"fffir
wv r- -rr-nnr"
I
;
3
AUGUST 12, 1910 -
pressing an opinion on the subject. I refused
to let anybody know whero I stood or what I
thought, and yot, the question was so much an
issue then that the brewers of Omaha had sent
a republican lobbyist down to Lincoln to tell
democrats how to vote in the legislature on this
subject. If it was not an issue then, why had
the liquor interests gone from place to place
and pledged men to vote against county option?
They had made it an issue before I knew any
thing about it or expressed an opinion. Not
only that, but Douglas county declared against
county option last summer before I had ex
pressed an opinion on the subject. Do not ac
cuse me of bringing this question into politics;
I met an issue after it had been introduced,
and if I have any apologies to offer, I shall not
offer them to the liquor interests for speaking
now; I shall offer them to the fathers and moth
ers of this state for not speaking sooner. If
I am to blame at all, it is for keeping silent
when they had more reason to ask me to speak,
than the brewers have to expect me to keep
silent at this time.
But even after I had expressed an opinion
on this subject, I did not at once decide to
make an active fight. I dreaded, as I have
never dreaded anything before, entering" a dis
cussion where I might find myself out of har
mony with these men whom I have loved and
with whom I have worked all these years. Not
until I came home from a' trip to South America,
arriving here in April, did I decide what I
would do. When I reached homo I learned
what was being done; I found that the liquor
interests of the nation had entered Nebraska
politics, and that the liquor interests of the
nation were joined with the brewers of Omaha,
for I received the information from one who
talked with both. They were banded together
to select the senators in this state that they
might block legislation that was unfavorable
to them. I satisfied myself that the other spe
cial interests were allied with the brewery in
terests, and that they were about to burglarizo
the state of Nebraska and that they Intended to
use the democratic party as the tool with which
to break into the state house, What could I
do, but give the alarm? I acted as I would if
I saw a man attempting to burglarize the house
of a neighbor. You may not believe me, or if
you do, you may be indifferent, but I shall warn
you that the conspiracy is going on.
But, they ask, why not be content with a
declaration in favor of the initiative and refer
endum? I tried my best to get the initiative
and referendum in the last legislature; I not
only made a speech before the senate and house
but I .went personally and solicited men whom
I knew to vote for it. They told me that the
liquor Interests were against it; they gave as
their reason for voting against it that their
people were afraid that if we secured the initia
tive and referendum county option would be
submitted and that' they opposed the initiative
as a' means of defeating county option. I
warned them that the liquor interests had
enough to do to take care of the saloon busi
ness, that it was not their duty to legislate or
to run the state of Nebraska. I reminded them
that the initiative and referendum did not deal
with this one question alone, but with all ques
tions; that it was first embodied in our plat
form fourteen years ago when the liquor ques
tion was not before this state. But they would
not listen to argument and they defeated the
initiative and referendum. We had the governor
on our side, we have an overwhelming majority
of the democrats, on our side in the house, and
a majority of the democrats, in the senate, but
there were nine' democrats in the senate who
would, not jpin with the rest, and they are to
blame for the fact that we have not the in
itiative and referendum as our paramount state
issue this year. I want you to know upon
whom to place the blame. I abject to having
democrats lay it at my door when I endeavored
to give you a means of submitting this question
that would have avoided the necessity of bring
ing it up at this time, but the legislature ad
journed and nothing was done. The democratic
party was denied the splendid advantage we
would have derived from submitting the initia
tive and referendum to the people. Our party
was denied the advantage of that issue in this
campaign. Democrats, do you feel no resent
ment towards the liquor interests that for mon
ey only were willing to prevent our patty from
going before the people of this state with asprop
osition so in harmony with popular government?
