Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (April 10, 1908)
. -,. -,. -rf-n,- The Commoner. WILLIAM J, BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR VOL. 8, NO. 13 Lincoln, Nebraska, April 10, 1908 Whole Number 377 CONTENTS SPHERE OF THE STATE .FOOLISH THREATS "REST AND PEACE AND REASSURANCE" MR. BRYAN'S SPEECH AT KANSAS CITY THE BOARD OF TRADE WHO PAYS THE BILL? THE METHODS OF 1896 AGAIN LOCATING THE PULITZER TREASURE MILLION ARMY PLAN WASHINGTON LETTER COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS HOME DEPARTMENT WHETHER COMMON OR NOT NEWS OF THE WEEK WHAT ABOUT THE HpUSE? Referring to tariff revision bills Represent ative Dalzell, republican, of Pennsylvania, and a member of the ways and means committee FsOf the house, is quoted by the Associated Press as saying: "This multiplicity of bills and resolutions does not scare anybody. There ,1s,, no, change in the situation. At the commencement of the session the ways and means committee deter mined that there should be no tariff revision at this session. Nothing has occurred to change that decision and it stands." "At the commencement of the session the ways and means committee determined that there should be no tariff revision at this ses sion. Nothing has occurred- to change that de cision and it stands!" But what has become of the house of representatives? Has it, under the republican party, ceased to possess the power delegated to it? Is a mere committee to issuo decrees such as Mr. Dalzell describes? f0rt l2? & 2 "IMMEDIATELY" BUT LATER In his letter to the Indiana republican con vention wherein he pleaded for postponement of tariff revision until after the presidential election, Vice President Fairbanks said: "We can, however, revise such schedules as may require revision immediately fpllowing the com ing national election and before the fourth of next March." - Well, why not revise one or two schedules before the election in order to give the people a sample of tariff revision by the republican party? Why not revise the wood pulp schedule for which revision republican publishers are plead ing so earnestly? W t i2& C& DEMOORAOY APPEALS TO YOUTH Democracy appeals to the young because it is the growing doctrine. Behind it are the eternal and irresistable and eternal forces which bring victory to Athe truth. The young man wants an opportunity and democracy insures opportunity. Democracy's aim is justice ' and the young man's heart responds to democracy's arguments. itw ji & A GROWING QUESTION What is the extent of the financial inter est held by Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the New York World, in railroad companies and In great corporations comniouly known as trusts? This is a pertinent question because- an honest answer might uncover the special inter ests for which the New York World speaks in its present day attacks upon democrats. "" ... i "Tin ' 111 nn ' -mi THE WHITE FLAG? THE SPHERE OF THE STATE The recent decision of the supreme court, sustaining the federal judges in North Carolina and Minnesota, focuses public attention upon a subject, consideration of which can not bo much longer delayed: Shall the lower federal courts have jurisdiction to suspend the laws of the various states before the state courts have had an opportunity to pass upon those laws? The newspapers which take their inspiration from the large corporations are congratulating the country that property is made more secure by the decision, and that vested interests are rescued from peril. How long will these papers be able to deceive the public and to mislead their readers? Property is in no danger and vested Interests are not Imperiled. The laws of the states can bo depended upon to protect property rights and vested interests. The question is simply a question of dealing with corporations. Shall the corporation be regarded as superior to the natural man? That is the only question involved. If a natural man locates in a state and engages in business he must rely upon the state courts for his protection. The state pro tects him in his life, in his liberty and in his property and he resorts to the courts of the state when he seeks to enforce a right. Under the present laws and decisions, It is different with the corporation. A railroad corporation can be organized in the state of New Jersey and proceed to engage in business in any of the forty-six states of the unlom; it gets from the state a license to build a railroad; it uses the power of. eminent domain and condemns land; the state laws protect its property and the lives of its employes, but when a citizen sues the railroad for more than two thousand dollars, or the state attempts to regulate the railroad, the' railroad contemptuously turns its back upon the state and the courts of the state and drags Its adversary into the United States court. Why should a slate bo so impotent when it deals with a corporation which owes bo much to the state? If the state passes a rate law the railroad at once enjoins the enforcement of the law on the ground that it is unconstitutional. While the courts are deciding this question the state stands helpless. The law has not been declared un constitutional by any court, and yet, the state is not permuted to enforce it. If, after months or years of litigation, the United States court decides that the law is not unconstitutional, then during all of the intervening time the state has been prevented from enforcing a constitu tional law. Why not give to the state courts rather than to the railroads the benefit of the presumption? Why clothe a corporation with privileges so much superior to those of the nat ural man? The democrats of congress are right in urging the passage of a law withdrawing from the circuit and district courts of the United States power to suspend state laws. Let every corporation doing business in the state submit its controversies to the courts of tho state, and thus put itself upon the same footing with do mestic corporations and with individual resi dents. If the state courts deny the corporation justice, the corporation still has its appeal from the highest state court to tho United States supreme court. Is not this protection enough? The big corporations and their defenders, conscious of the weakness of their cause, con stantly confuse the issue. The question is, not whether property shall be protected, for the state has as much interest as the nation in the protection of property; the question is, shall the corporation be brought down to the level of the God-made man, or shall it be made an object of worship? The democrats are right in insist ing that the state shall not be deprived of its power "to protect its citizens, and that federal ) jt.j r V. i
