.,&. r t 'fsfit jjg1 w " "
ii ys
"-
f
.jr. tv
AUGUST 23, 1907
j
The Commoner.
ll Is
"&;$
ii.jp
CfK
ac
Letters From the People
Clint Pearco, Bumsido, La. At different
times, I have seen it stated, the south was en
titled to representation on the national demo- f
cratic ticket in 1908. The different articles
stated the south had always been loyal, and
true to the democratic party and principles, and
a southern man ought to be on the ticket. I
fully agree with thQ writers of those articles and
think continued fidelity and loyalty of the south
to the party and its principles ought to receive
its reward. I would like to place before the
country through your valuable paper, the name
of our governor, Newton Crane Blanchard for
the second place on the ticket. Ho has always
been true to his- party and his people, and ho
has served them in the halls of congress, the
senate of the United States, on the supreme
bench of our state and as governor with honor
to himself and great credit to his people. He
is a very able man, one who has had vast ex
perience in state and national affairs, and I think
stands at tho head of alt our southern states
men of today. Hoping for the success of the
democratic ticket in 1908, and to see Governor
Blanchard's name on the ticket, with best wishes
for the future welfaro of your valuable paper.
C. C. .P., Celeste, Texas In 1893, when
speculators in gold were "looting" the United
States treasury by means of United States treas
ury notes, I remember the cry of the bankers
was that it was not the scarcity of money, but
the "lack of confidence lack of confidence!"
The bankers who recently "resolved" on the
scarcity of money at certain periods in the year,
and asked congress to pass a law for an asset
currency should be reminded that it is not the
scarcity of money; It Is "lack of confidence!"
Confidence Is what you need, Mr. Banker.
Again, If the .money question Is settled, as many
bankers, speculators and politicians have assert
ed from time to time, why not let it stay set
tled? If the money question is dead and pre
sumably buried, why be always digging it up?
If the education of the rising generation is of
such importance that it is deemed proper to
compel property owners to pay a tax, and even
working men -to pay a poll tax, why should it
be considered, wrong to compel parents to send
their children to those schools? Is farming the
only occupation at which .children of ten to
fourteen years of age ought to be employed?
At what were young "girls employed a century
or more ago? Was -It so very unhealthy?
Would It bo wrong now? Is It hotter for child
ren to be employed or unemployed? At what
particular ago does idleness become a -vlco, or
lead to vicious habits? Would It bo wrong for
women and children to work in small broom
factories or other small well ventilated factories
in the country, or small towns, if little dust Is
found? Is It certain that laws to prevent child
ren of twelve years from working at healthful
occupations are right and laws compelling those
of twelve to attend school wrong? Is it right
to force idleness upon children, when they can
not be In school? Is it wrong for any child
under foui teen or sixteen years of age to labor?
Could not laws bo passed allowing women and
children to work at any healthful occupation a
part of each day? Aro not many of the laws
now in oxistenco drawn more to reduce the num
ber of laborers than for the benefit of women
and children particularly the childron? Aro
these laws, whore they have been enacted, rather
too sweeping?
P. Zuckreigel, Cleveland, O. I read what
you say in a recent issue" of The Commoner
about weekly state papers. Vey good! I be
lieve that such would be a. good' thing, no mat
ter what the dailies may do or fail to do. But
why are we to continue to ailow the dailies to
do as they please, betray the people and the
country at pleasure? Is it simply because they
are institutions of large capital? We are talk
ing a great deal about regulating railroads and
other big trusts; why not the daily papers, .
institutions so dangerous to our country and
through which all the iniquities of the other
trusts were made possible? The power of these
papers depends on their circulation, hence the
people can easily control these mediums. Why
not step up and say: We demand that you em
ploy two chief editors, one from each of the
dominant political parties and subject to the
approval of the respective party, through their
authorized representatives (committee), and
then start an agitation that the people refuse
to patronize any and all such papers as refuse
this righteous privilege, and also refuse to pat
ronize any business that will advertise in them.
