The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, July 20, 1906, Page 5, Image 5

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    - "fvr'PtwiMr-2- -vi
JULY 20ri90
The Commoner.
tho soulless corporation, bo held amenable to.
the law? Or the one who, in the Paul Morton
case, laid down the doctrine that the corporation,
rather than the individual, should be hold?
By the one who insists upon the vigorous
prosecution of all charged with violating the anti
rebate law? Or the one who throws the protect
arm of his administration around a member of
his cabinet when the trail leads Indisputably in
that direction?
By the one who says that he means to send
to prison those who violate the anti-rebate law,
regardless of their position in life? Or the one
whose prosecutions on this lino have resulted in
only fines to the corporation officers giving re
bates, and to the packers accepting them,
while the only jail sentence imposed was
upon the broker and his clerk who acted as the
go-between in the deal among these conspirators
against the law?
By the one who, in public speech and mes
sage, arraigns u court for holding the corporation
rather than the man? Or the one whose course
was so identical with that of the judge of tho
court he criticises that Messrs. Judson and Har
mon, special attorneys, employed to map out a
course of procedure for the government, resigned
in disgust?
By the one who insists upon purity in the
public service? Or the one who permitted the
mean spirited Loomis to continue in the diplo
matic service after his Irregularities had been
exposed, and then permitted him to retire with
By the one who says that fidelity on the part
of public officials must be recognized? Or the
one who dismissed In disgrace the faithful Bowen,
whose only offense was that he displayed his
temper upon the discovery of the dishonest prac
tices that had been carried on by Loomis, the
administration pet?
By the one who refused to give aid and en
couragement to the republican machine in Phila
delphia because it represented bossism, and all
that is degrading in municipal politics? Or the
one who permits it to become known that his
sympathies are with the republican machine in
Pennsylvania in spite of the fact that that ma
chine, under the guidance 'of Penrose, is so rep
resentative of degraded politics that the rank and
file of Pennsylvania republicans have revolted
and nominated an opposition ticket?
By the one who professes hatred for bossism
and machine politics? Or the one who sent his
secretary of war to Ohio to speak in behalf of
the Boss Cox ticket in the campaign of 1905?
By the one who stands unrelentingly for
great reforms and uncompromisingly against cor
porate domination? Or the one who, in the dis
tribution of patronage In Wisconsin, turns his
back upon LaFollette the republican reformer;
the one who permits his secretary of the treasury
to enter the Iowa campaign to protest against
the renomination of Governor Cummins, who is
being fought by the corporations of the Hawkeye
state; the one concerning whose own attitude, in
that clear cut fight between the corporations and
the people, the Cummins men are doubtful, but
the Perkins men are confident?
By the one who insists that railroads should
be operated for the public Interests? Or the one
who argues that the railroads should bexgiven the
privilege of pooling?
By the one who vigorously condemns the mis
appropriation of policyholders' money by insur
ance magnates? Or the one who retains in his
cabinet the chairman of the national committee
to whose treasury several hundred thousand dol
lars of these misappropriated funds were traced?
By the one who advocates the colonial sys
tem in connection with the American govern
ment? Or the one who wrote: "At best the in
habitants of a colony are in a cramped and un
natural state The only hope for a col
ony that wishes to obtain full moral and mental
growth is to become an Independent state or
part of an independent state?"
By the one who said: "Political economists
have pretty generally agreed that protection is
vicious in theory and harmful in practice?" Or
the one who insists upon "standing pat" although
a considerable part of the rank and file of his
own party demand that the tariff be revised in
order that the shelter the trusts find therein may
be destroyed?
By the one who, referring to the people of
"our new possessions" in the Louisiana purchase
and during Jefferson's time, said: "The essen
tial point was that they had to be given the
right to self government. They could not be
kept in pupilage?" Or the one who insists that
'the people of "our new possessions" in the pres
ent day bo kept in pupilage?
By the one who protends to bo engaged In
a death grapple with special interests? Or tho
one who permitted tho advocates of tho ship
subsidy bill to say at tho recent session that ho
was very anxious that tho measure bo adopted by
tho house as it had passed tho senate?
By tho one who poses as tho great champion
of publicity? Or the one who yet withholds from
the public, the report made by William J. Cal
houn who went to Venezuela to Investigate tho
past and present relations of tho United States
with Venezuela, and particularly tho record mado
by Loomis?
By tho one who proposes an inheritance tax
in order to protect the public from fortunes
"swollen beyond all healthy limits?" Or the one
who favors a tariff system which, at tho expenso
of the people, contributes to these swollen for
tunes? By the one who measured swords with Sena
tor Aldrich on tho railroad rate legislation? Or
the one who tamely submitted to a railroad rate
bill which had Aldrich's approval?
By the one who is so interested in tho moth
ers of the country that he loses no opportunity
to pay them tribute? Or the ono who promoted
to the postmastership at Washington City, tho
person Barnes who directed a negro and other
attendants to lay violent hands upon a woman
and remove her from the White House Barnes,
who made statements concerning that episode
entirely at variance with the statements of tho
representatives of the New York World and tho
Washington Star, newspaper men whose integrity
Is unquestioned and who were eye witnesses to
the attack?
