The Commoner.
WILLIAfl J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
Vol. 4. No. 5.
Lincoln, Nebraska, February 19, 1904.
Whole No. 161.
Paramount Issue.
Tho reorcanizers. with tlio dishonesty that
as always characterized their political move-
lents, are snouting mat "uryan wants to inane
m .4 1 . i t tl mt. .-!
r izrmm rr i tmo nnroinn mr icano" ' rnnv nvn t-i-jiii
' J.i?lhat he says and they have read the platform
k.c - Minninrt nt Kansas ntr.v tint tnev Know mat b
t-v - w--., -
ki to 1 is not regarded as the paramount issue oy
Mr. isryair or toy tne otner advocates ot tuat plat
form. The money question was aeciarea to do
the paramount issue in iS'Ju; in iiiuu it was gx
bressly declared not to be the paramount Issue,
but that it is an issue is nerfectly evident to any
pno who will read the papers published by the
reorganizes. These papers snow tnat may re
gard the money question as an issue in two
wavs: First, thev make that the test in the selec-
Ition of candidates. The man may favor high
ttariffi or low tariff or he may nave no opinion at
Mil on the tariff Question, but he must believe in
Ifljtiie gold standard and be willing to allow the
1 A financiers to do his thinking lor mm. Ana so
Im3 " ... . if . J. u....
with other minor questions, out on tno money
tquestlon the candidate to ooiain lavoraDie men
tion must be sound according to Wall street
. m i va 11 1 111 J.. " -- - -" -
standards. Tnis proves tnat witn tne uaauuiuru
the money question is not only one of the issues,
hut rofillv the naramount issue. Second, why are
tne reorganizers so alarmed when silver is men
tioned? If it is a dead issue, why make such a
fuss over every reference to it? If it is lifeless
- ... 1 tx. J 11.. -
nd has no supporters, now can it juauiy xou
Ifirvnt.ivfi democrats" in bolting? Tho very fact
that the reorganizers are. so afraid of the money
question is proof that there is life enougn in it to
prevent its burial by its iriends.
' trho truth nf thn matter is that the reorgan-
sW.prs am' Irvine? to deceive the rank and file of
the party and it makes them mad to be discovered
iand exposed. They know tnat some pnase 01 tne
money question is always before congress and
Hacking the courage to meet the issue nonesny
fthp.v seek an advantage under cover of deceit.
itThey also know that back of all the surface is
Isues is the controlling one, namely, whether the
Smoney changers or the people snail control me
&rivprnn.pnL To surrender the money question
fewould not conciliate the reorganizers. Take the
f result in unio. ' Tom jonnson expressiy ueinuu.
pthat he favored free silver and yet ho was as
.bitterly denounced as if he had Deen an original
feiivpr man. Whv? Because he was onnosed to
the rule of corporate wealth. Mr. Clarke, tho
democratic candidate against Mr. nanna lor tne
sfsonate. was aeainst the nartv in 1896: he helped
L,10 rnnnhHrans that vp.ar am. last fall avoided
SwSj&hp monp.v nuestion. Was Lhat satisfactorv to tho
?;dmnanciers? Not at all. In spite of the fact that
BMflHll the republican papers reproduced his speeches
igainst rree silver ne was oeaten worse tuan any.
Senatorial candidate in recent years. Why ex
periment longer: uoncessions ana compromises
ire not expedient even if they were right. Try
;n draw a rilatform without reafflrmine the Kan
sas City platform and eeo what the result will
be. No honest statement of the Darty's position
t'p.nn he made without indorsinc the uosition taken
?in 1900. The whole aim of tho reorganizers is
-tn RGfMire an ambieuous nlatform with which to
Pfool tho people and a presidential candidate un-
fcder secret pledge to tho money magnates.
Mr. Bryan will not co-operato with tnem in
this effort and therefore he is the recip'ont of
their abuse and malice. But neither abuse nor
malicious misrepresentation will avail." Tho Is-
I sue must be met.
JJJ
The Subservient Sun.
The New York Sun. tho most subservient of
k all the servile tools of predatory wealth, has with
characteristic mendacity misrepresented and then
attacked one part of Mr. Bryan's speech. In
speaking of the Aldrich bill, Mr. Bryan said that
it provided for the loan of about threo hundred
millions of government money to pot banks at ono
and one-half por cent, or about four and a half
million dollars. Ho condemned it, among other
reasons, because it would furnish tho basis of an
enormous corruption fund and ho pointed out that
threo hundred millions cf government money
loaned by the banks at four and a half per cent
would give tho banks nino millions a year abovo
the interest paid tho government, or thirty-six
millions In four years. Ho then suggested that
by giving one-fourth of this sum tho banks could
supply a campaign fund of nine millions, or
enough to buy four hundred and fifty thousand
votes, at ?20 apiece enough votes to have changed
tho result of the last national election.
This argument was made against the Aldrich
bill and .had no reference to past campaigns. Tho
Sun so distorts tho abovo argument as to make
it refer to the last campaign and then bitterly de
nounces Mr. Bryan.
" That tho republican party spent enormous
sums in both 189G and 1900 is well known but
no democrat has boen able to ascertain the exact
amount, nor have the republican managers pub
lished any statement showing how it was ex
pended, but it must be apparent to all that tho
corporations that put up tho money have domi
nated the administrations. This is tho question
that papers like the Sun fall to .meet. On this
question they, are silent. The Sun has oven praised
the president for surrendering on the trust ques
tion it congratulated him on his masterly re
treat. Tho great trouble Is that tho government
is being used by tho representatives of organized
wealth to advance their business enterprises and
papors like the Sun are run for no higher purposes
than to aid in tho deception of tho public. The
Sun dares not state the proposition fairly be
causo It can neither disprove nor defend. -
A Dictator.
