"T 7 J "T r
M
' ;voujmbEiNu
2
tlifil Iho acoplancc of the gift would have upon the
public.
Wo have a concrete case in the Rockefeller
gift, and this will servo as a better illustration
than any imaginary gift. Here is a gift from a
man who is not only not penitent but, on the con
trary, quite boastful of the benevolence of his
business methods. He does not come with con
science money but poses as a public benefactor
and as a representative of an industrial system.
Ho is not dead but very much alive, and his gift,
instead of being presented through the contribu
tion box as if from "an unknown friend" is offered
at the front of the stage before the footlights, and
with his name boldly written on a card, and the
card firmly attached to the bouquet. The accept
ance of his gift by a prominent religious associa
tion so far from hastening ropentence, would nat
urally strengthen him in his conviction that ho
is doing the Lord's service not only in his methods
of distribution but in his methods of accumulation.
Can a church organization, dedicated to Christian
ity and teaching the doctrine of brotherhood and
brotherly love, afford to put itself in the position
of encouraging a corporation so unbrotherly and
so destitute of love, compassion and pity, as the
Standard Oil trust has shown itself to be? If Mr.
Rockefeller were simply a stockholder who had
grown rich by the methods of the company, with
out personal responsibility for its management,
the question, might present a little different aspect,
but even then wo could not shut our eyes to the
responsibility of a man who would voluntarily and
continuously accept the benefits of wrong doing.
I3ut oven more important than the influence
exerted upon Mr. Rockefeller is the influence
exerted upon the church. Can a church which
accepts money from Mr. Rockefeller take an
active part in condemning the methods employed
by Mr. Rockefeller? "Whether the gift is intended
as "hush money" or not, does it not operate as
such? A man who was recently asked for an
opinion on the Rockefeller donation, hesitated
whether ho should give it or not, because some of
the benevolent enterprises with which ho was
connected received substantial aid from an official
of a great trust. He expressed himself as in doubt
whether ho should express an, opinion upon the
subject, and declared that it was the first time
that it had over occured to him that the receipt
of money from such a source influenced his own
action. And yet he admitted that he recognized
that to all intents and purposes gifts from an offi
cer of a .trust had on him somewhat the effect of
hush money, because he did not feel free to
criticise the methods employed by the Standard
Oil company.
If Christianity is going to do the work that
the Master laid out for His church it mus6 apply
christian principles to everyday life, and Christ's
gospel applied to everyday life is condensed into
the commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as -thyself." The church cannot afford to proclaim
this doctrine to tho world and then shrink from
the discussion of the violations of it. Man's rela
tion to his God is a personal relation and one
which the outsider ordinarily finds it difficult to
investigate, but we have Bible authority for the
statement that man's conduct toward his brother
furnishes the surest test of man's relations with
his Maker. In fact, the Bible speaks very posi
tively upon this subject and declares that a man
is a liar if ho asserts that he loves his God and
yet hates his brother. The methods by which men
prove their hatred of their brother afe manynS
various, and probably no man of the present dav
has shown his hatred of his brother in more ways
than Mr. Rockefeller. Is not the church likely to
be hindered in its work of restoring juatlce and
inaugurating an era of brotherhood by reliance
upon g f s from men who have a large pecunia??
interest in silencing the church's protest? y
Neither can the church ignore the influence
which its action may have upon public Son
The church lives in the world and the worid Us
prone to judge Christianity by the conduct of those
who profess it. If a church accepts money from
a notorious offender against morality and ii th
church after accepting the money so' ac s as to
raise the suspicion that tho receipt of the monev
influences the conduct of the church toward w?one
doing, will not many outside of the chureh doubt
tho good faith of tho church? Will 1? not he n
cause of offense to many? is not a divergent
between profession and porforimmnn III g ?
severe charge that can be brough against o !VSt
individual or church? UIOUknt against either
Mr. Rogers, one of tho controlling RnfWfo
The Commoner.
there is among the people. If the object of the
church is the regeneration of the world, and
through this regeneration the establishment of
love and peace In the place of selfishness and con
flict, can it consistently form a partnership with
trust magnates? Until the church has some
maxim from higher authority it can afford to con
form to the doctrine expressed in the declaration
"if eating meat maketh my brother to offend, I
will eat no meat."
