HAY 6, 1901.
The Commoner.
If
WHICH?
, Tubular or
Simple Bowl or
Izzers or
Right How or
Waist Low Can or
Self Oiling or
I Wash 3 Minutes or
I AH the Cream or
Rest Butter or
Tubular Bowl or
lucket Bowl?
' Complicated? ,
Hasbeens?
Were Once?
Heart High Can?
Oil Yourself?
Wash Thirty?
Most All?
Medium Butter?
Bucket Bowl?
WHICH DO YOU WANT?
Tubulars arc dif
ferent, very dif
fer on t. .lust OD.G
iTubular the'
Sharpies. All
the others maice
bucket bowls
can't make Tubu-
lars because they"
are patented. Asic
lor catalog tf-zao.
The Sharpies Co
Chicago, 111.
P. M. Sharpies
West ChKter, Pa.
A Shock to Senator Hoar.
There was one hearty outburst of
laughter in the Smoot trial. President
Smith had said that. ex-Apostle Moses
Thatcher differed from the other lead
ers of the Mormon church and wanted
to go into, politics against their judg
ment and advice.
"Why was this?" asked Mr. Taylor.
"Did Mr. Thatcher desire any office? "
"Yes, ho wanted some office, I be
lieve," replied President Smith.
"Can you remember what office ho
wanted?"
"I do not just recollect.!'
"Wasn't it that of senator? Didn't
Mr. Thatcher want td'be United States
senator?" -'--
"Oh, yes,"..said Smith; "I think it
"was that. It was senator or some
thing like that." .
The look that came over Senator
Hoar's face as' he heard the words
that meant that any living being
thought there was an office on earth
like that of United States senator was
something awful to witness." In a mo
ment it had -passed and the whole
committee burst into laughter, in
which Mr. Hoar joined feebly. New
York Times.
BOOKS RECEIVED.
Mrs. Maud Ballington Booth has re
cently issued, through Floming H.
Revel Co., New- York and Chicago, a
very interesting work entitled, "After
Prison, What?" Mrs. Sooth's promi
nent connection with prison reform
and the Volunteer Prison league, en
ables her to speak from an extended
observation, and she makes an elo
quent plea for those who, having
served a term in prison, go out to meet
Worldld and oftentimes uncharitable-
i .
Ji'Th. Sname of tuo Cities," by Lin
rl Steffens, is a new book issued
vLi ,IcCllire Phillips -& Co., of Now
w The b00k deals ln a compre
inoi aud inclsive way with munic
'Wiconnption as it has been brought
ui at recent investigations. St. Louis,
Minneapolis, Pittsburg, Philadelphia,
SSli gmand Ne. YrK tire prin
wPal cities discussed. :-
The Lesson of 1894.
When the New York Times tells its
readers that th democratic party
"was sick unto death" for "four years,
from 189G to 1900," implying that it
fell sick under the leadership of Bry
an, having theretofore and under
Cleveland's leadership been of sound
and disposing mind and memory, the
Times displays the same symptoms of
malignant groverclovelanditis with
which the Brooklyn Eagle suffers. If
the editor of the Times were to ex
amine his political almanacs he would
find that the democratic party fell
deathly sick under the leadership of
Cleveland. We have advised our read
ers of the affliction in this respect un
der which the Eagle suffers (vol. vi.,
p. 785); but the Eagle's symptoms
were more localized than are those of
the Times. The Eagle pointed only to
Illinois, where it found democracy In
fine feather in 1892 but observed that
it began to droop in 1896 and has con
tinued to droop over since. The Times,
however, implies that Bryan demoral
ized the democracy of the whole coun
try in the years running from 1896 to
1900. Yet the fact is, and all political
almanacs prove it, that the democracy
was demoralized in 1894 not only in
Illinois, but all over the country; not
in 1896 under Bryan, mind you, bat
in 1894 under Cleveland.
After our disclosure of this fact
with reference to Illinois and in an
swer to the Brooklyn Eagle, the daily
Banner, of Nashville, Tenn., came to
the Eagle's support. In its issue of
April 2 it pointed out the unwisdom
of relying upon political almanacs,
and went behind- the statistical re
turns to show that really it was net
Cleveland's fault that the democratic
party became so sick In 1894. We are
very much at one with the Banner re-
garding statistics in general, although
for election returns we have never
been able to find a satisfactory substi
tute. But when the Banner under
takes to explain why its party col
lapsed in 1894, it begs the question;
or, as it would doubtless prefer to ex
press it (in keeping with its "sup
pressio veri" and "expressio falsi")
it is guilty of a "petitio principii."
