J
The Commoner.
'-H.,- v-
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 27
f STAND BY ROOSEVELT"
A G. O. P. Shibboleth That
Will Not Bear Analysis
Republican leaders have been partial to
"catchy campaign phrases." These leaders act
in accordance with the belief generally entor
, tained in circles where politicians most do congre
gate, that in American politics the battle is lost
or won by the campaign phrase. Nearly every
politician will tell you that the republicans lost
the battle in 1884 and James G. Blaine failed to
realize upon his life's ambition because Burch
ard, delivering an address of welcome to Mr.
Blaine referred to the democratic party as "the
party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion."
It can not be doubted that the campaign
phrase has done much to give victory to the re
publican party in years gone by. In 1896, republi
can leaders made liberal use of the phrase:
"Preserve the National Honor." In 1900, the re
publican phrases were "Four Years More of the
Full Dinner Pail," and "Lot Well Enough Alone."
But the American people now know that
many of the men conBpicuous in 1896 in the use
of the phrase "Preserve the National Honor" had
o more concern for the national honor than they
had for their own and no more concern for their
own honor than to sacrifice it upon, the altar of
greed. , .
The American people now know that the
dinner pail, "Four Years More" of which we were
promised in the event of republican victory has
lacked considerable of being "full;" that what
ever food it did hold had, because of the trust
system,, undergone an increase in price while
the wages of the consumer had enjoyed little or
-no Increase whatever; and they know, also, that
the small amount of meat in that dinner pail
may have been poisoned by a trust as unscrupu
lous in preparing, food for its consumers, as it
is in conspiring to fix an unjust price upon its
products.
They know, also, that "Let Well Enough
Alone" covered a multitude of sins. And although
that is one of the best known of republican cam
paign phrases, in this day few republicans organs
or orators would have the hardihood to employ
it in making appeal to the people.
The people must have learned in recent
21 Accept a repubhct
campaign phrase at its face value. They must
someth ng mre substantial than the phrase
f , !W ttat the peop,e are heginning to
feel and to understand, the republican leaders
oJ th t 3 t"e rePUb,l0ftn hablt-a
Uve ll I ' re0r1 '" 0ngress mi to "
Uve office have resorted to another campaign
tto congressional campaign for 1906 is to be
teLz:r ae
It is more than likely that the vote wni
reoulre from the republican organ or tte remT
lean orator something more ellc t tin Co
not altogether descriptive phrase "Stand bv
republican party-now that It is In control in all
departments of government-intends to dowia
1 T r 8"0nS Cnfr0ntlD Amtlct pe
"Stand by Hoosevelf JSTTS, SST
CareT ese '2teto t, the
Went is less definite as applied to the record
the present occupant of the Whito House than if
applied to that of any of his predecessors.
Without seeking to detract in the least from .
Mr. Roosevelt's personal worth, let us analyze
the "Stand by Roosevelt" argument.
By which Roosevelt shall we "stand" in com
plying with the 1906 phrase? Shall it be the
Roosevelt whose words have stirred the American
people to enthusiasm, and drawn from them de
clarations of affection for the chief magistrate,
demonstrations the like of which have not been
known since the days of Jackson if even then?
Or the Roosevelt whose acts of omission or com
mission have prompted many of those who were
disposed to be his warmest friends to doubt
whether, after all, he Is a man who may be de
pended upon to back fair words with substantial
deeds?
By which Roosevelt shall we "stand?"
By the Roosevelt who called the trust mag
nates "captains of industry" to whom the Amer
ican people owe a debt of gratitude? Or the
Roosevelt who likened them to masters of cun
ning whose disposition toward wrong doing must
be "shackled, as in the past we have shackeled
force?"
By the one who called the democratic plat
form adopted at Chicago "anarchy" because of
its criticism of the courts? Or the one who pub
licly reprimanded Federal Judge Humphrey for
his decision in the beef trust cases, and expressed
the hope that Humphrey's bad example would
not. be imitated by other occupants of the bench?
. By the one who permitted it to be under
stood that he indorsed Secretary Taft's order that
the- Panama canal supplies be purchased abroad,
if such a course were neessary to protect the
government from extortion? Or the one who
bought for the canal service two American ships
of 5,700 tons each for $l,300,t)00 when he was
offered two foreign ships of 6,000 tons each for
$750,000?
