lWlf'WSIBllWHn
The Commoner0
WILLIAM J, BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
Vol. 5. No. 42
Lincoln, Nebraska, November 3, 1905
Whole Number 250
CONTENTS
Mb. Taft and Ohio
kA Banker's Protest
WnERE the Colonel Fell Down
Crushing the Cox Machine
No Supersedeas
Avenues op Usefulness
Why Pick Out the Little Fellow?
Wise Attacks McKinley
"Public Office is a Public Trust"
Nebr ska's Election
Majesty of the Mother's Love
"Smash the Ohio Bo s"
Comment on Current Topics
The Primary Plepge
r
News of the Week
WHY NOT DISGORGE?
Testifying before the insurance committee at
New York, September 20, John A. McCall, presi
dent of the New York Life Insurance company,
said that sums aggregating $235,000 had been
paid to Andrew Hamilton. Mr. McCall said that
Mr. Hamilton's account is not subject to audit.
He said that he was sure the $235,000 would he
paid by Mr. Hamilton on demand of the com
pany, adding: "If it isn't, I'm responsible and I'll
pay it."
Neither Mr. McCall nor Mr. Hamilton has.
shown the disposition or ability to account for
the expenditure of this considerable sum of money.
Mr. Hamilton is visiting in foreign lands, and
does not appear to be at all concerned ls to the
necessity for the repayment of this money. Mr.
McCall is, of course, "responsible," and Inasmuch
as he said "I'll pay it" this is the time to "make
good."
Of course, nobody expects Hamilton, or
McCall or any of that ilk to voluntarily return
the money taken from the policyholders, but it
will occur to a great many people that there
should be sufficient power in New York's legal
machinery 'to force these plunderers to disgorge
their ill-gotten gains.
JJJ
A POOR ILLUSTRATION
In his address before- the Nebraska Bankers'
association, Charles G. Dawes, former comptroller
of the currency, speaking against the competitive
system and in favor of the trust system, or as he
called it, "the co-operative system," cited as an
e:mple three boys, all after the same apple
in the tree above them.
Mr. Dawes said that under the competitive
system the three boys would fight until only one
of them remained, and he would get all of the
apple, but under the "co-operative system" they
would get the apple and divide it in three parts,
each taking one part.
Mr. Dawes might have carried his figure to
its conclusion by explaining that while under
this "co-operative system" the three boys would
divide the apple, the owner of the orchard would
ue entirely deprived of the fruits of his toll.
- ?x. I" REPUBLICAN 0C
lSMK TICK! r$M
MARVELOUS LOGIC
MR. TAFT AND THE OHIO CAMPAIGN
If Mr. Roosevelt is in earnest with respect
to railway rate regulation and there is no rea
son to doubt his sincerity then the president
has entered upon the moct serious contest of his
administration. It will be no child's play for Mr.
Roosevelt to bring about this much needed re
form; yet, judging from ome things that have
transpired in the pending campaign in Ohio, one
might imagine that that which many people be
lieve will be one of the greatest struggles in his
tory between a chief executive and the represent
atives of special interests, is, in truth, of no more
importance and to be no more seriously con
sidered than a game of golf.
Mr. Taft, a member of the president's cabi
net, spoke in behalf of the Boss Cox ticket at
Akron, Ohio. Mr. Taft devoted the larger share
of that speech to an abuse of democrats, em
ploying many of the phrases and sophistries with
which the people became quite familiar during
the presidential contest of 1896. It required
great courage on Mr. Taft's part to put It mild
ly to resort to such phrases and arguments just
at this moment when the nakedness of the "de
fenders of national honor." by whom these phrases
were coined, stands revealed to the public gaze.
But when Mr. Taft used these phrases, whom
did he arraign?
And when ho pleads 1 for votes, In whose
behalf did he speak?
He arraigned those men who in solid pha
lanx are lined up behind Mr. Roosevelt In the
greatest reform ho proposes, whereas Mr. Roose
velt's own party Is divided.
He pleaded for votes in behalf of men, many
of whom are out of sympathy with Mr. Roose
velt's proposed reform, and whose leadership la
openly antagonistic to that reform.
Mr. Taft pleaded for votes for a ticket nom
inated by a convention that deliberately rejected
Mr. Roosevelt's railway rate proposition; and he
asked the people of Ohio to vote against a ticket
nominated by a convention which unequivocally
endorsed the proposed railway rate reform.
Every democratic speaker In Ohio has plain
ly endorsed Mr. Roosevelt's railway rate plan.
Mr. Pattlson, the democratic nominee for gov
ernor, has spoken in that vein from every stump.
While the republican speakers have pleaded for
votes in Mr. Roosevelt's name, Senator For
aker, the republican leader, has made it plain
that a vote for Herrick does not mean an endorse
ment of railwav rate regulation. Tn Senator For
aker's own language at Bellefontaine, "the prop
osition to give the power of making rates to the
interstate commerce commission is a democratic
COMMONER READERS IN OHIO, REMEMBER
THAT IF EVERY OHIO DEMOCRAT GOES TO THE POLLS PATTISON WILL BE ELECTED
m t.-jfju .AJJjir( llirn -fftf.fi. -'--vdteiauiiUiitfWim UinWnlMiiW fao'imwtn JlSmJ8klKmt?4tmtuuvU
