The Commoner.
W1LLIAH J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
Vol. 2. No. 36.
A
Lincoln, Nebraska, Sept. 26, 1902.
Whole No. 88.
Speaker Henderson's Withdrawal
Speaker Henderson's withdrawal from the con
gressional race furnishes the most sensational fea
ture of the campaign. Ho is the present speaker
of the house of representatives and was a candi
date for re-election. His district having an over
whelming republican majority his election seemed
assured, notwithstanding the activity of the demo
crats and the desertion of some republicans sup
posed to be comparatively few. It must have re
quired some powerful cause to have forced a with
drawal under such circumstances. What was the
cause? In his letter he gives but one, namely,
that he finds many republicans in his district in
favor of putting trust-made articles on the free
list as a' remedy for private monopolies, and as
lie 4s opposed to that remedy he declared that he
preferred to retire to private life rather than strike
such a blow at the system of protection. It is only
fair to assume that the republican defection in his
district is so serious as to make him believe his
election impossible, for on no other theory would
ho bo justified, evenjiccording to his own Jpgic, in
refusing to make the "light If ho believes, as ,ho
evidently does, that the nation's prosperity depends
upon maintaining a high tariff wall, then It was his
duty to fight for its preservation. He could not in
such a case consult his own convenience or the
effect of- defeat upon his own political fortunes.
A surrender without a fight is rank cowardice ex
cept in the case of overwhelming odds, and even
then it is better to die fighting if, by so doing, the
cause can be strengthened elsewhere.
Mr. Henderson is the leader of his party in the
house of representatives and he must have known
that his abandonment of the fight for the reasons
given would weaken the very cause to which he
declared hinfelf devoted. It must be remem
bered, too, that the action was taken without con
sulting those who share with him the responsibil
ities of leadership taken on the very day when
the president and five republican leaders in the
senate Hanna, Aldrich, Spooner, Allison, and
Lodge met at Oyster Bay and decided to ignore
the tariff question in the present campaign. No
wonder the republicans are panic-stricken; no
wonder they are explaining It on various and con
tradictory grounds. Some say that Mr. Henderson,
finding that he could not conscientiously repre
sent' his constituents on that question, withdrew
as a matter of honor, but how could Mr. Hender
son ascertain before election the views of his con
stituents? How could he measure in advance the
effect of his own speeches in influencing the views
of his constituents? If he, the speaker of the
house, with his great prestige, ability and personal
popularity could not hold one of the strongest re
publican districts in the United Sta'tes, what chance
is there for less conspicuous, less able and less
popular republicans to hold close congressional
districts? This explanation, while creditable to
the speaker's candor and honesty, is a confession
of judgment against the republican party on this
issue, and republicans cannot afford to make it
. Mr. Henderson has put his party in a position
where it must condemn him in order to save the
party. It must charge him with lacking leader
ship, with being deficient in courage and unwill
ing to sacrifice himself for tho good of the party,
or they must charge that ho acted in a fit of pas
sion and did not take time to consider the wide
spread effect of his deed. They must accuso him
of a crime against his party, or of a blunder that is
as disastrous as a crime in its influence upon
tho party.
n Knowing of General Henderson's devotion to
his party and of tho bravery he has displayed on
many occasions, The Commoner will assume that
ho recognized tho irreconcilable conflict between
his own views and tho Iowa platform, and rather
than surrender his own convictions or embarrass
his party in the state ho preferred to sacrifice his
own ambition without stopping to consider how
his conduct would demoralize the ultra-protoc-""tionists.in
the republican party and give increased
prominence to an issue which the national leaders
of his party are trying to avoid.
This question is one which is likely to make a
division in his party and its settlement cannot
-long be postponed. The republican par.ty- must
reform the tariff at tho risk of losing the entire
system of protection or it must resolutely oppose
all tariff reform at the Tisk of losing a great many
republican voters.