This would soon break the camel's back and in
stead of the people being at the mercy of these
institutions, they would have them as their ser
vants, which properly they should be. It strikes
me forcibly that if I owned such a paper and
depended on public patronage to make it use
ful and pay, and such a proposition came to me
from a reasonably good source, I would accept
in lightning quickness; to not be , left. And
I venture the prediction that once a start is
made in this direction It will .sweep the country
of this monopolistic press evil and the people
will get fair play and we will have a free press
sure enough. .The party committee in any com
munity where these papers are published, ought
to start this agitation.
E. E. Clark, Syracuse, Nob. Under the
caption, "Whore Does Mr. Taft Stand," In The
Commoner of -May 3, a very portlnent question
is asked and at a very opportune time, and Is
also suggestive of a few other questions fully
as difficult to answer satisfactorily. The article
referred to says: "Congressman Longworth of
Ohio says that Secretary Taft Is the proper man
to 'carry to completion' the reform work under
taken by Presldont Roosevelt, and It has been
announced seml-offlcially that the president him
self, desires the secretary's nomination. Tho
question that naturally arises is, for what re
form does Secretary Taft stand?" m The logic of
the foregoing Is easy If the president really
wants Taft to succeed him (and he does) it
must be conceded that tho president believes,
at least, that Taft stands for the same reforms
"undertaken" by himsqlf, which Is about as near
it as you could point your finger, and they aro
all remarkably democratic I don't think. Tho
democracy of President Roosevelt as it came to
us as he stepped over tho presidential threshold
was to the effect that there would be "no change
in the policy of my predecessor in tho Philip
pines," and what was that policy? Time will
jnever wear away the blush of shamo bequeathed
us by that "McKInley policy," that the reformer
Roosevelt assured us he would keep inviolate
but, perhaps, tho damnable nonparlel Bhould lose
some of its blackness. Another of Roosevelt's
democratic coups is seen in his playing tho role
of national or international constable to enforce
collection of debts, i. e., among the "weaker"
nations of course. Other phases of his democ
racy may be seen in the Panama affair. Al
though many other such evidences of Roosevelt's
democracy are in mind, the writer forbears save
to quote from the article above referred to:
"The president could have secured a better law
by accepting democratic aid, but ho compro
mised in order to make it seem a republican
measure." This is a type of democracy that
would permit a president of the United States
to not only stultify his own convictions of right,
but also to sacrifice the most vital interests of
the people. Yet In this coup there is, incident
ally, a redeeming feature he unearthed several
different kinds of liars as well as one "damllar."
O, yes! Taft stands for xactly the same re
forms that has marked Roosevelt's career. Roose
veltian democracy, when seen through a demo
cratic lens, Is about like Senator Beveridge's
"championship" of the cause of the children.
Senator Beveridge knows that child labor abuses
are only found among the landless class, and
that if the parents of these children had land
enough to support, or even partially support
(say a good slzedt garden patch) their families,
there would be no child labor abuses. But ask
Beveridge to support a measure to make access
to small holdings of land, of which in every
community there is a surfeit, except for land
monopoly, and he would very soon class you
among those undesirable citizens, that tfte
"Roosevelt democracy" found In Moyer, Hay
wood and Pettibone, with "My Dear Mr. Har
riman" as a close second. No! Roosevelt, nor
Taft, nor any one that is known, generally, to
stand for the "reforms" in their list can get
the g. o. p. nomination short of a split that will
be fatal. All of this fudge about Bryan nomin
ating Roosevelt or Roosevelt nominating Bryan
is too thin to cover with and will convince no
one that In a proper "show down," Bryan and
Roosevelt are any more alike than they we're
when, a couple of years ago, the great hunter
was asked to apply the "criminal law" to such
men as Harrlman, et al.
A Palpable Hit
Tho entire lack of good faith that charac
terizes Henry Wattorson's attltudo toward Mr.
