The Commoner,
3
lose when lie makes conditions that in no way
benefit his country, but bear heavily upon the
individual representative of the apologizing
country.
The people of Germany are too intelligent
to require at the handB of China's representative
the humiliation that the "kowtowing" ceremony
would impose upon him. Had that ceremony
been required, the people of Germany would
themselves have been humiliated before the
civilized world, and the representatives of civ
ilization would have lost- another opportunity
of sotting a good example to the world's barbarians.
The Star's Inconsistency.
In its issue of September 3, the Kansas City
Star took Mr. Bryan to task because of his
labor day address. The Star insisted that Mr.
Bryan was, "looking on the dark side." Among
other things that newspaper said:
"Look at the wealth of this country is the
division just?" was one of Mr. Bryan's interroga
tions. No, it is not just, nor can the distribution
' of wealth be absolutely just under any form of
government and with any race of people. Even
the socialistic doctrine, which aims at ideal co
operation, distribution and compensation, cannot
possibly insure absolute equity, for some deserve
more than others earn more than others. Such
a question answers itself, but the effect of asking
it of the poorer class is to engender a feeling
among that class against the richer and that is
not in accordance with the democratic spirit of
this country, which gives every man a right to ac
quire and possess.
To say that absolute perfection can not
be attained in the distribution of wealth is
no defense of a bad law or a bad system.
It" should bo the aim of every good citizen
to aid in making the government as nearly
perfect as possible. Each person should
receive from society in proportion as he con
tributes to society -this is the ideal condition
and should be approached as nearly as human
ingenuity can devise. But the purpose of this
editorial is not to defend Mr. Bryan but to call
attention to the Star's inconsistency.
In its issue of Wednesday, September 4, the
Star made admirable answer to itself. Under
the headline "Wounds of a Friend," the Star
had this to say:
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend," said
Solomon, the wise man of old. Under this head
may be classed the utterances of Theodore Roose
,velt in his address at Minneapolis on Labor Day.
Standing out strong and clear among all of the
declarations which have been made on the subject
of trusts are the following sentiments by the vice
president: "We shall find it necessary in the fu
ture to shackle cunning, as in the past we have
shackled force." "The vast individual
and corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of
capital which have marked the development of
our industrial system create new conditions and
necessitate a change from the old attitude of the
state and the nation toward property."
These are direct and pointed sentiments in
spired by conditions to which no thoughtful and
sober minded man can be blind. They are not
uttered in any spirit of intemperate agitation or
with any purpose to excite false alarm for politi
cal purposes. They come from an influential mem
ber of the party which capital in modern years
has regarded as its chosen champion. They do not
. proceed, from a person who has excited the sus
picion of the conservative element by the radical
character of his opinions.
In admonishing the Jarge capitalists of their
- 'duty Mr. Roosevelt is speaking to persons with
;vhom he has been intimately associated. He is
prominently identified with the social and political
life of the richest community in America. He is a
1 Now Yorker by heredity. He is known and es
teemed by the so-called money kings. He could
, have no possible motive in wishing to overthrow
a. fabric which would bring destruction to those
who are of the same political household of faith
with himself.
Mr. Roosovelt speaks as a friend to the rich
men who are rapidly gaining control of the indus
tries and the commerce of the nation. Will it not
be infinitely wiser for them to hear him and
heed him and follow his counsel than to per
sist in their scheme of solf-aggrandizoment at the
certain risk of inviting a violent and implacablo
conflict with avowed onomies, who have none of
the regard for the rights of capital which Mr.
Roosevelt has always shown?
Why does the Star publish editorials like
this which have the effect "to engender a feel
ing among that class (the workingmen) against
the richer?"
If it is wrong for a man who has "excited the
suspicion of tho conservative element by the
radical character of his opinions" to utter tho
sentiments which Mr. Bryan did at Kansas
City, is it not all the more wrong for a
"thoughtful and sobor minded man" like Mr.
Roosevelt to give expression to similiar senti
ments? Mr. Roosevelt said that "wo shall find- it
necessary in the future to shackle cunning as in
the past wo have shackled force." Ho even
went so far as to intimate that it would be
necessary to make "a change from tho old atti
tude of the state and the nation toward proper
ty;" the very thing which above all others the
republican party has insisted is sacred.
