fKW5fp
rTT'iF
;
moner
-WMBMHMBBB lari w, -
The
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL 22, NO 8
! I
1,
"" " - i f
, . , v
" i , ,.- t- rr1
11 Hi IIIHM IMIiailllMiiini mi
n . m
'i I
K
-la-
iV
ith
No Cancellation J
out Disarmament
Oa another page will be found an editorial
from the Indianapolis Star, which has the ap
pearance of being part of a propaganda. Great
Britain suggests cancellation of all the .inter
Allied debts. Now come Morgan and Kahn, 'the
two leading American representatives of foreign
financiers, and approve the suggestion. The
'American people are told frankly that these
debts are not worth anything to begin with and
that Europe really does not owe us anything"
ana, besides, it will injure us to make them pay
the debts even if they do owe us.
There never was any thought of paying these
debts; the advocates o,f unconditional cancella
tion have just been waiting until the time was
opportune to commence the campaign. The time
ceeras to be ripe and ..simultaneous utterances
now point to, a common purpose1.
Senator Borah has pointed. out that no sug
gestion of DISARMAMENT accompanies, the le
quest for cancellations This is the point upon
which attention should be focused. The debts
are WORTHLESS and NEVER WILL BE PAID,
but cancellation WITHOUT CONDITION would
not aid peace; it would more likely insure an
other war. The cancellation of the debts would
Bive the Allies more credit with which to de
velop a new preparedness based on the doctrine
that peace can be preserved only by terrorism.
The United States has no desire to encourage
another war; its interest is in the7 establishment
oUinivorsal and' perpetual peace. Our nation,.
asked for no indemnities; its c&mpensation av.is
to be found in the abolition of war. As we were
filing to pay over thirty billions for a peace
secured by slaughteiy-and are not yet sure that
e have itwe ought to be willing to give
eleven billions for a veal peace secured by peace
able means. It would bo worth that. But the
jase is stranger than that. We may be able to
trade a WORTHLESS debt for a PRICELESS
Peace if we make disarmament the condition
t0Pth whic? the debt ia cancellod whv not say
Allies: Whenever you can get together
toir? t0rmS satisfact0IT to yourselves so get
Ketner that you can disarm you can take the
b ,Veu b,11tons and divide .it among yourselves;
m cacellation without disarmament.
it The cancellation could be progressive so that
Would f be a guarantee tuat disarmament
time t i7' TUe debt could be cancelled from
was n ' proPrtionateJy as disarmament.
can s 0mplIshed If the world will disarm we
navy reducQ tuo appropriations for army and
Paratii t0 SaVQ the elovon Millions in' a com
ment' n Urt time Why not such a settle
lst8 nn ef ly because the militarists, naval;
country mauufactlll'ers of war materials in this
to 3 and in Europe do not want the world
w th(,rm TUe real' (TUestion at issue is wheth
Poace sentiment of .foe world is stroug
'';:iS'ii!
mmtmmmM
Lincoln, Nebraska, August, 1922
enough to overthrow the spirit of militarism
backed by the greed of the munition manu
facturers. w. J. BRYAN.
NO REOPENING OF PROHIBITION
No candidate for the Senate or Congress who
favors the reopening of the prohibition question
should receive the support of those who believe
in the Eighteenth Amendment. The wine and
beer proposition is a fraud; those who stand
back of it want a saloon the aid fashioned
saloon with all the vices that go with it. If a
Congress were elected on a wine and beer plat
form it would proceed at once to reopen the en
tire liquor question by refusing appropriations
to enforce prohibition and that would mean that
this nation could not consider any other ques
tion until the liquor question was again settled.
The wets know no party; they are not bound
by allegiance to any organization. They regard
the obtaining of a drink as the o.nly right guar
anteed by the Constitution, and in talking of
Constitutional rights they ignore the Eighteenth
Amendment which is now a part of the Constitu
tion. The real issue is LAW versus LAWLESS
NESS. No man who appeals to the underworld
for votes can be trusted to represent a law-abiding
constituency. The drys must be as much in
terested in the enforcement of the law as the
wets are in the violation of the law. That
means that the 'drys must make the liquor ques
tion the supreme issue wherever there is a can
didate who stands for intoxicants.
