. -i
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL, A, NO. 43
Lincoln, Nbr&ska, November 3, 1911
Whole Number 563
Why Not Criminal Prosecutions?
MB. PRESIDENT: Why do you begin & suit in equity instead
f & criminal prosecution against the officials of the Steel Trust? In
your attorney general's petition the defendants are charged with tht
violation of a criminal law. Why do you hesitate to ask for a con
viction and imprisonment? Is it because the anti-trust law is now
worthless as a criminal statute, since the supreme court has, by
judicial legislation, put the word " unreasonable" in it? Or is it
because you are afraid to punish big criminals as severely as you do
little criminals? You ask me to name a trust that can not b
punished under the present law I name THREE the Standard Oil
Trust, the Tobacco Trust and the Steel Trust, and I call yon as a
witness to prove that the law, as amended by YOUR JUDGES, is
worthless as a criminal law. Will you admit it, or do you prefer to
take the position that big criminals should not be sent to the peni
tentiary? Explain WHY you do not prosecute the Steel Trust
officers under the criminal law? W. J. BRYAN.
CO-OPERATION NECESSARY
It is important that the democrats, populists
and progressive republicans shall recognize the
importance of the elections this year as show
ing the trend of sentiment on national issues.
A congressional election is being held in the
Third Nebraska district, and the democrats
have nominated a splendid progressive demo
crat, Mr. Dan V. Stephens, against a republican
who is a pronounced standpatter. In th,o Second
Kansas district also a progressive democrat, Mr.
Joe Taggart, is running against a standpat re
publican. There are not many state elections
this fall but such as there are will bo closely
watched and the vote will indicate the trend for
or against . the administration.
In Nebraska, especially, the result will have
an important bearing upon noxt year's cam
paign. It behooves every democrat to vote him
self, and to see that every democratic vote Is
polled. Populists should be as much in
terested in this joint tickot as the democrats,
for they are as deeply interested in the success
of the reform movement as the democrats. The
Nebraska democracy has for over sixteen years
stood as a unit for remedial legislation. Its
platforms have largely foreshadowed the na
tional platforms, and its delegations have not
been surpassed in influence by the delegations
from the larger states. Mr. Bryan has carried
the state twice on a progressive platform, and
Senator Hitchcock, a progressive democrat, won
last year over a standpat republican by some
20,000 majority. President Taft has recently
made a trip through the state appealing for a
vote of confidence, and a republican victory in
Nebraska would naturally be heralded by the
corporation press as a triumph of standpat
republicans over progressive democrats. How
.can a progressive republican encourage the fight
that progressive republicans are making In.
Washington by voting the republican ticket in
CONTENTS
WHY NOT CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS?
CO-OPERATION NECESSARY
JOE TAGGART'S PLATFORM
WHAT CAN BE THE MATTER WITH THE
TAFT TOUR?
CAMPAIGN FUNDS NEEDED IN MEXICO
"RELIGION IS ONE THING AND POLITICS
ANOTHER, MR. SCHARF," SO SAY
THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
HOW THE TRUSTS DESTROY
COMPETITION
THE CAMPAIGN IN NEBRASKA
AMENDMENTS TO THE ALDRICH SCHEME,
BY HENRY W. YATES
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF
DEMOCRATIC PRECINCT CLUBS
"TRUE AMERICANISM," BY WOODROW
WILSON
SOME INTERESTING REPLIES TO CARDI
NAL GIBBONS AND ARCHBISHOP
IRELAND
HOME DEPARTMENT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
WASHINGTON NEWS
Nebraska this fall? His vote would bo con
strued as an approval of the very standpat poli
cies which the progressives at Washington are
fighting; it would be counted as a rebuke to the
progressive democrats with whom tho pro
gressive republicans aro voting at Washington.
It seems clear that the only way a progressive
republican can encourage Senator La Follotte
and those fighting with him is to indorse pro
gressive ideas, and as the democrats of Ne
braska stand for progressive ideas its triumph
would bo accepted throughout tho nation as
proof that the great agricultural state of Ne
braska and the states adjoining It condemn re
publicanism as defined by the dominant element
of the republican party and demand that the
government shall bo administered in behalf of
the people. In Nebraska co-operation has ac
complished a great deal. Tho railroad pass has
been driven out of politics, the two cent pas
senger rate has been secured, the Oregon plan
for the election of senators has been adopted,
tho initiative and referendum amendment has
been submitted. We have secured tho direct
primary for .the nomination of state offlcors, and
more recently of delegates to the national con
vention, and wo havo the bank guarantee law.
