fVM$-'4 ? "K I
The Commoner
MARCH, 1915'
7'
'fye-'Zfmfwt ' f
Mr. Bryan's Address to the Indiana
Legislature
a 'r ' - i
Secretary Bryan, accepting a joint invitation
from the general assembly to address the Indiana
legislature, delivered a speech in the assembly
room of the house of representatives, Indianap
olis, Indiana, Friday morning, February 5, 1915,
at 11- o'clock. He was introduced by Speaker
Charles H. Bedwell.
Mr. Bryan spoke as follows:
Governor Ralston, Mr. Speaker, Mr. President,
Members of the Senate and House, and Ladies
arid 'Gentlemen:
I appreciate the honor that the legislative
.body of this great commonwealth has done me in
inviting mo to deliver this address, and I think
the state will take Judicial notice of the fact that
it is a democratic legislature that I address.
Therefore, I can deliver an address that will
show democratic leanings. As a public officer 1
try to lie impartial in tho handling of public
business, and in Washington we have a ctyil ser
vice vhich is being honestly administered, and
no republican will be able to say that we unlaw
fully disturb the republicans who were put in by
appointment and then covered by. the civil service
so that they could not be taken out. The civil
service has never been more honestly administer
ed than it has been under this administration, and
yet I confess that it does give me some pleasure
to reward a deserving democrat when I get a
chance. And I have not found it difficult to find
democrats who are deserving, for the few offices
that are left open for appointment. Wherever I
have been free to manifest my affection for those
of my own party I have no.t been found wantingf
and yet I recognize that the larger part of the
public service is performed without regard to
' party differences. And more than that, I am
convinced that the president's statement, recent
ly made ti'ere, .represents the highest standard of
.regard for party, namely, that ho is the best par
tisan who loves his country better than his party;
he acts for his party whenhe does his best to
compel his party to put the .'country's good before
the party's interest.
So, in speaking today, as one .who is not
ashamed to be a democrat, to a legislature that
is democratic, I sha&W&le interpreting our in
stitutions from a democratic standpoint, contend
that a democrat can not be a good democrat un
less the welfare of his country is his chief con
cern. It makes a great deal of difference whether a
man looks at public questions from the right
standpoint; and in addressing you this morning
I desire to present the two standpoints from
which people regard republican institutions. The
aristocratic standpoint is essentially different
from the democratic standpoint, and a man's
fundamental attitude colors every act, no mat
ter along what line he acts, or in what direction
his activities are exerted.
The democratic standard is, to my mind, the
correct standard. I do not mean to say that a
democrat is more honest than an aristocrat, but
he is different, and this difference ought to bo
understood. When you come to representative
government you find that it Is interpreted in one
way by the aristocrat and in another way by the
democrat. 'The aristocrat believes that the peo
ple select representatives to THINK for them.
The democrat believes that the people should
THINK FOR THEMSELVES and select repre
sntatives to ACT for them. The difference is a
fundamental one.
If a representative takes, the aristocratic posi
tion he assumes the right to think for his con
stituents and he does not like to have them both
er him by telling him what he ought to do.
The democrat believes that he has no business
to represent his people unless ho gives expression
to their wishes and does what they want done.
And tho first point that I desire to emphasize,
and it is a very practical point, is that it is the
duty of a representative to carry out jthe will of
hie constituents. I have heard a good deal, from
time to time, from representatives about their
dealres to follow their conscience. No man put
conscience higher than I do. You may have to
decide the question "ought a representative to
follow his conscience?" I answer, undoubtedly,
yes! "Ought a representative to do what his
conscience tolls him is wrong?" I answer, un
hesitatingly, "No!" But does that conflict with
the democratic idea of representative govern
ment? No!
Suppose a representative Is called upon by his
constituents to do something that tho represent
ative thinks Is wrong, ought he to do it? No!
What ought he to do? Resign, and let somebody
act who can conscientiously do what his constit
uents want!
That course reconciles the two duties, first,
following his conscience and second, represent
ing his constituents. But do you know that ques
tion very seldom arises until after the election? I
have found that tho man who CONSCIENTIOUS
LY desires to do something his constituents do
not want done, rarely feels his conscience acting
until after the election. I have not much use for
a man whose conscience hibernates during a cam
paign, and is awakened, when no special interest
wants him to represent it.
I am Bure that I will not offend anyone when
I speak of a special interest, for that is the only
thing that makes trouble in a legislature. A
man has no difficulty in following tho wishes of
his constituents until some powerful influence
begins to operate upon him, and I never speak
to a legislature without emphasizing the people's
right to have a representative who obeys his
constituents, and I can prove to you that this is
the idea of representative government thatpre
vails among the people.
I cite you to tho fact that every candidate who
runs for an important office runs on a platform,
and that in proportion as the subjects under con
sideration are important the platform is specific.
Now, if the peopjo elected representatives to
think for them, why would they instruct them in
a platform? And if they Instruct them in a plat
form why do men accept office under instruction
unless they intend to carry out the instruction?
If a man receives money belonging to another
and embezzles it, we send him to tho peniten
tiary. I contend that official authority is moro
important than money and I am hoping that in
the development of free government the time
will come when wo shall punish, as a criminal,
the man who embezzles power who secures au
thority and then uses it for himself. '
Why do I lay this foundation? Because I In
tend to build upon it. If what I have said is
sound; if what I have said is democratic; if
what I have said is in harmony with tho prin
ciples of free institutions, then it ought to be ap
plied to the forms and methods of government.