The point the Eagle made, the point
the New York Times makes, the point
Mr. Cleveland himself made in a pub
lic speech about a year ago, was this:
that the democratic party was In
healthy condition until Mr. Bryan took
it in hand in 1896, and that from that
time on it has been sick. Our answer
is that the democratic .party was
sicker in 1894, under Cleveland, than
jn 1896 under Bryan. It is a transpar
ent evasion to meet that answer, as
the Banner assumes to do, with any
explanation whatever, either good or
bad, of why the fact was so. The is
sue is" the fact itself, not the reason
for it
. But the Banner's reasons are ex
ceedingly poor. It explains the 1834
reverse in Illinois on the ground that
under Altgeld the people of this state
had become strongly antagonistic to
Cleveland. But that couldn't ha7e
been so, let us remind the Banner, if
Cleveland had commanded their con
fidence. Moreover, the collapse of
1894 was not confined to Illinois. It
was general. Even New York and Now
Jersey voiced their condemnation or
Cleveland in that fateful year. The
Banner may amuse itself at explain
ing this; but the more it expmius tuo
plainer it makes it that it was Cleve
land who demoralized the democratic
party.
Thus far the Nashville Banner
shows no symptoms' of froverdevo
landitls. It honestly admits that the
conapse did occur in 1894. But now
some symptoms of the malady- that
has attacked the Eagle and the Times
begin "to appear in the Banner. Pos
sibly this may be attributed to its
method of ignoring election statistics
and roaming around its editor's brains
for facts. That is convenient, no
doubt; but with reference to roputa-
n?or.MoracIty lt Is somewhat risky,
ui 1890 the Banner says: "But as bad
as the reverse of 1894 may havo boon,
it was nothing compared with the
crushing defeat of 1896, when Bryan
had obtained full control of the demo
cratic party." The fact, howover, is
quite otherwise. We are obliged to go
to election statistics to prove it, and
thereforo cannot hope to convince tlio
Banner; yet the election statistics do
testify most Impressively that at the
elections of 1896 the democratic party
regained to a considerable extent its
congressional losses of 1894. In the
ccngiess elected in 1894, under Clove
land's leadership, the democrats had
only 93 representatives; "In the con
gress elected in 1896, under Bryan's
leadership, the democrats had 130 rep
resentatives. In the former, the re
publican majority was .74; in the lat
ter it was only 24. And in the con
gress elected in 1900, also under Bry
an, the democratic representation had
risen to 153 and the republican major
ity had fallen to 20. Wo fear that the
Nashville Banner, like the Brooklyn
Eagle and the Now York Times, may
indeed be suffering with an attack,
temporary we trust, of grovercleve
landitis. Chicago Public.
Public Men and Friend' Wills.
Tho comments made here, there and
everywhere upon tho Bennett will
case trial in New Haven last week
illustrate the perils to a public man
of being made a beneficiary under a
friend's will. Very few of the re
marks made about Mr. Bryan's con
nection with the case have been de
liberately misleading, probably, for
there has been more ignorance than
malice abroad; but the ease with
which distorted Impressions travel in
such an affair is wonderful to behold.
"The experience of history," wrote
the late Lord Acton to Mary Glad
stone, "teaches that tho uncounted
majority of those who get in the
pages are bad. Most assuredly, now as
heretofore, the men of the time are in
most cases unprincipled and act from
motives of interest, of passion, of pre
judice, cherished and unchecked, of
selfish hope or unworthy fear." Pos
sibly that is true, terribly pessim
istic though it be, of public men In
tholr political capacity; but ono may
well hesitate to believe it of the pub
lic men in general, of our time, in
their private characters. Now and
then one is proved to bo a scoundrel
or a thief who has held high public
station and has gained tho confidence
of a large number of citiezns. But
certainly, The Republican has not
been willing to think that Mr. Bryan
had been giiilty of a reprehensible act
In connection with this will, or had
committed anything worse than pos
sibly a mistake of judgment in allow
ing his friend to bequeath him mon
ey, without a serious protest.
Our interest in public men, conse
quently, led us to make as careful an
examination as was possible into this
celebrated will case celebrated only
because of Mr. Bryan's prominence
in it. And the conclusion reached
was that there was no moral taint
whatever upon Mr. Bryan's character.
This was confirmed by the decision of
the judge of probate, which still
stands, that the late Mr. Bennett was
the victim of no -undue influence"
when he made his will. It seems that
Mr. Bryan is entitled to have this said
In his behalf; and it should also be
said in behalf of the general reputa
tion of public men in America, which
wnniri surely suffer if a man of Mr.
