'rfWVJTW'
'V
tf?-temtrx'-&j&f?tr"r rj-','""'---'
-.,,,..... i-i'lii'i't ' '''"''lT'
$JyfiM'
WpffT
- -! Jugtfc,., ,jH ?
ii
The Commoner
-.v
.VOLUME 6, NUMBER 35
1 ,
V
" ypF!!?
('
AT J
rt .
J
'
ffl
s
.t
h
n
A WALL STREET CONFESSION
Bryan's Commonor makes marry over the
fact tlint tho Wall Street Journal sorao days ago
declared that it has always accepted tho quantita
tive theory of money. Tho Commoner says
"Can a democrat bo blamod if ho becomes
a bit dizzy these days when he sees men who,
in 1890, sneered at the democratic doctrine
, hurry to plant themselves upon tho Chicago
platform?"
It is one thing to accept tho quantitative
theory of money, meaning thereby that the great
production of gold, by reason largely of cheapened
cost of mining, has bo stimulated industry as to
advance prices. It is quite another thing to accept
tho Bryan proposition of the free silver coinage
at tho rate of 16 to 1. Wall Street Journal.
But when the Wall Street Journal has ad
mitted tho "quantitative theory" it has agreed to
the basis of all arguments in favor of bimetalism.
What the Journal calls the "16 to 1 proposi
tion" was tho bugaboo raised to frighten those
who did not understand the real issue. In order
to establish bimetalism a ratio was necessary.
When the republican newspapers and periodicals
persuaded thoughtless men to sneer at "16 to 1"
-they did not tell their readers that the thing at
which they sneered was the historic ratio, and
was Jn fact then as it is now tho legal ratio.
The weakness of the "16 to 1" criticism
would have been demonstrated had the mints been
opened to silver as they are to gold, and it has
recently been noted that even the purchase of
the comparatively small amount of silver by the
treasury department has had a marked influence .
upon the price of the white metal.
. But we will not quarrel with the Journal on .
tho "16 to 1 proposition" now that it has boldly
confessed the error of the position taken by the
single standard advocate in 1896.
JJJ
"AND WITHOUT RESERVE"
Commoner readers should make it a point to
'Tead to their republican neighbors tho planks in
the Ohio republican platform relating to Mr.
Roosevelt and Senators -Foraker and Dick. These
planks are ' reproduced in "Current Topics" of
this issue. It will be seen that the republican
convention said: "We most heartily approve and
endorse Theodore Roosevelt and his administra
tion of public affairs." Then the convention said:
"We most heartily, AND WITHOUT RESERVE,
approve and endorse our distinguished senators,
Joseph Benson Foraker and Charles Dick;" also:
?We glory in the conspicuous and effective work
of Senators Foraker and Dick in legislative accom
plishment and republican leadership."
How laviBh that convention was in the praise
. of its senators! While Mr. Roosevelt was "most
heartily approvod and endorsed" the senators who
opposed the important reforms to which the presi
dent was pledged were "most heartily AND WITH
OUT RESERVE approved and endorsed."
That is "standing by Roosevelt" in just about
the way the republican party manipulators intend
to do, so far as concerns any legislation that
promises to be helpful to public interests.
In tho same platform it is said ""a hostile
house of representatives would tiiwn iii txnn
,velt's) high aims, and embarrass the policy to
which he is committed." But a hostile senate
was not to bo considered by this Ohio republican
gathering; and while shedding crocodile tears
over Mr. Roosevelt's "high aims," and expressing
lears lest someone might "embarrass the policy
to which he is committed" this republican gather
SlmSSSSX Proceeded to "most heartily AND
WITHOUT RESERVE approve and endorse" the
two Ohio senators, both of whom are hostile to
Mr. Roosevelt's "high policies," and one of whom
has done more to embarrass Mr. Roosevelt upon
conspicuous matters of reform than any other
man in public life, unless we bar Mr. Aldrich of
Rhode Island.