Bryan has nevor boon bottor disclosed than In
Mr. Wattorson's recent comment on Secretary
Taft. Mr, Watterson pretonds to bo "person
ally friendly" to tho Nobrasknn and to be oppos
ing him only for "his own good" and "for tho
good of tho party." Ho is against him not bo
causo Mr. Bryan Is not a good man, but because
he "lacks availability." Ho lacks availability
because ho has been too frank, too outspokon.
Ho has oxprcssed himself too frcoly and oponly
on living questions, and so has alienated this
man, offonded that ono and disgusted tho other.
Thoroforo, according to tho Kontucky colonel,
ho won't do; he can't be elected.
Very well. Let us see, then, how this dis
interested, unprejudiced and proteatlngly friend
ly critic applies his own doctrlno to an opposi
tion candidate Mr. Taft. In his paper of Aug
ust 13 ho comments on republican protcstn
against Taft's defining his position on tho tariff.
Republicans nro afraid "ho will be sonwiso
as to dwell upon tho expediency of a tariff re
duction." Says Colonel Wattorson, "In their
view this would bo torrible. It would hurt tho .
paty and weaken Taft as a political chief."
Now what does Colonel Wattorson think
about it? Surely not that Taft should disre
gard tho warning! Surely not that he should bo
frank and bravo and honest with the voters!
Surely not that! But Just listen to the Watter
sonlan verdict:
"Sccrotary Taft Is ono of those strong-minded
men who, being for a thing, do not hesitate to
say so; therefore, being a tariff revisionist, tho
chances aro that ho is not apt to make any effort
to conceal the fact. It may weaken him with
the party managers, who Uko to boo tho cam
paign funds roll in, but the people tho Inde
pendent voters who know something about tho
evils of that tariff aro likely to bo plcaned.iL-r...
Listen again!
"It is a great trick of politicians nowadays
to do what is technically known as 'playing' both
ends against tho middle.' Now, If Mr. Taft
could or would resort to the trick ho might get
tho lofty and honorable fame of being a bril
liant, cunning and successful politician. To
hear some folks talk, nothing could bo more
splendid than to bo a smooth politician, no mat
ter what sort of public official such a politician
may be."
And listen again r-for tho further we read
Into tho colonel's program for Taft tho more
heretical it becomes:
"The trouble with Mr. Taft, however, Is
that he seomg to bo one of those peculiar per
sons who dare to prefer to be honest rathefr than
shrewd who would rather bo a statesman than
a politician."
Can It bo that tho Henry Watterson who
wrote this is the same Henry Watterson who
has been querulously scolding Mr. Bryan be
cause he would not be a politician rather than
a statesman? Can this b3 the same Henry Wat
terson who would have Mr. Bryan shrewd rather
than honest? Can this be the same Henry Wat
terson who is sorely aggrieved becau&e Mr.
Bryan will not be "cunning and smooth?"
Is It possible that this great Kentucky men
tor of democracy wo. Id prefer a democratic
leader little and cowardly and mean, while at
the same time he commends, with every evidence
of sincere and manly feeling, the frank and hon
est and courageous course for a republican
leader?
If this Is, indeed, the pitiful attitude of
Editor Watterson of Kentucky, as it seems to
be, there Is no escaping the conclusion that,
with one party or the other, he is not counsel
ing in good faith. And the question naturally
arises, which party would he deceive? Or is
he only a man driven, by some'unguessed and
hidden motive, Into playing horse with his own
convictions? Omaha World-Herald.
In view of Collier's review of Mr. Fair
banks' connection with tho old Indianapolis
Bloomington & Western Railway, people" "cai
uhderstarfd why the employes of that corporator
referred to it In the old days as-the "I Beg &
Wear Rags" road.
jii
4
n
i j..u J,fc3. . ti jjr.'2,tjib j
' tui. Ut J Aj rii , '.
. i. ytfuJU.j W M '
. tufjt.
Jt. I !
.- jK -. ( "Mu' ... A.