As Clear as Mud.
n
Kepublican organs are now beginning to -discuss
tho Foraker bill which practically repeals tho
Sherman anti-trust law, and an editorial in tho
Wall Street Journal is a sample of what we may
expect in this line. Tho Journal objects to the
word "reasonable" in the Foraker bill, and says
that word is "altogether too broad and indefinite.
It would open the door for infinite imposition."
Then the thoughts of tho Journal editor seem
to revert to the distressed condition of the tni3t
magnates, and so ho adds: '
"But of course some relief is necessary.
S'ome law must be passed which shall permit
tho corporations to secure tho benefits of
proper regulations of competition. A decision
adverse to the Northern Securities company
would probably hasten such legislation. It
seems to us that it should take the form of an
act enabling the railroads and other corpora
tions to pool their business subject to gov
ernment supervision and a comprehensive
publicity."
It will be observed that after all of its wad
dling and its wabbling the Wall Street Journal
does not get .very far from the Foraker bill Itself.
The Foraker bill would prohibit combinations
except in cases where they wero "reasonable" and
the question as to the reasonableness of tho com
binations would be a matter for judicial inter
pretation. But the Journal while objecting to that
word "reasonable" as being "altogether too broad
and indefinite," and yet realizing that "of course
some relief is necessary" for the poor, overbur
dened trust magnates thinks that railroads and
other corporations should pool their business
"subject to government supervision" and "a com
prehensive publicity,"
Now that is just about as clear as mud.
Tho Foraker bill would permit railroads and
other corporations to pool their business pro
vided tho pooling process was "reasonable." Tho
Wall Street Journal, criticising tho Foraker bill,
fs in favor of "an act enabling tho railroads and
other corporations to pool their business subject
to government supervision and a comprehensive
publicity!"
Tho reorganizers aro with ono voice accusing
Mr. Bryan of trying to "dictate" to tho demo
cratic party. What has Mr. Bryan dono to justify
tho charge? Ho has expressed It as hin opinion
that tho Kansas City platform should be reaf
firmed, and for this ho is now boing censured
by tho bolters and by those who aro trying to put
tho bolters in control of tho organization. If Mr.
Bryan had declared himself in favor of abandon
ing tho Kansas City platform would thoy havo
accused him of dictating? Not at all. Ho would
havo been praised by the gold organs and they
would havo abused any ono who dissented from
him. "Dictating," it would seem, Is defined, not
as tho offering of suggestions, but as tho offer
ing of suggestions objectionable to tho men and
newspapers to whoso opposition the party owes
its recent defeats. Mr. Bryan has a right to
agree with them, but no right, thoy think, to
differ from them.
Mr. Cleveland has benn offering advice: ho
has declared that tho party ought to return to
what ho calls "sanity" and yet nono of these or
gans have denounced Mr. Cleveland as a dictator.
Thoy have not oven questioned tho propriety of his
expressing an opinion on party policy. The fact
that Mr. Bryan has twice been tho candidate of
his party would, according to their logic, compel
him to keep silent, while tho fact that Mr. Cleve
land has twico thrown his Influence to tho re
publican party gives him a right to speak. Even
republican papers, can seriously counsel the demo
cratic party without arousing a protest from those
editors who mask their plutocratic designs under
a democratic namo; but it is regarded as utterly
reprehensible that a former candidate should con
fer with tho3o who vqted for him.
What is tho explanation of this bitter and
unreasonable criticism? Simply that the reor
ganizers aro attempting to deceive tho public and
it makes them angry to have their plans exposed.
Mr. Bryan has not sought to force his opinion
on any one. He has expressed himself, as every
citizen has a right to do, and ho has no de&iro
to influence his co-workers except insofar as his
arguments aro found to be sound. It Is not Mr.
Bryan that they havo to meet, but tho honest
convictions of tho millions of democrats who
havo maintained their integrily in spite oi threats
and bribes. A little child can, by quoting tho
commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," throw a
crowd of would-be burglars into confusion. They
would fear not tho child, but the doctrine ho
proclaims. And it would seem that Mr. Bryan's
suggestion of an honest platform has brought
similar consternation among tho men who aro
. plotting a betrayal of the people. If theirs waa
an open and an honest work they would not abuse
Mr. Bryan they would be content to announco
their platform, give their reasons for it and ap
peal to tho voters of tho party, but instead ot
that, they fly into a passion and deny tho right of
any ono to differ from them. They may as well
know that their scheme will be opposed and that
they will bo compelled to come from under cover.
For seven years tho corporation newspapers
and the leaders of the reorganization movement
have been working for the most part under ground;
they have lauded every tool of organized
wealth and attempted to assassinate the char
acter of every ono who would not join them;
They havo mado a constant assault on demo
cratic principles and were expecting to complete
their plans at St. Louis, but they now realize
that thoy must faco the indignation which theW
repeated perfidy has aroused,,
Their chief argument is that they can point
tho way to victory and they have impressed a
few who havo forgotten the disastrous defeat of
1894 when the reorganizers last led and the rout
of tho Palmer and Buckner ticket waich they sup
ported. They have won over a few whoso hunger
for spoils is stronger than desire for reform, and
promising a large corruption fund, they, of course,
attract those who want to handle tho money, but
m
n
U- i
..' '.fcsu
t&tih&raftji
MS