Bryan's prominence and presidential
candidacies should be fairly chargea-
a widow of a fortune that was rightly;
hers.
Tho chief question Involved wa,
perhaps, raised by tho attornoy for
tho contestants and Mr. Bryan is riot
a contestant, ho simply defends the
Will as its maker left It, not alono be
cause ho Is himself a benoflciary, but
becauso ho Is au oxecutor of tho will.
This ablo attornoy, Judgo Stoddard,
has been reported ln tho newspapers
as saying that "Mr. Bryan could not
afford" to accopt tho $50,000, which
Mr. Bonnett directed his widow, In
tho sealed letter, to give to him. The
othlcs of wills and of tho inheritanco
of money opens up an interesting
range in discussion. Granted that
tho lato Mr. Bennett was of sound
mind and that ho was under no "un
due lnfluenco" when ho made his will,
it may bo asked, who can afford to
.accept that $50,000? It is well known
by thoso who havo examined tho caso
with any care that Mr. Bennett left
an estato that has been appraised at
nearly $300,000, and that to his wife,
who is childless, ho bequeathed, prop
erty yielding an abundant income It
cannot bo charged that, by accopting
this legacy Of $50,000, Mr. Bryan
would be reducing tho widow to want,
or anything resembling It Who, then,
can afford to accopt tho $50,000 with
a clearer conscience than the ono per
son for whom tho $50,000 was intended
by the man who had earned it?
This Is a question of universal ap
plication, and it would bo of interest
were tho 'man named Brown, instead
of Bryan, whom tho testator had des
ignated as tho beneficiary. If tho be
quest Anally is diverted to somo ono
else, that person will got propert5i
which tho man who earned it did not
desire should over receive lt. Could
that person afford to take tho money?
Legally, yes; but morally what? Tho
testator's desire would have been frus
trated by technical points of law.
These technicalities, doubtless, aro
necessary, but when a testator's wish
is so obviously defeated by technical
ities, when It is clear to all tho world
that his purpose is being defeated oy4
points of law, the moral question, who
can afford to-receive tho legacy, as
sumes a peculiar status, which any of
us is as competent to discuss as tho
learned members of the bar.
It is a conservative judgment that,
inasmuch as Mr. Bennett, being in
sound mind, plainly desired that Mr.
Bryan should receive tho $50,000, no
other living person could accept it
with a clearer conscience than tho
man for whom it was intended. Still,
the case illustrates the dangers a pub-,
lie man must face in allowing himsolfjr
UU UUUUU4U cuutujjica til DUUU OUUlI.t
He exposes his acts and motives to.
misconstruction and renders life tho;
less worth living. Tho moral Is that('
no public man should suffer himself-;
to be provided for In a friend's wiilJ ,'
if he can help himself. The man:.
who, after all his striving to prevent
such a "benefaction, should then find!
himself thus hoisted upon public at-v
tentlon in tho Inevitable will contest,'
would surely be worthy of sympathy.'
But Mr. Bryan must take the punish",
ment of his Indiscretion, as he de
serves. Springfield Republican. i
t!
Chicago has a novel organization in
the way of an association created to
supervise the celebration of Indepen?
dence Day with fireworks. Tho as
sociation Is planning to furnish free
fireworks to every child In Chicago,!
but these fireworks must be set off;
in the parks and public playground
under the supervision of a fireman, a
physician and a member of the asfeo-j
elation.
A Boftlt Frtt .
Drake's Palmetto "Wine -will restore the ap
petite, assist digestion, stimulate the liver and'
kidneys and cure sick headache, cramps, nausea,
dyspepsia, Indigestion, biliousness and consti-l
pated bowels. Any reader of this paper -who is
a sufferer can sceure a trial bottla free. It -will!
give you quick relief and a permanent cure, and!
cost you notblBg. Write for it today to ts
Bfdkunc, CkieKO, j'
. i- .i, oi-tU1K- anMHnf tn flonrfvn I ni-cbo 'm-rritiia rv TtMioix.ti.i.r3.r., J
DIU WW PWUV, iww. v -w -vi...,v.-v,nfVVt MHV
!
I A
H
131
1H
m
m
f i
t
I '
3 I
ft
J
tf
it
i!
y.
'.
i
tlR
M
n
t Aw.
i
;, -'
U
i
lii
I
.
'
II
I
f
i J
,v
;h;:4-'
M&
ml
,', "
,