f. l
t-X
vM&-
i
Commoner.
m
if.'
WILLIAM J, BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
The
Vol. 4. No. 15,
Lincoln, Nebraska, April 29, 1904.
Whole No. 171.
THE NEW YORK PLATFORM
As it is somewhat unusual for a, political
speech to be made as this one is tonight, let mo
preface my remarks with an explanation. I have
hired this hall and I introduce myself because I
do not care to speak under the auspices of any
club or organization which is committed to any
particular aspirant for office. My concern is not
about the name or the personality of the nominee,
but about the principles for which the demo
cratic party is to stand. While many of the
papers seem to assume that the contest for the
democratic, nomination is necessarily between
Judge Parker and Mr. Hearst, and that every dem
ocrat must either be for one or the other, such a
position is illogical and without foundation. Those
who are classed as reorganizes and by that I
mean those who, would carry the party back to
the position that "it ocupied under Mr, Cleveland's
administration are not entirely agreed among
themselves as to the proper candidate upon whom
to concentrate their votes, and so those who are
in sympathy with the spirit of our recent plat
forms may differ as to the" relative availability of
those who represent the progressive element of .
the party. .My own position is one of neutrality.
I regard as available all candidates who are in
favor of making the democratic party an honest,
earnest and courageous exponent of the rights
and interests of t the masses ond I regard as un
available all who are in sympathy "with, or obli
gated to, the groat: corporations that today domi
nate the policy of the republican party and seek,
through the reorganizes, to dominate the policy
of the democratic party J have no favorites
among those on our side and no special antagon
ism to those who represent the reorganizers. I
believe that the line should be drawn between
principles, not between men, and that men should
only be considered as they may be able to' ad
vance or retard the progress of democracy.
I have come to Chicago because from . this
point I can reach a large number of voters in the
Mississippi Valley, and I have expressed a desire
to have the ministers attend because they can and
should exert an influence in oehalf of honesty aid
fairness in politics. When some two years ago 1
became satisfied that ex-Senator David B. Hill
was planning to be a candidate I pointed out the
objections to his candidacy. When the Cleveland
boom was launched, I pointed out the objections
to his candidacy, and now that Mr. Parker seems
to be the leading candidate (though not the only
candidate) among the reorganizers, I desire to
present some reasons why he cannot be consid
ered as an available candidate for a democratic
nomination, and I find these reasons not in his
personality, but In his position upon. public ques
tions. For a year he has been urged to speak out
and declare himself upon the impprtant issues of
the coming i campaign, but he has remained silent.
If this silence meant that nobody knew his views, .
those who have T)een loyal to the party in recent
years would stand upon an, equal footing with
those who deserted, but it is evident now that
while to the public .generally his views are un
known, they are well known to those who are
urging his nomination. Whatever doubt may
have existed on this subject heretofore, has been
dispelled by the platform adopted by the New
York state convention, and taking this platform
as a text I am sanguine enough to believo that I
can prove to every unbiased mind that Judge
Parker is not a fit man to be' nominated either by
the democratic party or by any other party that
stands for honesty or fair dealing itf politics. I
cannot hope to convince those who favor 'decep
tion and fraud In politics, but I am satisfied that
we now have evidence sufficient to convict Judge
Parker of absolute unfitness foe the nomination.
If he did not know of the platform m advance, if
he did not himself dictate it or agree to it, he
has allowed, it fa? go out as his utterance, for tho
convention was dominated by hi, friends and
adopted a resolution presenting hira as the can-
uiaate of the' party of tho state u? jwi
then, can fairly be regarded as his declaration
upon public questions and what does the plat
form say? The first plank reads:
"This is a government of laws, not of
"men; one law for presidents, cabinets and
people; no usurpation; no executive on- .
croachment upon the legislative or judicial de
partment" This is a general plank that says nothing
definitely. It is probably Intended as a con
demnation of the presidents pension order, bat
the idea is so vaguely expressed that those ,who
support the platform can deny that any criticism
was. intended, if they find that such criticism Is
unpopular.
The second plank reads:
"We must keep inviolate the pledges of our '
treaties; wo must renew and reinvigorate with
in ourselves that respect for law and that
love of liberty and of peace which the spirit
of military domination tends inevitably to
weaken and destroy." .
This is probably intended as a rebuke to the
president for his action in the Panama matter,
but this, too, Is so indefinite -that the supporters
of the platform can repudiate any such intention
if it ever becomes convenient to do so.
The third plank reads:
"Unsteady national policies and a restless
spirit- of adventure engender alarms that .
check our commercial growth; 'let us have
peace, to the ond tliat business confidence may
be restored, and that our people may again in
tranquility enjoy tho gains of their toil."
This, possibly, Is Intended as a criticism of
the rashness of the president and of his emo
tional temperament, and yet it is so impersonal
that those who support the platform can very
plausibly insist that it has no particular reference
to any person, but is intended as a very broad
statement of a very general principle.
