'iS'nf r'"
tatlvo of plutocracy, will daro to suggest a singlo
natural right possessed by ono human being that
Is not possessed by every other human being.
Who will dlsputo that the purpose of government
Is to securo to tho Individual tho onjoyment of lila
lnallonablo rights? If that Is not tho purpose of
government, what Is Its truo purpose? Let him
Vho would dostroy tho foundation of our govern
ment furnish a better ono. If all should not bo
protected In their lnallonablo right of life, liberty
and tho pursuit of happiness, upon what ground
shall discrimination bo based? On wealth? Who
says so? On Intelligence? Who will afllrm It?
When mon aro thrown togother and must sharo
In a common lot tho Instinct of self-preservation
may load one man or ono elomont to placo re
strictions upon another man or another element
for tho real or supposod good of tho whole, but
such restrictions, when defensible at all, aro only
dofonslblo upon tho theory that they are in real
ity a protection of human rights, and not a denial
of thorn. For instanco, tho doctrlno that a man
may tako a human lifo in tho defense of his own
llfo or In tho defense of the lifo of another, is based
upon tho thoory that tho act is necossary to the
preservation of human rights, and tho penalty falls
on tho man who by his conduct forfeits his own
rights. Mon aro sont to prison or tho gallows for
the samo reason, and such punishment must bo
defended on tho samo ground. All qualifications
"Which aro placed upon suffrage, whether they fix
an ago limit, an educational qualification or a
property qualification, are based upon tho doctrine
of self-defense and aro defended, where they can
bo defended at all, not by denying tho oxistonco
of inalienable rights, but by 'affirming that tho
provisions adopted aro necessary for tho protec
tion of inalienable rights. Tho question of nec
essity is tho only ono that is open for discussion,
and in tho discussion of this question It must al
Tvaja bo' romombored that om may have an in
terest which will bias his judgment. Those, how
over, who admit tho inalienable rights of man
and endeavor to justify what may seem to be a
denial of those rights, aro not so apt to err as thoso
who begin by denying tho very existence of nat
ural and inherent rights.
It must bo remembered that progress is meas
ured not so much by tho discovery of now principles
as by the more perfect application of tho old prin
ciples. Tho upright man becomes bettor as tho
days go by because lie more perfectly applies to
his ovory-day lifo tho moral principles which, ho
adopts as Solomon has expressed It, "Tho path
of tho just is as tho shining light that shineth more
and raoro unto tho perfect day."
So in a nation, its progress is measured by
the manner in which it applies great fundamental
principles to its national life. Tho truths of the
Declaration of Independonco cannot bo denied
merely because thoso truths were not perfectly ap
plied by thoso who wrote the document. As well
might we say that tho Christian religion is falso
because thoso who profess to bellovo in its prin
ciples do not live perfect lives. Tho Declaration
of Independence deals with tho fundamental prin
ciples of government. It sets forth tho basic truths
upon which a republic must rest. Theso aro
axiomatic truths self-evident truths. They were
not perfectly applied in 177G they are not per
fectly applied now and let us admit for tho sake
of argument that they never will be perfectly ap
plied. But aro wo therefore relieved from tho
necessity of applying them as far as we can? If
wo have erred in tho past, should wo not endeavor
to improvo rather than make past sins an excuse
for further failure? A republic built upon tho Dec
laration of Independonco cannot bo overthrown, lor
it is founded upon a rock. In proportion as' tho
self-evident truths contained in tho Declaration of
luuepenuenco aro applied to our covernmnnf m,
people will bo happy and our progress will bo
The Commoner
permanent; In so far as thoso principles are ex
emplified In our national lifo our nation will bo a
light to tho world and a blessing to mankind.
JJJ
Why?
Speaker Henderson's claim upon the republi
can nomination for congress in tho Third congres
sional district of Iowa is to be contested this year
by Stato Senator Courtright. Tho Kansas City
Star, which, to say tho least, is not hostile to the
republican party, says:
If tho republican party believes that it Is
for tho welfare of tho country that the minor
ity should not be heard; that subserviency to
tho trusts is for tho public welfare; that gag
rule is better than froo speech, then Mr. Hen
derson is a very useful man to his organiza
tion. But it is reasonable to believe that tho
great majority of thoso who would take noto
of the change would be more than reconciled
to tho success of Representative Henderson's
republican opponent
Why should tho republican who gives cordial
oncouragement to the subserviency of trusts dis
played by Mr. Roosevelt's administration, or who
stands uncovered in the presence of tho ship sub
sidy steal, or who has no word of protest for tho
many iniquities now being done in the name of
tho republican party why should such a republi
can object because Mr. Henderson, like other emi
nent republicans, Is subservient to trusts, and em
ploys the gag rule for tho welfare of "business
interests?"
JJJ
The Crumpacker Resolution.
The following resolution, introduced by Mr.
