never
expect to deliver and by making these specula
tive transactions raise or lower the price of the
grain, they are interfering with the law of sup
ply and demand and are doing injustice to those
who have a right to rely upon the natural laws -of
trade. Then, too, speculation" Invitee the
cornering of the market. The big speculators.
;not satisfied to take their, chancesiipon their
iMgment, engineer deals for the purpps'e of
t.ojhpelling the market tp go 'their, way. Botli
he farmer and the legitimate purchaser of the
ppduct are at th mercy of the. speculator, and
,nc- defense can be made of such peculation
either in law or in morals. The essence and
not the form of the transaction should be con?
sidered, and a speculator who without adding
anything -to the supply of wheaf or contributing
any service of value in tha transportation" or
distribution of the wheat, grows rich by the,
manipulation of the market, is as guilty from;
moral standpoint as one who by the ordinary
s
'V
xmesssstt
" n i
'.s
.?&,
jKa&
j;&m-L&uri
hi.