JJJ
A BRAVE BOAST
Democrats voted for most of the big measures
which went through congress in the recent ses
sion. They did .not dare oppose them. Some dem
ocratic support may be expected for some of the
republican bills which will go through congress
In pre short session in the coming winter, and
for the same reason. But democratic support for
republican measures, however wIbo and urgent the
measures may be, can not be counted on with any
confidence much longer. -St. Louis Globe-Democrat
(Rep.).
Democrats may be depended upon xto support
measures presented by republicans or yie repre-
sentatives of any other party when those meas
ures are democratic.
It requires considerable courage, to give It
but a mild name, on the part of a republican paper
to intimate that democrats voted for reform meas
ures at tho last session because they did not dare '
oppose them. For his reform measures Mr. Roose
velt found his chief supporters among the demo
crats and his chief opponents among the republi
cans; and when one remembers that even in the
face of the popular uprising in behalf of these
reform measures, principles wore compromised
and measures trimmed down until they were great
ly weakened, one wonders with what reason any
intelligent man would put his faith In a republi
can congress making any material progress along
reform lines after the votes shall have been
counted.
JJJ
THE ISSUE IN MAINE
Republican editors seem now very anxious
to emphasize the fact that the prohibition ques
tion figured in the Maine campaign, and these
editors very generally insist that prohibition was
the controlling issue Do they remember that no
longer ago than September 5, Secretary of War
Taft, speaking from a Maine stump, declared that
Mr. Roosevelt and his policies provide the issue
in the campaign this year. Mr. Taft declared that
the question before the people Is whether they
approve or disapprove the course of Theodore
Roosevelt as president and desire to hold up his
hands.
Maine answered this appeal- by giving to
the republican nominee for governor a plurality
of 9,000 where, two years ago, the same candidate
had received 25,000 plurality; and by giving to
the republican congressmen pluralities propor
tionately reduced.
Can it be possible that many of the old time
republicans of Maine concluded that inasmuch
as the democrats in the house and senate upheld
Mr. Roosevelt in his proposed reforms, where
many republicans either openly deserted him or
forced him to barren compromise, the best way to
"stand by Roosevelt" is to elect democrats to
congress and to emphasize the people's resent
ment of the republican party's indifference to the
public welfare by voting against republican candi
dates all along the line?
If Mr. Taft had only made his "stand-by
Roosevelt" appeal a few weeks earlier, the truth
might have dawned upon a sufficient number of
Maine republicans in time to give to the policies
which have contributed to Mr. Roosevelt's popu
larity a practical endorsement by the success of
the party from whose platform these policies were
borrowed and in whose representatives in con
gress Mr. Roosevelt found his most enthusiastic
supporters.
JJJ
STRAWS
In 1904 the republican nominee for governor
in Vermont had a plurality of 31,000. - At the re
cent election in 1906, the plurality was about
15,000. "The lowest plurality reached in recent
years by the republican candidate for governor
in Vermont was in 1890 when the plurality fell
to 14,163. i
In 1904 the democratic nominee for governor
in Arkansas received a plurality of 38,000. At
the 1906 election recently held the plurality was
61,000. This is the largest plurality for governor
in Arkansas since 1896, when the plurality was
55,278.
In 1904 the republican candidate for governor
In Maine received a plurality of 26,800. At the
1906 election recently held the plurality was
9,000.
JJJ
INCOME TAX N 1900
The New York World says: "To mollify, the
eastern democrats Mr. Bryan consented to have
the income-tax plank dropped from the national
platform of 1900."
It is true the income tax was not explicitly
referred to in the 1900 platform, although it was
not tho Intention of the committee to omit It.
The income tax was, howeyer, explicitly referred
to in the 1896 platform and the Kansas City con-
vention adhered to the plan when It said: "We
reaffirm and endorse the principles of the na
tional democratic platform adopted at Chicago in
1896."
In order to show the absurdity of the World's
charge that "to mollify the eastern democrats Mr.
