,r rr jSTrcVT'lj( " PJII WpH'' -SW
"WMMrb ( Jla
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
"M""' 11 M liM,
VOL. 9, NO. 43
Lincoln, Nebraska, November 5, 1909
m
Whole Number 459
m.
Cannonism
Daring the campaign of 1908 Speaker -Cannon,
in one of hiB speeches, charged Mr. Bryan
with having made a largo sum "selling wind and
ink." When Mr. Bryan promptly responded by
giving an inventory of his worldly goods and
asking Mr. Cannon to take the people into his
confidence and toll them what he had been
"selling" and how much ho had made the speak
er answered that ho was "just Joking."
It seoms that he has been "joking" again.
In a recent speech at Elgin, Illinois, he accused
tho democrats of re-enacting tho Reed rules
and added: "And my friend, William Jennings
Bryan, of Nebraska, voted for those samo rules.
He didn't say anything about the czar business
then or for many, many years. He did not
mention the czar business in 1896, In 1900 or
in 1904, but he waited until he thought every
body, had forgotten his votefor the rules."
Mr. Cannon -will have to revise his state
ment. Mr. Bryan DID say something about
Vj&czar business" while in congress. Al
though the Reed rules were modified by the
democratic "congress Mr. Bryan, though a young
man and.a new member, jna'de a speech against
?, 1?$? & S$5JiV on: bef ore,,Mr,
,pannojgbgame speaker-Mr. Bryan registered
.J(lJ:ollQW'ln Protest in the house of repro-
iterative, April 47 JL 8 94:
' Mi.' Bryan said: '-'" '
Mr. "Speaker, I am obliged to "the gentleman
from Maine for this courtesy. The question
upon which we are called to act Is' one of a
great deal more importance than some members
seem to think, and the objection which is made
to the rule by some of us, who have not been
able to favor it, Ib based upon reasons far more
weighty than gentlemen have assumed.
The constitution of tho state of Nebraska,
which I have the honor, in part, to represent,
contains this provision:
"No bill shall bo passed unless by assent of a
majority of all the members elected to each
house of tho legislature, and the question upon
the final passage shall be taken Immediately
upon its last reading, and the yeas and nays
shall be entered upon the journal."
The constitutions of a majority of tho states
COISTENTS
CANNONISM
WHO OWNS THEM?
MR. BRYAN AND THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES
PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS
LOVE'S SWEET SISTER
A CONGRESSMAN GETS POINTERS FROM
A COBBLER
SOME TEXAS OPINIONS
HOW IT LOOKS IN ILLINOIS
WHERE CONGRESSMEN STAND
EDITORIALS BY COMMONER READERS
SUBSIDIZING INSTRUCTION
NECESSARIES VS. LUXURIES
CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHEN TEDDY COMES MARCHING HOME
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
.- - " NEWS OF THE WEEK
of tho union, among them tho states of Now
York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and
I. might name thorn all if time permitted, pro
vide tho same, tho object being to provcm loss
than one-half of all tho members olected to tho
legislature from passing laws. It Is only by tho
concurrence of a majority of tho members that
wo can know that tho majority of tho pooplo
deolro the law. The constitution of tho United
States does not contain a similar provision; and
thoro is no question, since tho decision of tho
supremo court, that it is within tho powor of this
house to declare by rule in what manner a
quorum may bo ascertained. It can bo done In
tho manner provided in this rulo, or it can
be done by tho call of tho yeas and nays, as
it has been done for a hundred years. Now,
tho question with me Is this: Which Is tho
safer plan? According to tho rule which has
been in vogue a hundred years, tho minority
has the safeguard which is expressly secured
In the constitutions of a majority of tho states:
according to the old rulo tho minority, by re
fusing to vote, can compol the concurrence of a
majority before a law Is passed.
Now, I believe that is a wise provision. I do
not see why It is wiser in a state than in con
gress: I do not kno.w why it Is necessary that
the members of tho legislature In my state, or
In New York, should bo compelled to vote yea
or nay when a bill shall pass, and that a ma
jority shall concur, unless the samo reasons
apply In this body.
Wo are asked to chnn thl tjiIa -wiiiMi i.nn
been in operation slncetbe beginning pf the1 gov-
THE HOUSE but only tho will of a MAJORITY
OF TUB REPUBLICAN MEMBERS ami h
uses tho appointing powor to cocrco republi
cans into misrepresenting their constituents. lie
has also used tho appointing powor to rownrd
democrats for botraylng thoir party. No othor
speaker has ovor mado such a ohamoloss use of
powor,
A Now York republican has charged Mr. Can
non with making a trado with Tammany to
carry his rules through In tho last session of
congress and a republican mombor of congress
has publicly accusod him of appointing tariff
conferees who would stand with Aldrlch and
against tho house bill. Tho liquor Intercuts
woro openly actlvo In supporting Mr. Cannon
and his rules and ho has tho backing of ovory
predatory corporation that Is seeking favors
from tho government or 13 trying to shield it
solf from tho wrath which its iniquities havo
aroused.