The fourth plank reads:
"Corporations chartered by the state must
be subject to just regulation by the state in
the interest of the people; taxation for public
purposes only; no government partnership
with protected monopolies."
This plank might flnda welcome place in any
platform. It would be difficult to conceive of a
party that would object to "just regulations by the
state in the Interest of the people," nor Is there
any party that Is likely to defond taxation for
any other than a public purpose. Even the re
publican party has never declaredjtsolf in favor
of "government partnership with protected mo
nopolies." The plank., therefore, has no meaning
at all as it stands, unless there Is a secret sug
gestion 'that the regulation of corporations must
be left entirely to the states. This is the position
that is taken by the trust magnates. Whenever
congress attempts to interfere with a trust
the friends of the trust at once Insist that the
state must do tho regulating that is the position
taken by the dissenting members of the supreme
court in the merger case, and if this plank means
invthinc it is an indorsement of tho minority
members of the court rather than an indorsement
S wScteton of the majority. The fact that the
platform is silent about the merger decision- lends
color to this construction.
The fifth plank reads:
"Opposition to trusts and combinations
that oppress the people and stifle Wealthy
industrial competition."
This is the anti-trust plank of the platform!
Af lit it is the? only plank in which the trust
mentioned by name: The plank contains four- ,
ee? wK and it will be noted that the opposi
? te not to all monopolies, or even to all trusts,
S?f rfmrty to those that "oppress the people and
stifle hSuhy industrial competition." That is,
too posSon taken by Judge Brewer in his sep-
arato opinnlon. Ho contonds that tho Sherman
law was not intonded to prevent all restraint of
trade, but only "unreasonable restraint," and so
Mr., Hill and tho other New "Y.ork friends of Judge
Parker have worded their trust plank
so as to mako thoir meaning uncer
tain.. Thoy have so worded tho plank
as to presont tho trust view of tho question,
rather than tho view entertained by the people
at large. In order to exclto tho opposition of the
friends of Judgo Parker the trust must bo shown
to bo "oppressive." It must bo shown that It is
not only stifling Industrial competition, but that
is it stifling a "healthy industrial competition."
The trust magnates claim that tho object of
the trust is to stifle unhealthy industrial competi
tion and to promote a "healthy industrial compe
tition." Tho qualifying words used In this veiy
brief and ambiguous plank destroy whatover vl
' tality it might have had without them. The
Kansas City platform declared a private monopoly
to bo indefensible and intolerable. It not only
arraigned private monopoly as an unmitigated evil,
but it pointed out specific remedies for tho de
struction of this evil. Compare tho Kansas City
platform with tho cowardly and straddling anti
trustor rather trust plank of the New York
platform,, and you will understand why Mr. Hill
and Judge Parker are so afraid of the Kansas
City platform. - '
The six.th plank reads:
"A check upon extravagance In public
expenditures;. that the burden of tho rieopip's
taxes-may e lightened." ,;
There is another plank that la as, meaning
less as those that have preceded it. Who advo
cates extravagance? Even when the republican
party is guilty of the largest appropriations it
, insists that it Is not extravagant, but that it is
simply legislating for a largo country.
The seventh plank reads:
"Reasonable revision of the tariff; need
less duties upon imported raw material weigh
upon tho manufacturer, are a menace to the
American wage-earner, and by increasing the
cost of production shut out our products from
foreign markets."
This plank is also evasive. The tariff rcvl
slon must be "reasonable." What party over ad
vocated what it believed to be unreasonable on
any subject? The duties upon raw material must
not be "needless" duties. What party ever ad
mitted that. It put needless duties on anything?
This plank "justifies the criticism of one of the
leading republican papers of the west which' says
that the platform "does not even dare to' recom
mend tho abandonment of tho republican doctrine
of protection of home industries, wnlch had been
fondly supposed by tho old-fashioned Jeffcrsonian
fellows to be about the only thing tho party dared
to cheep about at St; Louis."
. Tho eighth plank is as follows:
"The maintenance of state rights and -.
home rule; no centralization." ,
- Now liere Is a plank that Is a model of obscur
ity and brevity. Only ten words in the plank.
To what issue is it tp bo applied? Howls It to
be. construed?
' The" ninth plahk reads: -
"Honesty In public service; vigilance In
the prevention of fraud; firmness In the pun
ishment of guilt when detected.1' .
As President Roosevelt prides himself -upon
his enthusiastic advocacy of honesty in the pubile
servlcer and as hta friends boast of his vigilance
in the prevention of fraud and his firmness In
the punishment of guilt, that plank might be- re
garded as an indorsement of lilm but for the fact
that it Is contained n a platform that suggests a
candidate to oppose him.
The tenth plank readsx
"The impartial maintenance, of the' rights .
, """""Ik
41
1
1
. "
J.
J,
H