Bryan consented to have the Income tax. dropped
from the national platform of 1900," it is only
necessary to refer to Mr. Bryan's letter accepting
- the democratic nomination in 1900. In that let
tor Mr. Bryan said; "By inadvertence' the' income
tax plank agreed upon by the 'resolutions commit
tee, was omitted from the platform as read and
adopted. The subject, however, is covered by the
reaffirmation of the Chicago platform, and I take
this occasion to reassert my belief in the principle
which underlies the income tax. Congress should
have authority to levy and collect an income tax
whenever necessary, and an amendment to the
federal constitution specifically "conferring such
authority ought to be supported by even those
who may think the tax unnecessary at this time.
In the hour of danger the government can draft
the citizen; it ought to be able to draft the pocket
book as well. Unless money is more precious
than blood, we can not afford to give greater pro
tection to the incomes of the rich than to tho
lives of the poor." -
JJJ
STRANGE
Writing in the Outlook and refering to Bishop
McCabe's championship of the Mutual Life In
surance company, Dr. Lyman Abbott says:
"The expression of opinion on the part of
Bishop McCabe "emphasizes the Outlook's ad- '
vice to the policyholders of the Mutual and '
the New York Life to be cautious in support- ' J
ing the change from an experienced manage
ment to one that is untried and without prac
tical knowledge of the insurance business."
But the management of some of these insur
ance companies are altogether too "experienced."
It seems strange to see the bishop of a great
church engaged in an effort to handicap a com
mittee of responsible men bent upon securing re
lief to overburdened policyholders. y
It seems no less strange to see the reverend
editor of the Outlook rushing to the defense of
the Mutual's bfshop, and actually basing his de
fense upon ,the ground that the plundered policy
holders of the Mutual and the New York Life
Insurance companies should be "cautious" in de
manding that the men who are largely responsible
for the mismanagement be replaced by those hav
ing no affiliation with the Insurance rings, and
who may reasonably be depended upon to pro
tect the interests of the policyholders.
JJJ
THE PRESIDENT AND THE TARIFF
The opinion of the independent press gener
ally with respect to Mr. Roosevelt's letter to
Representative Watson is well shown by the fol
lowing from the Kansas City- Star: "President
Roosevelt has made a concession a very big con
cession to party organization., There is no other
way to explain his disappointing letter to Rep
resentative Watson on the subject of the tariff.
The letter is inconsistent with the president's
past theories on the subject of revision, how
ever sincere it may be as to the advisability of
revising the tariff at this time. The letter bears
the marks of the thankless task. It lacks the
Roosevelt ring. It qualifies and compromises.
It has a note that never before obtruded itself in
the Roosevelt utterances the note - of ex
pediency." JJJ
QUO VADIS, BISHOP?
The attitude of Bishop McCabe in antagonism!
to the reform efforts of the International policy
holders committee is surprising to some of the
bishop's followers. But it has not been forgot
ten that during the campaign of 1896 predatory,
wealth and organized capital had no louder de
fender than "Chaplain" McCabe. Only a few
months ago the bishop took it upon himself to
define tho attitude of the great Methodist church
towards organized labor, stating that attitude to
be one of opposition to labor organization. In
thebattle between the many who produce wealth
and the few who consume It; In the struggle be
tween those who are overworked and underfed
and those who are idle and overfed, Bishop Mc
Cabe seems to have an unerring .instinct for gqt
ting in line with those who have little In common
with that great class who were described as "hear
ing gladly" the message of the Nazarene.
JJJ
IT NEEDS IT
"Uncle Joe" Cannon is quoted as saying that
"Mr. Bryan is a great aid to the republican
party." WHi the republican party needs some
assistance, judging by recent election returns,
notably those from Maine. Even "Uncle Joe
may need a little aid himself, judging by tho
lively race Samuel Gompers and hi3 associate!
gave to Mr LIttlefield. So if Mr. Bryan Is.hT
"an aid to the repuhlican party," the retwf tl
partisan should not abuse him for it,, ",
much the American patriot might reriot give to
a
mLJfy I