In a long public career Speaker Cannon has
not attached his nnmo to any romodlal measuro,
but ho has succeeded in giving his name to a
systora of parliamentary tyranny which has be
come a stench In tho nostrlte of honest repub
licans, as well as democrats.
p.
ernment, ftnd,adppt,aJnw, rule; a rule, not in-, u
tended tonabmtlmJo'r tvJto -Mishit feflftl
enable- less than one-half of the' ihemlj6wfoT,IlB
.- - M,
congress to pass laws for this country. I be
'.Jieve hat the 'innovation is a dangerous ono.
There Is far more safety in giving to tho mi
nority the power to delay legislation until a
majority have expressed themsolvos In favor of
a law. How enn you tell that tho people of
the United States desire a particular law ox
copt by tho voice of their representatives; and
how can w toll that their representatives be
lieve the bill should become a law until they
havo expressed themselves by vote In favor of
tho proposition? The naked question brought
before us by this rulo is, "Shall wo so make
our rules that the minority of tho people of tho
United States may make the laws, or shall wo
retain the rule which enables us to compel tho
concurrence of a majority when it seems of
sufficient importance?"
Of course the right to remain silent can be
used to filibuster, but we have a rulo which
shuts off filibustering when a majority desires
to vote. We have it In the power of the house
and I think It Is a wise provision to put an
end to dilatory motions and to bring the house
to a vote when the majority so desires, but a
rule to count a quorum Is not designed to facili
tate the government of a majority, but to enable
the representatives of a minority of the people
to do business and make laws in the absence
of tho representatives of a part of tho people.
Mr. Bryan also favored an enlargement of
the Cannon rules so that It would represent the
entire country. (See page 2 of this issue.) In
addition to this, ho has advocated tho selection
of the committees by caucus Instead of by tho
Bpeaker and he helped to secure that change In
the Nebraska legislature. This last reform was
not advocated until recently, however, and Mr.
Bryan will admit that tho czarlsm of Speaker
Cannon did much to convince him that the ap
pointment of committees ought not to bo en
trusted to the speaker. The chief objection to
Reed's rules was that they authorized the count
ing of a quorum and Mr. Bryan objected to the
endorsement of that policy by the democrats.
The chief objection to the Cannon regime is that
he so construes the rules of tho house as to
', destroy popular government in that body. Ho
dojes not consider the will of a MAJORITY OF
i . lriC
iLIVlHUCI
Iff
mtST721
oKJgppUmpt
HEM?.
we5Wj
5T"
con-
quotation from
spicuous place, tho following
Leslie's Weekly:
DO YOU WANT IT 7 t
Before tho people of this country commit
themselves to an Income tax with undue haste
tliey should bear In mind that this tax may be
mado to apply to everybody, precisely as tho tax
on real estate applies to every ono who holds
real property, no matter If it bo to the value
of only fivo or ton dollars. President Taft Is
said to fnvor a tax on all Incomes of $1,200 and
over. The board of directors of the Natlpnal
Association of Manufacturers, In Indorsing an
Income tax, suggested that it be fixed at one
eighth of ono per cent, on all incomes, great and
small, which is tho only equitable method of
levying taxes. Every ono should bear a part of
the burden, for then every ono will be interest
ed In understanding tho proposition. A tax of
one-eighth of ono por cent would bo only 75
cents a year on a man with an Income of $000,
and $1,250 on a man with an income of $1,000,
000 a year. If tho people are willing to be taxed
on their Incomes, Just as they aro on their real
estate, let them favor the proposition to amend
tho constitution accordingly. Leslie's Weekly.
Tho argument made by Leslie's and repro
duced by Judgo is so unfair and misleading as
to convict tho writer of It of wilful misrepre
sentation, and the question naturally arisen:
Who owns Judgo and Leslie's? If the real own
ers were known It might be easy to form an
opinion as f the REASON for tho bitter oppo
sition shown by these publications to tho in
come tax.
On the first page of Judge it is stated that
Judgo is published by "Leslie-Judge Company,"
and on pago two the names of the president,
secretary, treasurer, managing editor and art
editor are given, but who are the real owners?
The officials may bo employes men who are
paid by the owners of the stock and who do
what they are told to do.
In view of the fact that Judgo and Leslie's
are ultra partisan in opposing popular measures
and In defending the privilege-holding and privilege-seeking
classes It is only fair that their
readers and the general public should know
what financial interests speak through these two
papers.
Judge and Leslie's are opposed to the income
tax amendment an amendment endorsed in the
1
H
4.
M
i gjjf
Tju rt " Au Vv