Crumpacker of Indiana, has been attracting con
siderable attention:
Resolved, That tho speaker shall appoint
a seloct committee, consisting of thirteen
members of the house, whose duty it shall be,
and who shall have full and ample power, to
Investigate and inquire into the validity of the
election laws of the several states and tho
manner of their enforcement, and whether
tho right to vote at any election for the choice
of electors for president and vice president
of the United States, representatives in con
gress, the executive and judicial officers of any .
of the states or tho members of tho legisla
ture thereof, is denied to any of the male in
habitants of any of tho states, being twenty
one years of age and citizens of tho United
States, or in any way abridged, except for
crime. Said committee shall havo power to
Bubpoena and examine witnesses, under oath,
and to send for records and other evidence
that may be necessary for a full and complete
investigation of tho several subjects herein
mentioned, and it shall be authorized to sit
during the sessions of the house and to havo
such printing and binding done as it shall
deem necessary. Said committee shall make a
full report to tho house of tho result of its In
vestigation at as early a date as is practicable.
This partisan and entirely sectional resolu
tion is thought to bo the forerunner of an effort
to deprive the southern states of a part of their
congressional representation, and is being dis
cussed with considerable fervor by southern edi
tors and public men. If any of tho laws or consti
tutions of southern states violate the federal con
stitution or tho amendments adopted at the close
of tho war the supreme court can bo trusted to' so
decide at least the republican leaders ought not
to reflect on the court by assuming that it will
not decide correctly. What effect can a con
gressional Investigation have? Will congress fore
stall the decision of the court? The republicans
may threaten to reduce southern representation as
a punishment for strict suffrage laws, but they
daro not do it, for such an. act could be construed
only as an abandonment of the negro. A reduc
tion in representation could only be explained on
tho theory that the negro is to be placed under a
perpetual disqualification and the republican party
would lose the negro voto in the north if by de
manding a reduction in representation it admitted
that it did not intend to oppose suffrage amend-
Volume a, No. 11.
ments In tho south. To bold tho negro vote In
tho north tho republicans must keep up a pre
tense of indignation .at any limitation on suffrage
in southern states; and a reduction in representa
tion would deprive them of a campaign issue that
has been found valuable among colored voters.
jjj
Popular Elections of Senators.
A reader of The Commoner asks for a concise
statement of the advantages to be expected from
tho election of senators by direct vote of tho
people. ,.
First It brings the government nearer to tho
people a sufficient advantage in itself, for it en
ables the people to select whom they wish and to
punish those who betray their trust.
Second It avoids the corruption that, with
increasing frequency, is attending the election of
senators by legislatures.
Third It enables the stato legislature to at
tend" to state matters undisturbed by national
politics. '
The objections to the reform come, first, from
those who think that the senators represent the
states, and that state equality in the senate would
be disturbed. They are mistaken. While tho
senators represent the states they do not represent
the state administration, but the people of the
state, and the question of equal representation is
not in any way effected by the. mode of election.
The second objection comes from those "who
have no confidence in the judgment or patriotism
of the people, and fear to trust them with tho
selection of their representatives in the senate.
The third objection comes from people who
represent great corporations and know that : the
corporations cannot control popular elections 'as
effectively as they can elections by legislatures.
The fourth objection comes from rich men:
who think that it is .cheaper or at least easier to.
buy a. majority in the legislature than .to -buy a,
majority of the people. " ' "' " r''
JJJ
That Shameless Subsidy.
When the ship subsidy bill was before the
senate several very- important amendments were
offered by the opposition, but all of them were de
featedeven the six republicans who voted against
the bill on its final passage refused to join with the
democrats in the effort to improve the measure.
Senator Berry of Arkansas offered three amend
ments which struck at tho monopolistic features
and the defeat of these amendments showed the
extent to which the great corporations controlled
the majority. The first amendment was aimed at
the Standard Oil company and read as follows:
That oil tank steamers or vessels for car- '
rying oil Jn barrels, cases or packages shall
not be included under this act.
This amendment was, of course, defeated and
tho Standard Oil company is to be given a
chance at the subsidy even though it Is now, mak
ing something like one hundred per cent on its
capital stock.
The second Berry amendment was Intended to
protect the public against extortionate rates and
read:
That freight and passenger rates on all
ships or vessels drawing either mail or eeneral
subsidy under this act shall be fixed and reg
ulated by the interstate commerce commis
sion; and any individual or corporation vlo-
lating said regulations shall forfeit an amount
double the amount of their subsidy.
But no, the ship owners must be allowecl to
charge what they please and after they have col
lected all they can from patrons they are to draw
a subsidy from the pockets of tho taxpayers.
t The third amendment offered by Mr Berrv
provided that:
o Port, shipper or commodity shall be '
discriminated against in rates of freight or
by any system of private rebates or oth$
concessions at date of shipment or later per-
i
.4vxm UMjfj.,.
siV
itfd
