Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 22, 1905)
1? "-r-7 SEPTEMBER 22, 1905' The Commone'r. 3 - n -w r, ,i v THE JEFFERSON CLUB BANQUET The Jefferson club of Chicago gave a farewell banquet to Mr. Bryan on the evening of Septem ber 12. Hon. William Prentiss acted as toast master. Maydr Dunne, Congressman Ollie M. James of Kentucky, Congressman ' Henry T. Ra inoy of Illinois, and Judge James B. Tarvin of Kentucky, responded to toasts. Mr. Bryan's sub- jcct was "Democracy vs. Centralization." Ex tracts from his speech follow: "The partial adoption by some of the republi can leaders of remedies proposed by the demo cratic party makes it opportune to draw a dis tinction between the fundamental principles of democracy and the principles of those who view subjects of government from a different stand point. There are two forces constantly at work in every nation, one force tending to bring the government nearer to the people and the other tending to carry the government away from the people. To go a little farther back we may start with the proposition that there are but two theo ries of government one that a government is a thing created by the people for themselves this is the theory which is embodied in our declara tion of independence, which declares that govern ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The opposite theory is that governments are imposed by the few upon tho many such governments resting on force. Few if any, governments now known entirely exem plify either theory nearly all, if not all, of them representing a compromise between the two theo ries, but in every government there is a tendency either in one direction or the other. If we may represent self government as the day and arbi trary and irresponsible government as the night, then most governments would represent tho twi light. The twilight that proceeds the dawn grad ually brightens into day. The twilight that pro ceeds the night ends in darkness. It is very im portant, therefore, that the tendency of a govern ment shall be towards the light. In using the twilight I recognize that it is not a perfect illustration because the dawn always grows brighter while the shades of night always grow darker. Possibly it would be more accurate to describe the contest between democracy and centralization, as like a game of football, in which the government may be carried this way or that way according as it is in the hands of one side or the other, the ultimate goals being at opposite ends of the fiqld. In monarchies the fight for self government, is often made rf or some particu lar reform, without avowing the final purpose and without discussing fundamental principles, and so in republics those who attempt to restrict the power of the people, often, if not always, make their fight under some mask. In this coun try opposition to the rule of the people usually takes the form of the advocacy of legislation which removes authority from a point near to the people to some point more remote from them. This tendency to remove authority from the lo cality to a center farther away may be described as centralization. If the principled upon which self government rests are sound then, tho people can best govern where they are best acquainted witti the machinery of the government and with the propositions upon which they are to act. Every attempt to take . authority away from the community and vest it in some power outside of the community contains a certain amount of infi delity to the democratic theory of government. Usually there is some partisan reason which fur nishes the justification, but no partisan reason can remove a fundamental objection. In some states the police control of the larger cities is taken out of the hands of the people living in those cities and deposited with the governor of the state. No matter on what theory this is done it is not consistent with confidence in the capacity of the people for self government, and it is certain to be used as a precedent for a further weakening of the power of the people to control their own affairs. "Just now public attention is .being directed to the encroachments of great corporations upon the rights of the people and the discussion of remedies reveals the fact that among those who really desire to effectively restrain corporations, there are two distinct classes those who de sire to enlarge the scope of. the federal govern ment and those who desire to preserve the in tegrity and authority of the several states. I invite your attention to this subject because it is likely to be tho rock upon which honest re formers will split unless there Is a clear under standing of the situation. The Jeffersonian dem ocrat would not take from the federal government any power necessary to the performance of its legitimate dutiea, but he recognlzos that tho con solidation of all the government at Washington would be a menace to tho safety of tho nation and would endanger tho perpetuity of the re public. Ho believes in the preservation of tho power of both stato and federal governments, recognizing in the constitutional division of thoso powers tho strength of free government. The advocate of centralization is always optlmiBtic when the dangers of centralization are pointed out. He is not afraid that any harm can como to tho American people, and yet no enthusiastic advocate of centralization can talk long without betraying his distrust of tho people. Instead of accepting the theory that tho people should think for themselves and then select representatives ' to carry out those thoughts, ho believes that representatives are selected to think for the poo plo and he does not hesitate to build barriers between the government and tho voters. While the advocate of centralization is urging legisla tion which obliterates stato lines nnd removes the government from the control of tho voters, the monopolist may on tho other hand hide- be hind the democratic theory of self government and use this theory to prevent national legisla tion which may bo necessary. The democrat who believes in democratic principles and who wants to preserve the dual character of our government must be on his guard against both. "There are certain things which the locality can do for itself, and there arc certain things which only the federal government can do neith er the federal government nor the local govern ment should bo sacrificed to tho other. "The investigation of the largo life insur ance companies has led to tho discussion of national remedies and the advocates of centrali zation are likely to seize upon this agitation a an excuse for legislation which will lake tho busi ness of life insurance out of tho hands of tho va rious states. Tho democrats should draw a dis tinction between federal legislation which Is sup plemental to state legislation and that form