I was not willing to stop there; when I found
it was necessary to make a fight in this state,
I decided to try once more, and so I wrote the
members of the legislature and asked them if
The Commoner.
they would agree to voto for the initiative and
referendum at a special session. I had no au
thority, and republicans said I was tryiug to
help the democratic party out of tho hole; that
I was trying to got rid of an Issue that was
embarrassing, trying to fight the campaign on
national issues, and why not? Wo have a sen
ator to elect, why not elect him on national
issues? Wo havo six congressmen to elect, why
not olect them on national Issues? I made ono
more effort to get county option out of tho
way, and I camo so near nineteen senators
pledged that if one of these. senators who re
fused to vote aye, had joined tho nineteen wo
would have had tho necessary twenty in tho
senate. Who has tried to save tho paTty from
this issue? I made this fight to get a special
session, and had I had the support that I had
a right to expect from the leaders, wo would
havo had the special session and would bo out
fighting for tho initiative and referendum, and
county option would not havo troubled us in
this convention. Do not blame me, blame tho
men who after tho democratic stato convention
of 1909 had declared for the initiative and ref
erendum still refuse to promise to voto for it.
And why? Because of tho opposition of- liquor
interests in their districts. And these men aro
here today, nearly every ono of them delegates
to this convention and coming from counties
which with ono exception, did not indorse tho
Initiative and referendum. You ask mo why
I do not trust a platform promise in favor of
tho Initiative and referendum now? Because I
will not trust any man who' is under secret
promise to the liquor interests, no matter what
ho promises in his platform. It has been said
by tho opponents of county option that a county
option plank In the state platform will not bind
a man in a district that Is opposed to county
option. If that bo true, then who says that
a plank In favor of tho initiative and referen
dum will bind a man In a district where his
people aro against it? If these men would
not voto for the Initiative and referendum after
their party had declared for it last year, what
assurance have wo that they will vote for it
thfff year? Did not democrats in Colorado re
fuse to vote Xor the initiative and referendum
although it was in their platform? In Minne
sota, also, the democrats dedaTod for It in their
platform, but some democrats voted against it
in tho legislature. I was not willing to go out
and promise tho people that it would be done
next year unless this convention would sever
the tie that binds it to tho liquor interests.
News has come this afternoon that tho repub
licans have declared for the initiative and refer
endum in their state convention, and that tho
populists have also declared for It. Aro you
glad?
(Cries of yes, yes, no.)
Why do you not applaud? You ought to
applaud, because that is the only way we havo
a chance of getting it. If we had to depend
on democrats alone wo would never get It as
long as they march behind the brewers. I am
glad because I think that with all parties for
it, the liquor interests will not be able to get
enough legislators to violate their pledges to
defeat It. Who made county option the para
mount Issue In this state? Do you say I did?
You flatter me. I appreciate It, but I can not
accept the compliment. Did I make the repub
lican party declare for county option at Lin
coln? If so, I had, more influence with the
republican party than I seem to have with the
democratic party. Did I make the populists
declare for county option? If so, let me thank
the populists . for being nearer to me than tho
democrats .are. I did not make the republican
party do this; I foresaw that they would do it..
I did not make the populists do it; they did it
two years ago, before I expressed an opinion
on the subject, Who forced this issue? Your
liquor dealers, they made county option para
mount. How? By telling us that wo could
not have self-government as long as the fear
of county option stood in the way, and so the
people said: "If we can not govern ourselves
until we get It out of the way, then we will act
upon it at once so we can proceed with other
things." As a result of their stupid opposition
the liquor interests will probably havo county
option two years sooner than they would have
had it if they had not prevented the submis
sion of the initiative and referendum. Had we
succeeded in submitting the initiative and ref
erendum, It could not have been voted upon
untl next November, and then county option
could not have been submitted under the in
itiative and referendum until two years from
next November. If the legislature this year
gives you statutory county option, a committee
ought to bo nppointod to thank tho browors for
advancing temporancQ legislation in this stato.
These nro tho mon who made it tho paramount
issue, and now let us meet tho issuo that thoy
have mado paramount.