W. J. BRYAN.
HAMONY IN NEBRASKA
The Democratic primary in Nebraska, which
resulted in the nomination of Gilbert M. Hitch
cock for a third term as senator and of Charles
W. Bryan for governor, together with a strong
ticket of loyal and in most cases experienced
Democrats for other state and congressional of
fices, was proof positive of the final healing of
the division in the party in the state. Mr.
Bryan has contended for years that no perma
nent forward progress could be made in the
adoption of the great reforms on which all
Democrats are united until the liquor question
was eliminated. It is significant that the only
candidates in the July primary in Nebraska who
ran on a distinctly wet platform were entered
in tho Republican contests, where, it is interest
ing to note, they were decisively beaten. WUh
both parties dry and committed to legislation to
keep the state and nation dry, the way is open
again for complete and deserved Democratic
success.
Lea-ues ot women voters in various states
have undertaken to supply a deficiency, that ex
h under the primary method ot making nomi-
,a ions by eliciting from candidates themselves
U Tacts about themselves and their records haj
voters should know before presuming to cas an
(.itnt ballot The effort is well worth while,
1 he worn "n are rendering a distinctly valu
fe service that no agency of government or
parties supplies.
'Mvr,iiiL
.Whole Number 760
Senator Hitchcock
The Democrats of Nebraska arc again united
after a period of discord that laBted twelve
years. The liquor question entered politics In
Nebraska in 1910 with the advent of tho county
option issue. County option failed, and was suc
ceeded by prohibition as an issue which tri
umphed in 191G by a majority of 29,000. This
was followed by national prohibition and wom
an suffrage amendments. On theso two ques
tions, the Democratic party was divided, and tho
issue entered into every campaign from that
time up to and including two years ago. On this
question, Souator Hitchcock led one side while
Chas. W. Bryan and I were active on tho 0 tit or
side. As long as the issue lasted there was
neither compromise nor truce; but tho issue is
settled. Women are" now voting and woman's
influence will be felt in the settlement of every
issue which arises hereafter. Prohibition io a
fact and the party stands united for the enforce
ment of both the federal and the state prohibi
tion laws. ,..' - '
On these subjects Senator Hitchcock and tho
drys are in entire accord. There never has been
any personal antagonism between the Individuals
who fought on opposite sides in these contests.
They worked together on economic questions bo
fore liquor became an issue. For sixteen years,
from 1894 to 1910, the state platforms, were
adopted by unanimous vote, and during ' that
time Nebraska took her place in the front rank
at Democratic National Conventions. In fact,
Nebraska wrote in advance the platforms that
the national party afterward adapted. The. di
vision over the liquor question, regrettable as it
was, could not be avoided. Time brought tho
issue to its day of harvest and the people set
tled it. All should rejoice that as a disturbing
factor it has been eliminated. Mr. Hitchcock
and the Bryans fought, together for 'twenty
years before they were divided by the liquor
question. Why should they not fight together
now that that is eliminated and they agree upon,
what should be done?
Senator Hitchcock has served in the Senate
twelve years and has rendered great service to
his party I have not always approved of his
votes and his speeches, but the things about
which we have differed are past. . On the ques
tions now before Congress and the country, we
are in agreement. On the revenue bill, Mr. Hitch
cock' has fought with great ability and energy
on the people's side, opposing the efforts' that
have been made to shift the burden of taxation
from the rich to the poor. On the tariff ques
tion, he is a tower af strength to the people's
side and has with great ability presented tho
agricultural protest to the highway robbery con
templated in the high tariff schedules. His ex
perience equips him for still greater service as
a champion of rural America; he ought tohavo
the support of every Democrat in the state.
And why not the support of progressive Re
publicans? It is no reflection on the Republican
candidate for senator to say that he cannot give
'M
IM
f
! . U .- . xsiafci Aii. W --- '