When Mr. Bryan said things of this char
acter the Kansas City Star said it was "not
in accordance with tho democratic spirit of
this country which gives every man a right to
acquire and possess." But when Mr. Roose
velt said these things this same newspaper cor
dially commended the speaker and warned "tho
rich men who are rapidly gaining control of
the industries and commerce of the nation" that
they will do well to hear and heed and follow
the counsel of Theodore Roosovelt.
This same newspaper warns the trust mag
nates that they will make a mistake if they
persist in their "scheme of self-aggrandizement,"
and that persistence in that direction
will be "at the risk of inviting a violent and
implacable conflict."
It will be observed that the Star points out
that the opinions expressed by Mr. Roosevelt
"do not proceed from a person who has caused
the suspicion of the conservative element by
. the radical character of his opinions," and then
in the same issue in which the Star commends
Mr. Roosevelt's protest against the trusts it
in another editorial, says:
William Jennings Bryan, with all his professed
hostility for combinations against trade, has never
said anything in relation to trusts so emphatic
and unequivocal as the utterances of Vice Presi
dent Roosevelt at Minneapolis. To the notable
political epigrams of the day must be added the
declaration of Mr. Roosevelt that "we shall find
necessary in tho future to shackle force." The
whole range of modern democratic literature
might be searched in vain for a pronunclamento
more courageous than that on tho tyrannical cen
tralization of capital.
So according to the Star's own statement
there is more of tho "radical character" about
Mr. Roosevelt's opinion than attaches to the
opinion of Mr. Bryan.
But the question is of what moment is it
who gave utterance to protests against these
"schemes of self-aggrandizement"? Of what
importance is it whether the protests were
uttered by a man like Mr. Bryan, who the Staj
says has "excited the suspicion of the conserva
tive eloment by tho radical character- of his
opinions", or from Theodore Roosovelt, whom
this republican organ is pleased to consider
"a thoughtful and sober-minded man"? Is not
the question "Is it tho truth?" tho all im
portant one in the contemplation of such a pro
test? If conditions warrant such a protest, if tho
protest is based on justice and truth, is tho
fact in any wise altered whether tho protest is
mado by Mr. Bryan or by Mr. Roosovelt?
Why is it that, when a democrat enters
protest against "self-aggrandizomotit", this
Kansas City paper finds it necessary to argue
that such a protest is "not in accordance with
tho democratic spirit of this country which
gives every man a right to acquire and pos
sess"; while when a similar protest is mado by
a republican this same Kansas City paper on
the very following day refers to tho latter pro
test as "direct and pointed sentiments inspired
by conditions to which no thoughtful and sober
minded man can be blind"?
If every man has a right to "acquire and
possess" regardless of the rights of others, as
tho Star intimated in its criticism of Mr. Bryan,
then with what reason may wo object to tho
schemes of "self-aggrandizement" by which
certain rioh men are "rapidly gaining control
of tho industries and tho commerce of tho
nation?"
Is there not danger that by tho publication
of such editorials as these tho Kansas City Star
will do things "not in accordance with tho dem
ocratic spirit of this country which gives every
man a right to acquire and possess"?
In all seriousness, can a great newspaper
like tho Kansas City Star hope that its readeri
will give serious attention to its opinions when
on one day it condoms Mr. Bryan for giving
utterance to certain sentiments, and on tho
next day commends Mr. Roosovelt for giving
expression to similar sentiments?
. Will they Remember?
Mr. Davis, vice-president of the Amalga
mated Association, in a recent speech, charged
J. Pierpont Morgan with a fixed determination
to destroy all labor organizations. He said:
"Tho steel men are picked as the first organi
zation to bo wiped out. That is why the opposi
tion to us is so bitter, so uncompromising, so re
gardless of the possibility of arbitration. Next
will come the poor old miners, if we are beaten.
Then the carpenters and machinists, and after
them one trade after another. If we are defeated
we shall all become slaves, and lite will no longer
be worth living."
That the trusts, if permitted to exist, will
ultimately destroy the labor unions, is too plain
a proposition to admit of dispute, but will tho
laboring men remember at the polls the lesson
they are learning at the door of tho factory?
The wage-earners have it in their power to de
stroy every trust and, by so doing, to restore
the era of industrial independence, but will
they exert that power on election day? No
one who understands history or human nature
can doubt that private monopolies are a menaco
to employes, as well as to producers of raw ma
terial and to consumers. The time will como
when the evils of the trust system will bo rec
ognized by all, but in the meantime many bit
ter lessons are being learned. s. "Experience is
a dear teacher," but apparently the only ono
whose instruction is heeded. -