There are different forms of government and
we have gone back to tho Greek for the language
that describes these different forms. We have
the word MONARCHY, and it means a govern
ment by one person, a king, an emperor, a kaiser,
a czar, a monarch. But the tendency towards
free government Is so strong that monarchies
are being limited; the whole progress of tho
world is towards Increased limitations upon ar
bitrary power and the enlargement of the au
thorityt of the people.
Next to the monarchy comes the aristocracy.
The word ARISTOS, means the best; but It was
rtl assumption of virtue that was given to a few;
an aristocracy is a government in which a few
control. But history shows that wherever there
was an aristocracy the number of those who ex
ercised the ruling power continually increased,
and it became more and more a democracy.
The third form of government described by
these Greek words Is the democracy. And what
does the word DEMOCRACY mean? A govern
ment, in which the people rule. Of all the names
that have ever been used to describe a party, I
insist that no other word so fittingly describes a
party dedicated to the doctrine of democracy, no
other word so describes the ideal party as the
word democracy. It is not so well understood in
Europe, however, as it is In this country.
I never understood until a few years ago what
an advantage the republican party had in appeal
ing to those whp come from across the sea, but
I had my attention called to this advantage in
several different way within a. short time. First,
a Swedish minister, in Nebraska, told me it was
difficult to get people from his country to nar-
stand that the republican party had no specie!
connection with a republic. Ho said that kit
people, in coming to a republic, seomed to as
sumo that tho republican party was the party of
a republic. That was the first time I had my at
tention called to it. Shortly after that I visited
Franco, and went Into tho country about forty
miles to talk to a peasant In order to get hi
point of view. Ho answered my questions freely
and whon ho was through I thanked him, and a
I started away, ho told my Interpreter to toll me
that ho wan glad I was a republican, that he
would not have talked to mo if I had not boon.
I had then run for president twlco on tho demo
cratic ticket, and yet that man spoko of me a
a republican.
Not long after that a man brought mc a copy
of tho Now York Independent containing a bi
ographical sketch of a map from southern Eu
rope who had secured property and, influence
among his people in this country. Tho story of
his life was presented In this magazine, and my
attention was. called to something like this: He
said that, after he had neon here for a little
while, he wont to a political meeting, and that
tho speaker said that the republican party be
lieved In a republic, but that tho democratic
party wanted an Irishman named Bryan for &
king. lie said that us he believed in a republic
ho Joined tho republican party. And when I
quote a little more, you may think that possibly
ho joined tho right party. Ho said they asked
him to bo naturalized and he said he had not
been hero long enough, but they told him to be
naturalized anyhow, because It would only cost
him $1.75 to be naturalized and that ho could
get $2.50 for his vote.
Tho word DEMOCRATIC Is, I repeat, tho best
name that a party can have in a couutry Tike
ours, but to have that name involves certain re
sponsibilities. It is a misfortune for the son of a great man
to be measured against his father's repuMon;
it is a real misfortune, because those wht pleas
ure him against his father's reputation generally
forget that there Is a generation between them,
Tho disadvantage of having a good party .rae,,,
such as our party has, Is that every maT,4vhO
calls himself a democrat Is measured againpfc, uie
name. A democrat, if he does not bellovo In the
rule of the people, If ho doej not try to hq j) Jthe
people to rule, is markod lower than If he made
no claim to a high standard. i
Now, in these latter days, they have invented
two other words that describe a perverted dem
ocratic government. One is PLUTOCRACY, or
tlie rule of money; a plutocracy may dominate
tho government in a democracy, and it Is the
duty of democrats to see that our democracy 1
not converted into a plutocracy. It Is the duty
of democrats to see that money Is not put above
man. V
Sometimes when, in speaking, I mention Jef
ferson and Lincoln I find tho. audience applaud
ing Lincoln more than it applauds Jefferson, and
then I remind the audience that that Is unfair
because Lincoln said that he had not a political
principle that he did not get from Thomas Jefc.
ferson. And certainly the statesman who can
give political principles to all tho world, a
Jefferson did, ought not to be rated lower than
those who took their principles from him.
Upon no point did Jefferson and Lincoln agree
moro thoroughly than as to the relative import
ance of money and man. Jefferson's whole philos
ophy may be condensed Into a sentence when Isay
that ho put man first and money afterward. And
yet Jefferson never expressed this Idea as aptly
as Lincoln did, and, strangely enough, when Lin
coln, in 1859, stated this relation, with an apt
ness that will never be surpassed, ho was writing
a letter to the REPUBLICANS of Boston, who
were celebrating JEFFERSON'S birthday. Lin
coln expressed his regret that he could not be
present, but paid as eloquent a tribute to Jeffer
son as was ever paid, and then he used these
words: "The republican party believes In the man
and the dollar; but in case of conflict, it believe
in the man before the dollar."
Jefferson never put the idea as strongly as
that, and yet that was the very idea upon which
his political philosophy was built, and that idea
remain and every party that is democratic must,
in cage of conflict, put the man first and the dol
lar afterward. In a plutocracy the dollar Is put
first and the man afterward, if at all
In a democracy, I repeat, we must avoid tat.
plutocratic idea. But that is, not the only dam-,
ger that threatens a democracy. I .can not girt
you a Greek word for it, hut if you will let !
make up a word, part American and part Greek, 1
' (.