By the one who approved the law passed
at the last session of congress directing the canal
commission to purchase its supplies from Ameri
can manufactures whenever the prices were not
unreasonable or extortionate?" Or the one who
within a week after he signed that law, awarded
to the Maryland Steel company a contract for
two dredges at $362,000 each, when a foreign
concern, had offered to built these two dredges
for $70,000 less? "leues
By the one who refused to withdraw the
brand of infamy he had placed upon the late
James H. Tyner in response to Tyner's dying
request, and after Tyner had been acquitted by
a jury? Or the one who gave Paul Morton,
Tipon that gentleman's retirement from the cab
inet, a clean bill to the defense of which even
partisan republican editors with all their agility
have not dared to go?
By the one who favors economy in the ex
penditures of public money? Or the one whoso
four years of administration cost-lexclusive of
all expense In Panama-$434,104,699 In excess of
the cost of the four years of the McKinley ad
ministration, although the McKinley administra
tion conducted the Spanish war?
By the one who. in a rtipaat of nv,,.,,..
lege, condemned the able lawyers who for a price
give their talents to great corporations in order
that the people may;be oppressed? Or the one
who, within a few days after delivering that
speech, appointed as his secretary of state Elihu
Root, one of the most famous and successful cor
poration lawyers Wd the man who had formerly
retired from the, post of secretary of war to re
sume the practice of law for. the special interests?,
By the one who resents the interfere J
trusts in politics and insists upon free govern
ment? Or the one who sent a telegram of COn
gratulation to. JJupont, chief of the powder trust,
on the occasion of Dupont's election to the United
States senate from Delaware?
By the one who, in his message to congress,
said that it was Important to have laws prohibit'
ing corporations from contributing to campaign
funds and providing publicity with respect to the
receipt and expenditure of such funds? Or the
one who, at the time when he was pretending
to exercise jealous care over every bit of pend
ing legislation, permitted bills relating to these
reforms to die-even though his attention and
that of other leaders in his party was repeatedly
called to these measures?
By the one who protested from the house
tops concerning the shortcomings of the beef
trust magnates? Or the one who, in his boasted
proceedings against the Standard Oil Trust, failed
to call to account the Rockefellers and the
Rogerses and permitted It to be made known by
one of those mysterious "unofficial but reliable
statements" that the department of justice has
no hope of catching the more conspicuous' offend
ers in its Standard Oil drag net.
By the one who insisted upon a just meat
inspection law, providing for a tag showing the
date on which the product was canned and provid
ing also that the expense be borne by the pack
ers; the one who wrote in such vigorous words
to Chairman Wadsworth of the house committee,
making it known hat he would be satisfied with
nothing other than a measure giving relief? Or
the one who tamely submitted when the bill was
passed giving the packers the inspection which
they really wanted-all at the expense of the
government and failing to require the date on
the can; the one who, in the face of the defeat
of everything for which Senator Beveridge pre
ended to stand with respect to the meat inspec
Uon law, sent to Mr. Beveridge the pen with
which he had approved the measure and with
a note congratulating the Indiana senator upon
the great "victory" he had won?
By the one who talks about . restraining the
influence of the trusts in politics? Or the one
who congratulated the people upon the election
to the United States senate of Philander S. Knox,
who was admittedly the choice of the Pennsyl
vanla trusts and railroads?
By the one who vigorously protested against
the court review in the meat Inspection bill?
Or the one who consented to the court review in
the railway rate bill?
em bL,01 Jh P" the famous North
ern Securities Merger case, winning a formal vio
of fL ? ! ne who"faIled to take advantage
nfirlmi COnseuences of that yictory and
stin? d bUSineSS at same oId
By the one who insisted upon due recognition
being given to the faithful soldiers and sailors?
Or the one who systematically snubbed and
sought, to humiliate Dewey, Schley and Miles?"
By the one who professes devotion to Amer
can traditions? Or the one who violated Amer
ican precedent hy sending a special envoy to the
coronation of a king? (
By the one who insisted, as in the beef trust
cases, that the men of flesh and blood) rather than
W i-