In the nation we havo practically secured tho
election of senators by the people it is in con
ference now but there is no doubt of the sub
mission of the amendment before congress
adjourns. This reform was repudiated by the
last republican national convention when tho
progressive republicans tried to secure an
Indorsement of it; the democratic party has
been fighting for It for nineteen years and the
populist party for a longer time. It has re
quired co-operation to secure this reform, and
it is worth all the effort it has cost. The publi
city of campaign contributions is another reform
that has come from co-operation, and it con
stitutes a long step In advance. The Income tax
amendment is now before the states for ratifi
cation, and certain to be a part of the constitu
tion. This, too, Is the fruit of co-operation.
The democrats could not secure it alone. The
progressive republicans at Washington have
voted with the democrats for the farmers' free
list and for the reduction of the woolen schedule.
The president vetoed these bills. How can the
progressive republicans of Nebraska rebuke the
president for his vetoes without indorsing the
democrats who joined the progressive republi
cans In the passage of the bills?
But co-operation has not only been useful in
the past but it is necessary in the future to
meet the policies which the standpat republi
cans are now urging. On the trust question the
country has taken a backward step; the people
have not gone back, neither has congress. The
backward step has been taken by the supreme
court. The anti-trust law adopted twenty
years ago declares all combinations in restraint
of trade unlawful, but the supreme court has
construed that law to mean that only unreason
able restraint of trade is unlawful. This is an
absurd construction, as absurd as to construe
the law against burglary to prohibit only un
reasonably burglary, or the lsrw against larceny
to prohibit only undue stealing, and the recent
decision is a reversal of tho decision rendered
thirteen years ago when tho same quoBtlon was
beforo tho court. The court then held that it
had no power to amend or appeal a statute
that that would bo an intervention of the pro
vince of congress and unconstitutional, but the
supreme court went out of its way to Invado the
province of congress and in violation of the
constitution throw its protecting armi around
tho private monopolist. Before the decision
was rendered It was only necessary to proro the
existence of a combination in restraint of trade,
now it Is necessary not only to show a combina
tion in restraint of trade, but to convince the
presiding Judge that tho restraint is unreason
able a question upon which Judges will widely
differ.
But the astounding thing about thin decision
is that It was evidently part of a prearranged
plan. Tho la3t republican national platform
favored an amendment of the constitujon but
loft tho question open as to tho character of
tho amendment. Mr. Perkins, formerly partner
of J. Plerpont Morgan, now tells us that Gover
nor Hughes was put forward to interpret that
amendment and at Youngstovn, O., declared
that the rule of reason should bo obsorvod in
making the amendment quoting tho very
phrase that they employed In tho dissenting
opinion of thirteen years ago a phrase first
suggested by the trust attorneys. Mr. Perkins
says that the supremo court decision Is the
only thing which has been done to carry out
tho republican platform. When It is remem
bered that Mr. Taft appointed Governor Hughes
on the bench, and that Governor Hughes joined
tho other appointees of Mr. Taft in nullifying
tho anti-trust law the connection between the
platform promise and its fulfillment by the
court becomes apparent. And this is empha
sized by tho fact that Mr. Taft took a Justice
who wrote the dissenting opinion thirteen yean
ago and made him chief justice over a justice
with longer and more distinguished record whd
thirteen years ago joined in the opinion of th"
court against tho trusts. To complete tho storj
of this combination against the public, a combi
nation that has used a republican convention, i
republican governor, a republican president arid
a majority of tho supreme court for Its consum
. mation, it needs only to bo added that three
years ago when the trust wanted an amendment
to the anti-trust law Mr. Taft favored an amend
ment, but now that the trusts have - secured
from the court the amendment they want, Mr.
Taft is opposed to any further change in the ,
law. Co-operation Is necessary to restore to the
anti-trust law the strength that it had before
the decisions in the Standard Oil and Tobacco
cases. Neither the democrats or the progres-
0
PASS IT ON 0
0 0
0 Tills week's Commoner contains a 0
0 . large amount of campaign material. 0
0 Readers nro urged to loan their papers 0
0 to ' progressive republicans to read be-
0 fore tho election. 0
0
0
. -
. j uj v.,ti'JuUit'i''.-'''J '