The other leaders of his party were attempt
ing to delay consideration of the question in tho
hope that the agitation would subside without tho
necessity of any action whatever, but General
Henderson's hasty move has .focused public at
tention on tho subject and compelled republicans to
take sides.
Tho fight is now on and no one can tell how
extensive the disaffection may be or how many
republicans may be driven out of the party by a
refusal of the manufacturers and their advocates
to make any concessions to the consumers.
When Governor Cummins forced through the
state convention of Iowa a tariff reform platform,
The Commoner pointed out that the platform
might hold republicans in line this year, but that
it would in the end educate them out of the re
publican party if the party in the nation refused
- to lower the schedules. The work of education Is
in progress. If the republicans of General Hen
derson's district fill the speaker's place with a
tariff reform republican he will hold the Cummins
men but lose the Henderson men; if the place Is
filled by a Henderson man he will be necessarily
weaker than General Henderson himself. Tho
chances, therefore, are good for Governor Boies,
the democratic candidate, unless his abandonment
of the Kansas City platform weakens him among
the democrats.
But while tho withdrawal of Speaker Hender
son brings dismay and confusion to the republicans
it also brings responsibility to the democrats.
Public attention is now attracted to the free list
as a remedy for trusts. That is tho only remedy
the reorganizes have proposed and its insuf
ficiency will soon become apparent on investiga
tion. It must not be put forward as a complete
remedy for the trust evil, but as a mean of pre
venting the extortion now practiced by manufac
turers who hide behind tho tariff and sell at a
high price at homo while they sell abroad in
competition with tho world.
If democrats propose tariff reduction as a com
plete romedy for tho trusts they will bo met by two
unanswerable arguments; first, that a trust that
cdl export can exist without a tariff, and, second,
that thoro aro trusts in England, which is gen
erally pointed to as a free trado country.
Democrats who rely upon tho freo list as a
complete remedy or as tho only romedy for the
trusts will soon be on tho defonslvo, but demo
crats who rely upon tho freo list as a romedy for
trust extortion will put the republicans on tho do
ivnsive, Ay TJir Commoner has repeatedly pointed out,
trusi-niadc articles should bo put oji tho free list
for the protection of the public, but tho party will
make a fatal mlstako if it stops with that It
must attack tho principlo of monopoly and present
a remedy which will mako it impossible for a pri
vate monopoly to exist in tho United States.
The Kansas City platform presents such a
remedy and it is the only remedy now before the
public. It is simple, and easily applied, and it has
the merit of striking tho ovil it aims at without
disturbing corporations ongaged in legitimate
business.
Tho monopolies aro here and they are grow-
ing; tho republicans aro at sea; tho leaders of tho
. party, raised to power by trust contributions, are
impotent to do anything. They dare not onforcc
the criminal law against trust magnates; they
dare not offend manufacturers who havo both
money and tho power to coerce voters. Tho ropub
- licans have talked about publicity, but they have
' allowed six years to go by without even trying
that remedy. Now, tho president suggests a still
more remote remedy. Without evidence he as
sumes that congress is powerless to apply an ef
fective remedy; and proposes an amendment which
requires, first, two-thirds of both houses; second,
three-fourths of tho states, and, third, a federal
statute carrying out the new amendment Why
thus postpone action for an indefinite period unles
it Is certain that present power is exhausted? Why
not enforce the criminal law now on the statute
book? If they refuse to enforce that, are they
likely to enforce some future law? If the republi
cans will not adopt remedies already permitted by
tho constitution are they likely to enact legisla
tion to be authorized by some future amendment?
The democrats can charge that "the Tepubll
. cans do not Intend to destroy private monopolies"
and they can cite as proof the Inaction of republi
can presidents republican senators, republican
congressmen and republican judges, and they can
jalso cite tho arguments made by republicans from
the president down in defense of the very monop
olies which they promise to attack. They aro do
ing now on the trust question exactly what they
' did on the money question in1896. Then they
promised international bimetallism while they
made arguments in favor of the gold standard
(which they called' "sound money"); now they,
promise to, curb the trusts, while republican edl-