Somotimoa you read In tho papers that thin
question Is not ncute. There Is ono peculiarity
about it: it is only ncuto on ono side. Tito
men opposed to county option can not under
stand why anybody wants it, but they can under
stand why every person who Is opposed to It
should loave tho democratic party If tho party
declares for it. Did you over know a question
so one-sided? I affirm that county option Is
a democratic proposition; I refuse to go to tho
brewers to learn either constitutional law or
tho principles of tho democratic party. Do you
doubt that this stato can voto on tho liquor
question, do you doubt that a city can voto on
tho liquor question? Of course you do not.
Why can not a county, larger than a city, but
smaller than a stato, voto on tho liquor ques
tion? Is It democratic for a stato to voto on
it, and democratic for a town to voto on it, but
undemocratic for a county to voto on It? Who
will say so? You can not find an argument that
can bo mado against county option from a dem
ocratic standpoint. Either a mnjoiity of tho
county or tho minority will rulo. And who
says it Is democratic to hnve a minority dccldo
what ought to bo done in a county against tho
protest of tho majority? If you desire demo
cratic authority consider tho states that havo
county option. Texas, that gavo mo my largest
majority In three campaigns Texas has It. Is
it undemocratic? If so, why did Texas adopt
it? Missouri haB It. Is Missouri democracy
a kind that ;you can sneer at? It is true thoy
exempt towns of a certain size, but remember
Missouri has the county unit. Ohio hns It, too,
and I remind you that Ohio has largo cities.
I do not Want to hurt the pride of Omaha, and
yot there are several cities in Ohio as largo aa
Omaha. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, Colum
bus, Youngstown, Springfield, not all these ar
as large as Omaha, but of considerable size.
There aro a great many of these cities and yot
thoy havo county option. Tell mo you can not
havo county option whore Germans are numer
ous? Do they not havo Gormans In Ohio? Is
there any stato that has moro Germans? la
there any city other than Milwaukee more
known as a German city than Cincinnati? And
yet they not only have county option, but tho
domocratic convention that met the other day
did not dare condemn it. It has been adopted
in more than half tho counties. I know Ger
mans who aro not interested in the saloon ques
tion beyond all other questions. Four German
ministers worked for the closing of every saloon
in the city of Lincoln, and I havo talked with
Germans who feel as much Interest In protecting
the young men of their neighborhood from theso
men traps as any other American. Wc havo "
no German saloons in this state or nation. Ask
tho Gorman who has come from the fatherland
and he will tell you that the German saloon is
different from ours thero Is no treating there,
and there ought to bo none here. The largest
German society in the United States has de
clared against treating. We have a statute
against It, and yet it is violated in nearly every
saloon in this state. Give us the German sa
loon and then it will be timo to say that tho
Gormans are from tradition opposed to the reg
ulation .of. this traffic. County option Is not un
democratic; the time has come when you will
have to stop saying that it is undemocratic to
do anything dlstastful against tho liquor Inter-
. csts. A maa can be a democrat in good stand
ing without staggering when he walks. The re
publicans used to question a man's democracy if
he did not drink. A brewer in Chicago called
me a degenerate because I am a teetotaller. I
contend that I can be a good democrat and yet
refuse to put a' glass to my lips or to set an
example which might lead my neighbor to ruin.
No, you can not say it is undemocratic to favor
legislation on this subject. Democratic states
have not only adopted county option, but they
have adopted state prohibition.
It is said that county option is unfair because,
if the county goes dry all the saloons are closed
up, but if it goes wet you can still have pro
hibition in the towns and villages. That argu
ment is entirely unsound. Did not this state
go wet twenty years ago? And did not this
stato, when it went wet, still have prohibition
in every town that wanted it? Why did not the
liquor interests demand that, because it went
wet there should be no prohibition anywhere?
If it had gone dry, there would have been no
saloons anywhere. We have a situation in this
state that is similar to the situation under coun-
i.
i
ii
.:
;
m
iN
4
-
ii.WfM
1
I
1?'
i
4
'M
Mft
fti
vi
''ufc.-f.iflMf i- A.-