of federal- legislatibn which would substitute a na tional for a; stato remedy. No national charter should be granted to an insurance company and no federal supervision should interfere with tho exercise of tho power now vested in the states to supervise companies doing business in such states. "So in devising a remedy for the trusts, tho democratic party should resolutely oppose any and every attempt to authorize a national In corporation or chartering trading or manufact uring enterprises. CongresB has control over interstate commerce and It Is tho only body that can deal effectively and efficiently with interstate commerce, but to control Interstate commerce it is not necessary that it should create corporations or over-ride state laws. The democratic national platform of 1900 proposed a national remedy for the trusts entirely consistent with the preserva tion of state remedies. It suggested a license system the license to permit a corporation to do business outside of the state of its origin up on compliance with the conditions of tho license, but the license would not permit It to do busi ness in any other stato except upon compliance with the conditions provided by the state. In other words, it would be such a license as is now granted for the sale of liquor. When a federal license is issued for the sale of liquor, it does not carry with It any Immunity from the laws of tho state in which the licensee lives. The same reasoning should be applied to the insurance ques tion and to all other questions which involve remedial legislation. "No advocate of centralization should be per mitted to Impair the power of the various states . over business done within their borders under the pretense that It Is necessary to transfer the power to the national capitol, and no democrat should oppose necessary federal legislation when the powers of the several states are properly safe-guarded. It is possiblo to preserve In full force the power of both the federal government and the state government. It is only necessary that the legitimate functions of the two govern ments shall be clearly recognized and their spheres duly respected. I have mentioned only the question of insurance and the trust question, but there are many subjects which involve tho issue between democracy and centralization. "It is natural that the democratic party should advocate the election of senators by a direct vote of the people for this reform would remove a bar rier erected between the people and their repre sentatives in the senate. This provision of the constitution waH a compromise between thoso who trusted tho peoplo and thoso who still doubtoct tho capacity of tho people for self government. Thero is no longer reason for doubt, and experi ences show that tho Uiiitod Slatos sonata linn bocomo tho bulwark of corporate Internals. It can not bo brought into sympathetic touch with tho peoplo until tho mothod of oloctlon Is ho changed as to make tho momborn of tho scnato responsible directly to tho peoplo. "Tho initiativo and tho referendum aro grow ing in popular favor because they Incroaso tho control of the peoplo ovor their own nfralrs and mako tho government more rcsponalvo to tho popular will. "It should bo the purpose and constant effort of the democratic party to bring tho govern ment Into harmony with those who live under It and to make it rollcct more and more their Intelligence, virtue and patriotism. In proportion as tho democratic party trusts the peoplo and protects them It will win the confidence and sup port of tho people nnd no ono can doubt tho final triumph of such a party without doubting tho correctness nnd growth of tho principles of freo government." A LOW MORAL STANDARD Tho Outlook editor Is either setting up a very low standard of morals, or ho is loaning his edi torial columns to some ono who lacks moral perception. In tho issue of August 10 there is an editorial excusing robates. A reader of tho Outlook asks whether Mr. Morton and men in his position aro justified in giving rebates. Tho editor (or the user of the editorial page) says: The object of a railroad president ought . not to bo to mako monoy for either himself or his stockholders; it ought to be to servo the community. To do this ho must mako tho railroad pay, but paying is the means, tho seryico of tho public is tho end. If ho can not carry on tho railroad, can not continue to administer It as a highway, can not get tho monoy necessary to carry freight and pas sengers, without meeting the rebates of his competitors by giving rebates himself, it may bo legitlmato to do so. Whdthor It is legiti mate or not dopends upon circumstances; and ono of thoso circumstances, and perhaps tho most important, is the true answer to this question: Is tho granting of robatos necessary to the continued successful ad ministration of the road? This is not saying that "the end justifies the means." It Is not saying that wo may em ploy any means to accomplish a righteous end. It is saying that the question, "what means may rightfully bo employed to ac complish a rightful end?" is one on which com promise is often necessary and legitimate, while on tho question, "what Is a rightful end?" compromise is generally, if not always, illegitimate. One would hardly expect to find such a de fense of lawlessness in the Outlook. What a pitiful apology for a religious paper to present! Suppose a man in business finds it necessary to cheat in order to keep up with his competitors, may it therefore be legitlmato to cheat? Suppose a man finds it necessary to steal or to kill In order to meet his competitors, may it be legitimate for him to steal and kill? Expediency is entirely destructive of moral law and the Outlook will find it impossible to lay down any code of ethics If It begins by excus ing rebates when they are necessary to meet com petition. Tho rebate is unlawful. How will tho Outlook discriminate between different criminal laws? But, if thero were no statute against re bates, they aro contrary to morals. A railroad can bankrupt individuals and communities by the use of the rebate, can the necessities of com petition purge the act of its wrongfulness? If a railroad finds that its competitor is doing wrong instead of imitating tho competitor it ought to help to punish the competitor. A corporation tliat believes it legitimate to follow a bad example will soon think it proper to set the bad example and leave tho competitor to follow. If the editor of the Outlook will read his Bible again ho will find that it furnishes no au thority that can be used to justify rebates. Noth ing .more clearly shows the demoralizing influence of predatory wealth than tho fact that a high class paper like the Outlook can bo led into such a justification of rebates as it presents. No secular paper could wander farther from the Christian ideal. iwjvtia .