It is hardly worth while to consider the ar
gument that the church has no right to reject
money offered to it. It would put the church jn a
pitiful position if it were so helpless that it could
be made a partner in wrong doing without its
power to refuse. But if any preacher is afraid that
he will incur responsibility by refusing to accept
Mr. Rockefeller's gifts, let him devote himself to
the denunciation of the methods employed by Mr.
Rockefeller, and he will not have any Rockefeller
money offered to him. Let him preach the gospel
of the One who, instead of attempting to absorb
the wealth of others, gave Himself to the world
and went about doing good, and he will never be
put to tho test, for the men- who make millions by
exploitation and then give a tithe of their plun
derings to church or charity are not likely to em
barrass with their gifts those who cry out and
spare not. Elijah never had to ponder whether
he should receive gifts from Ahab, for the truth
which he proclaimed made Ahab his bitter enemy.
From every standpoint the acceptance of tho
Rockefeller money would seem to be unwise, while'
its refusal would bring to him, as he has never had
brought to him before, the consciousness of his
iniquities. The rejection of the gift would also
leave the church free to preach a religion unadul
terated by commercialism, and would go far to
convince the public that the spirit of the meek and
lowly Nazarene inspires today those who at the
communion table recall His broken body and His
bl0d. W. J. BRYAN.
JJJ
JUDGE DUNNE'.S VICTORY
Judge Edward F. Dunne, the democratic can
didate for mayor of Chicago, has won a notable
victory, partly personal and partly because of his
outspoken endorsement of municipal ownership
Judge Dunne is a splendid type of the democratic
official. He is a man whose sympathies are with
the masses and who has both the ability and the
moral courage to guard their rights and interests
He very naturally espoused the cause of municipal
ownership, and espoused it with the candor which
characterizes his conduct on all questions. A vic
tory for municipal ownership in the second city in
the United States is very significant, and will en
courage those who are seeking to restore to the
people the benefits that are now being enjoyed by
the corporations which are operating under muni
cipal franchises. While the city of Chicago gave
V'ZS reimb,lic5n majority last fall, it has cast
w oflUen,CG in faV0r of the democratic doctrine
KiPrivtes m?nPoly is indefensible and in
tolerable. It is fortunate that this far-reachinrr
experiment in municipal ownership is in the hand!
o one so competent to make the experiment under
the best possible conditions. The Commoner el
tends hearty congratulations to Mayor-elect Dunno
and wishes him and the cause for which he standi'
abundant success. ne. stands
I
would providefor an Investigation of n,ft
funds of the last three campaigns w?
secure the passage of the resolution nileH
JJJ
a
CAMPAIGN FUNDS
M
i Yi ,u""u"; anion uy Secret rolmfnc.
and the government is now investicaiiiiS rn '
brought against the Sbimin,., on "SSn? charges
cent violations of the law. The a tMru. tu
passed by various states indicate tSe feeling S
Near the close of the la?t pnTnnM, r
telyou issued a statement in wS i Cop
the republican campX fund o in?! 2 that
about half as laiw ni . n, 1 l 04 was only
fund ot l89c!Sad Sort OT& W6"
cratlc campaign fund of 1902 n? tUe dem-
that Mr. Cortelyo u had SStwS? I ? ls possible
that subject. The sigi icant thiff lnformati on
statement that only about fonr tf' however' is his
contributed. For whne he snv. USand Persons
thousand" it is reasonable t n re than fonr
number did not much exceed fn,???089 that
would have stated a hE iitZ th he
lican ticket received more t hSf As the rePub'
njllllon votes, the i figures g ve? SVS? aml a half
show that only about one ren2bllo?nP"Cortefyou
and contributed to the renubl onn ? in two thous"
It is evident, therefore tSw cmlsn fund,
small proportion of tho remih L in?niimally
;te the "sinews of war' and u ?BaniVOters contrib
those who do contribute tni S evklent that
Policy of the party. Senate? 5 Y COntro1 th
Wed to secure imJ
man Cockran of Now Vl- -..., un'. C
... - .. . ." wi"- '"wuuucpfi t..,r
viaing ior tne publication of canW u m U
tlons, hut it was not reported to thn ul, B
rflniiliHoan n.nmmtoo nrtu i. ' T .OUSe to tl.