By the one who insists upon the enforcement
of the new railroad rate law? Or the ono who
appoints as a member of the board charged with
the enforcement of that law E. E. Clark of Iowa,
who is charged with being instrumental In stirring
up opposition to tho measure at the last session
of congress?
These facts are not cited in captious criti
cism of the man to whom they conspicuously re
late. They are recalled to show the utter ab-.
surdity in a government whose success must
depend upon the intelligent and patriotic action
of its voters of the republican slogan for 1906.
Because the evils under which the people
suffer are real, the remedy must be real. Real
remedies are not to be obtained, if men are to
be elected to congress because they bear tho
label of the party to which Theodore Roosevelt
belongs; and elected In response to an appeal to
"stand by" a gentleman who has craving all
pardons faced in every possible way, on nearly
every public question with which he has had to
"Stand by Roosevelt" means nothing more
than that the personal popularity of tho presi
dent is to be used to elect to congress republican
candidates regardless of the position these can
didates hold upon public questions. In Rhode
Island, Aldrich; in Now York, Piatt; in Penn
sylvania, Knox; in Wisconsin, Spooner; and in
West Virginia, Elkins all of them special
interest senators will plead "Stand by Roosevelt."
In Wisconsin the LaFollette republicans will be
asked to "Stand by Roosevolt;" In Iowa the Cum
mins men will be urged to "Stand by Roose
velt," and that will mean that in Iowa, as in
Wisconsin and many other states, republican
candidates must be elected whether as members
of congress they proved themselves to be the
pliant tools of corpo'rations, or the faithful ser
vants of the people.
And the cry, "Stand by Roosevelt," will be
taken up in the school districts where well mean
ing young orators will plead for republican vic
tory, unconscious of their folly; and republican
editors will echo the cry "Stand by Roosevelt"
when urging the election to congress of republi
can candidates whose entire public lives may
have been given to the service of corporations.
The "Stand by Roosevelt" argument is
a delusion and a snare. As a description of a
certain political policy it Is false and fraudulent.
It means nothing more than a partisan cry to lure
men from serious thoughts on public affairs and
distract the attention of the people from the
republican party's foul record. Wherever the
phrase is used and it will be uBed in every dis
trict where a corporation politician is running
for congress Its real character should be ex
posed. -
With almost prohibitive prices placed on the
necessities of life; with our food poisoned; with
our insurance funds embezzled; with our con
gress throwing away the people's money and
truculently submitting to the dictates of the trust
magnates; with the problem of maintaining life
In a land of plonty becoming more and more
difficult of solution -It Is mot with tho American:
peoplo a question of "standing by Roosevelt," or
any othor man whose record is not descrlptlvo
of his principles. But tho question is: Shall
tho American pooplo stand by thcmsolvcs and for
thomselves, calling a halt to tho mediocre and un
scrupulous men who Interpreted tho ropublican
victory of 189G oa liconso to proy upon
tho American peoplo, and a quit claim deed to
tho American government?
& When you ask us to "stand by" our bold
& You will pardon, I'm sure, if I ask what
& is meant;
JC For it's hard to "stand by" one who's
& Jumping about
5 A fact you'll admit if you aro honest, no
$ Pray tell us how wo could "stand by' in
6 a case
S Whore Loomis is praised, but where
S Bowen lost place!
5 Or "stand by" when lib rails so hard at
S rebates
6 Then honors a man who has mado special
& rates?
$ When you ask of us that, common fair
& ness demands
& That you clearly define where tho presl
& dent stands.
S When he talks of tho shackles we've put
5 upon force
6 We know what ho means while he's talk
& ing, of course;
$ But talking of cunning and-, shackles lt:
S needs
5 A chasm yawns wide twixt his words and
6 his deeds.
& Shall we boldly "stand by" as he hurls
& his defl
& At Aldrich and Foraker? Then with a
& sigh
& "Stand by" when surrender Is counselled,
Jt because
The trusts are too strong to bo hampered
Jt by laws?
& When you ask us "stand by" and to hold
up his hands
& You clearly should show where the presi-
dent stands.
Shall we "stand by" the man who gave
Morton a place
While asking "square deals" for all men
in life's race?
Or shall wo "stand by" when he says
that campaigns
Must never be fought with a trust's
stolen gains?
Or stand boldly by as the trusts march
in view
And yield up their "fat" to the bold
Shall we "stand by" the man who de
nounced corporate loot
Then gave a high place to a trust law
yer named Root?
Before we "stand by" common fairness
You tell us exactly where Theodore
When we try to "stand by" it will fill us
with doubt
& If the president fidgets and jumps all
& about;
j One thing for a minute, then with a grave
& frown
& He boldly looks upward and backs slowly
& One day cries "anarchy" because of
5 reports
6 That people have dared look askance at
t the courts
& And then on the next takes a Humphrey
S to task
J How can we "stand by?" is the question
we ask.
5 We'll be glad to "stand by" if you will
6 heed our demands
S And clearly define where the president
JL stands.
tu 5 5 3 w v 5 3 3 tJ
.mmm'Mmft ,
f, t . J -Hi J.'1-. 4 i-J-
-jL.3tdeJo' sn-
' VtV , A,K .