The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, April 14, 1905, Image 1
"-iimfuiiiilurirr-CTri- - i V The Commoner. ' WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER w 'ol. 5. No. 13 Lincoln, Nebraska, April 14, 1905 CONTENTS Whole Number 221 "Husn Money" One-Sided Co-operation . ' Jtjdge Dunne's Victoby ,. Campaign Funds N 1 The DesMoises Banquet Back to the People Words op Cheer Fkom All Sections Good Work Well Under Way Comment on Current Topics The Primary Pledge News of tiie Week ONE-SIDED CO-OPERATION. The Civic association in sending out its liter- hire says "in these days of lurid literature and discriminate denunciation of corporations, the closures referring to the Standard Oil company :e worth reading by, thoughtful,, men. t But, few 3rsons appreciate tnac tins is an age or organi ition, and that 'corporation' means 'co-opera- lon.' " It is easy to see from what standpoint the Jivic association views the trust question. It is tot likely, however, to fool many people with the Kssortion that corporation means co-operation. Jo-operation cannot be properly used to describe corporation. It is nothing but a vast partner- Ship in which the business of the partnership is lanaged by a majority of the partners as meas- ired by the amount of stock held. 1 XU. UU1S UctSU UJL IUU OLUUUU1U KJll UUUllJUUJf lew persons hold a controlling interest and run the Standard Oil company according to their personal imbitions and desires. Even the interests of the linority stock-holders are not always regarded jy the managers of a corporation. Sometimes the managers move the stock up and down for Speculative purposes, and freeze out the small lolders or cause them great loss. The employes )f a corporation are not taken into consideration nd the persons who buy the product are not jonsulted. It is certainly a false use of the term co-operation to apply it to a corporation which tcts as task master in the employment or thous ands of laborers and then acts as an extortioner in dealing with the consumers. The Civic association is doubtless engaged in labor of love in its efforts to defend the trusts, )ut it will find it impossible to secure a very ' m t 1 .1. -II! -Jl 11. . riaespreaa approval or its pieas in oenaii 01 me rery one-sided co-operation which., the corpora tion especially a trust corporation presents. JJJ GOOD READING tj neuuers ox rue unimuiier wuu wiiue lu ca ?ress their approval of the primary pledge plan lave provided some "mighty interesting reading" Cor this issue. It is to be hoped that every commoner subscriber will carefully read every ne of the letters appearing on, pages 3, 5 and 7. t must be apparent to everyone that this primary ?ledge plan has taken a firm hold upon democrats 3verywhere and it is to be hoped th'at every news paper that is in sympathy with democratic prin ciples will lend a hand in this good work. Let .every democrat take hold of Tho .Commoner tow line and with a lone: null, a strong null, a null together, the democratic party will win a victory that will be worthy of all the effort and sacrifice (made in its behalf. - I "'" "' - , I The Sphinx has spoken HUSH MONEY" u The following letter, written for the Homiletlc Review, in response to a request for an opinion upon the subject, is reproduced in The Commoner because of the current interest in the matter dis cussed. , Editor Homiletlc Review, New York City: Dear Sir: In 'response to your request for an opinion on the subject of gifts, like that pro posed by Mr. Rockefeller to the American Board of Foreign Missions, I beg to say that the subject is one of exceeding importance and one upon the right decision of which much depends. Rev. Washington Gladden of Columbus, Ohio, has very forcefully presented several of the objections which may be urged to the acceptance of such a gift, and Dr. Epiphanius Wilson has, so far as I have seen, presented the most extreme view on the other side. There are several distinctions to be drawn in the consideration of the subject. First We should distinguish between the ac ceptance of money from a penitent wrong-doer and the acceptance of money from one who is not only not penitent but persistent in his course, and to all appearances denies thathe is guilty of wrong doing. We must also distinguish between the acceptance of gifts from those who are dead, and therefore no longer personally interested, and the acceptance of gifts from those who are alive and who may have a selfish purpose to serve. We may also draw a distinction between contributions that are made in such a way as to raise no obligation in return, and those which place the receiver under obligation to the donor. For instance, there would scarcely be a dispute as to the wisdom of accept ing a gift from oue who brought it to the church as a result of the working of his own conscience and because it was impossible to return the money to the ones from whom he had taken It. In such a case the gift would be accepted and applied to some good use, but the minister accepting the same would not only be free to condemn the meth ,ods by which the money was accumulated, but ' could use the incident as an argument against the accumulation of money in such a way by others. The acceptance of a bequest after the death of the donor might be justified even though the money was acquired in a way that the church would not bo willing to defend, although in this case there might be some doubt as to the wisdom of accepting, .because of the encouragement that the church's action might give to others still liv ing and engaged in accumulating money In the same way. If oner attending a church deposits money in the contribution box, his-identity being unknown, his contribution imposes no obligation upon the church, and there would be no disposition to in quire into the source from which it came. If, however, the money came from one in regular at tendance upon the church and came in such an amount as to make the minister hesitate about condemning the source from which it came or the occupation by which It was accumulated, a ques tion would be raised as to the wisdom of accepting it. Among the things to be considered in decid ing this question are, first, the effect that the acceptance of the gift .would have upon the donor; second, the effect that the acceptance of the gift -would have upon the donee; and, third, the effect 1 i I 1 K tjirJfc &M- -a"f-' --- p-Hifjfa -iH - j f'unj-i , itfMtr & A, ,V