President Roosevelt asked for lechiitJn
ing.the publication of campaign contriC04
a republican congress did not respond ,l
The democrats should do everything t u
rjowor to senurn lpHQlnH- -n.i,ji. . .... in m
publication of campaign contributions Hellls
of the election, and if they fail to secure su&'
1Dm"uu "v ouuum jjul uie republican mi
the defensive in the next cammiL KJ?
first, that no campaign contrihuHm, , r .
cepted from corporations. Corporations i? 2
chartered to carry on campaigns. They tw?
ganized for business purposes and have no rlSn
use the money of their stooMinirio J8..110
contributions. Let individuals rnnn.., '
own money and not money that they hold intS
Second, the democratic party ought to go a S
farther and open its hooks for public insnec
so that the voters will know that, it z w ..?
ing money from persons interests tn iobi.m!
The only way to make a siinnpssfni MB,..,:
against the encroachments of organized wealth ?
iu " uuucsjuj, su opuniy anu so fairly
as to appeal to the conscience of the country.
JJJ
THE DES MOINES BANQUET
About three Hundred Iowa demonratR nttomM
a Jefferson dinner at Des Moines on April 1, and
founded an Iowa democrat club, following the
pian aaoptea uy tne Kansas democrats. Gen
James B. Weaver was toastmaster and among
the speakers were Hon. J. B. Sullivan, late demo
cratic candidate for governor; Mr. John Dennl
son, late candidate for attorney general; Mr.
Louis Murphy, editor of the .Dubuque Telegraph;
Mr. H. C. Evans of Des Moines, and Mr. Bryan.
An abstract of Mr. Bryan's address will be found
elsewhere in this issue.
The club's purpose will bo to thoroughly or
ganize the democracy of Iowa, and a banquet will
be given each year in honor of Jefferson's birth
day. The following officers were elected: H.
C. Evans, Des Moines, president; A. R. McCqolt,
Elma, secretary; George F. Reinhart, Newton,
treasurer; executive committee, J. B. Sullivan,
Gen. James B. Weaver, Louis Murphy, C. D. Hus
ton, W. K. English, W. I. Branagan, W. K. Currle,
E. H. Rockwell. The vice presidents by con
gressional districts are as follows: First, N. C.
Roberts; Second, J. B. Murphy; Third, E. M.
Carr; Fourth, J. J. Kieron; Fifth, J. M. Redmond;
Sixth, C. G. Sparks; Seventh, J. S. Cunningham;
Eighth, W. D. Jamieson; Ninth, S. B. Wads
worth; Tenth, George Ritz; Eleventh, W. M.
Ward. On motion the plan of organization out
lined by Mr. Bryan in The Commoner was unan
imously endorsed.
JJJ
GOOD WORK WELL DONE
It is not possible to print in this issue ex
tracts from all of the letters that have been re
ceived during the past week from Commoner
readers who have taken advantage of tho specie
subscription offer. The following extracts speas
for themselves: ...
A. L. Mcintosh, Pembina, S. D.-HerewP
find $4.80 to pay for enclosed list of eight sun-,
scribers
J. L. Cummins, Wisdom, Ky. Herewith flnj
list of five subscribers with money order to pa
for same. ,,. r '
J. B. LePasseur, Duluth, Minn. Herow J '
hand you $3.00 to pay for the enclosed list oi nw
subscribers. This makes thirty subscribers .
have sent you. -. ffl(
A Francis Hogeland, Locktown, N. J-J
closed please find list of ten subscribers w
money order for $G.00. , n.,j
Seth-Gongwer, Ashland, 0. Find enclose
$3.00 for which send The Commoner for one
to the following five names. , . fij
Albert Brindley, Vevay, Ind. Enclosed p
list of five subscribers. ,.. a
I Dr. .C. O. Lewis, Fayette, Mo.-I enclose
list of six new members. T j0sej
D. C. Hunter, Rochester, N. Y- " whom
please find list of six subscribers, four or
are republicans. nTU,sst
John E. Reynolds, Burnsville, Miss., seiw
of five subscribers and money order for fld
M. .W. Elliot, E. Liverpool, O.-HorewP
list of five subscribers and $3.00 to iw
8am?- ' - closed
I . IJ 114114 --- J. S-1 -..-. i ll.-
find $G.OO for which please send The com
u
