The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, October 26, 1906, Page 8, Image 8

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

    The Commoner.
.' -
- '
Rl. ,'!
II! ' I ' t . n
HI li'Vf- .'1 H
w 'v.; J .
m 'i
J? '
f 'C'l
: T. )
1 4G
t '&
H ,'N. .'tf'7'l
,, !, '?
'U !..
1 ' ii
;? in1,;,. .1
L- J- 'h i
1.1 ., H
i 'III I lit. ,
P, 1,1-1 nV"i
IV 5 '
a u r
t Iff V ' fc;V t;
" ?'(
' ' .'1., I
i.lM '.VI
J U i-
14 i ?9-tf
which class do you belong to, tho well horn or
the,not so well horn? ,.,'
I am afraid of this Hamiltonian doctrine, for
11! wo ever had it in this country I am not auro
that I could got into tho well born class. They
might bo too strict for me. Down in New York
f you want to got into the four hundred classr
you have to show throe generations between you
and any honest work.
Now, I don't know just what the limits would
ho if you had that Hamiltonian doctrine. My
father had to make his own way. Ho was left
without father and mother in his boyhood; ho
had to work his way through school; he worked
on a farm; then ho taught school and after
awhile ho was able to graduato at tho age of 27
and then he studied law, and then he was on
tho bench, but I don't know whether ho did
enough to get him out of the not-so-well-born
I don't want to risk it I tell you I don't
want my right to participate iri government to
dopend on a pedigree thai? I have to carry around
-with me to show who I am.
So I think you republicans had better take
chances with us democrats on this subject. What
other difference? Why, Jefferson said, "Lot's
have elections and lot the people elect their rep
resentatives," and then knowing human nature
as few public men have, ho said: "Let's make
tho elections frequent, so tho fellow in office
won't forget who put him there."
Pretty good point. Tho trouble with our gov
ernment is not in the people, but in those elected
hy tho people betraying their trusts and misrep
resenting the people, and Jefferson said, "Make
the elections frequent? so the voter can keep his
hands on the man who acts for him and with
draw his authority if he disobeys or misreprq-
sents or betrays his trust,"
What did Hamilton say? Well, his was quito
different and we are fortunate we have it In
writing. I am afraid if it wasn't in writing re
publicans out hero would deny Hamilton ever
believed in It, but Hamilton prepared a form of
government and it is on Tecord and he tried to
get it adopted; and what did it provide for? For
the election of presidents for life; the election
vct senators forlifo and for the appointment of
governors by the president for life. That was the
Hamiltonian doctrine. How would you like to
.have presidents for life? Well, I wouldn't like it.
. Why, President Roosevelt is only two years
voider than I and he is in good health. What
chance would I have, if he was elected for life?
But now I don't want the republicans to be
'r.too good about it: I don't want them to think
that it would be a good thing to have the Hamil-
tonian doctrine so they could keep President
Roosevelt until I died and shut me out, because
if wq had the ideas of Hamilton we wouldn't
havo had a President Roosevelt, for Groyer Cleve
land is still alive.
Now, republicans, don't you think it is good
to have elections every once In a while? Don't
you like that plan better than the Hamiltonian
plan? Well, what about senators for life? . Don't
you think it is better to have a chance at them
occasionally? Don't you think we can keep them
under better control?
Why, my objection to the present election,
or method of electing senators, 1b it smacks too
much of Hamilton anyhow, and I have been try
ing for sixteen years to make Jeffersonians so
the people can elect their senators by direct vote
of tho people.
What do you think of governors appointed
hy the president for life? If any of you think
It is a good thing I can tell you how you can
cure yourself. Go down into the territory where
they have a taste of the Hamiltonian doctrine,
where the president- does appoint the governor,
not for life, but a few years, and you find In
-every territory tho people are so tired of this
doctrine that they are rushing into statehood in
order that they can have Jeffersonian doctrine
and elect their own people In their own wnv.
Now, if republicans constantly praise Hamil
ton when his ideas were as they wero, and demo
crats praise Jefferson when his ideas were as
they were, is it not safe to assume that demo
crats are more in favor of letting the people run
their own affairs than republicans are?
Now, remember, I am not saying that you
republicans would like Hamiltonian doctrine, be
cause nine-tenths of you people who call your
selves republicans are not republicans at all and
your name is misfit and you ought fo take it off
and put on a name that fits. -
Now, I tell you. I will give you a second evi
dence of the fact that the democrats are nearer
to the people than the, republicans and havemore
confidence in them. Take , the .election of senators
hy the people. Nino-tenths of th republicans,
yes, ninety-nine out of one hundred republicans,
believe in direct elections. Now I want to ask
the republicans, Is there any significance in the
fact that a democratic house was the first
house to pass a resolution in favor of" electing
senators by direct vote? It was the fifty-second
congress, it happened to be the first one in which
I served the congress before It was republican
r-but It didn't pass the resolution, yet the fifty
second congress, democratic, did, and the fifty
third, also democratic, did, arid then we had two"
republican congresses and they adjourned with
out acting on this subject.
Republicans, why did the democratic house
act favorably and then two republican houses
ignore tho subject? Was it not because the dem
ocrats had more faith In the people than the
republicans? And yet I know some of you, if you
have been reading or thinking, will say that
after while even republican congresses acted
favorably on the resolution.
Yes, that is true, but It was six years after
the democrats had set the example, and yet I
want to give the republicans credit for getting
even within six years of the democrats on any
good, proposition.
More than that, we put it in our national
platform twice, once at Kansas City and once
at St. 'Louis, and the republican national conven
tion has never acted favorably on it at all. Why
is it that It Is in no republican national plat
form, although 14 years ago a democratic house
adopted it by two-thirds vote? I will tell you.
It is because the great corporations exert such
influence over republican leaders that they dare
riot make that promise of men running for office
they dare not offend these great corporations
and if you have any doubt who opposes the elec
tion of senators by the people let me remind you
when the question was up in the senate the last
time Chauncey M. Depew, a republican from New
York, led the opposition; Chauncey Depdw, the
most popular banquet speaker In the republican
party, and the man elected to the senate by the
New York Central railroad to guard the interests
Of the trusts and corporations in the United
States senate.
The senate has become the bulwark of wealth
and the men who have filled the senate with their
, representatives of trusts arid corporations have
so strong- an influence over the republican lead
ers that they don't put this plank In their platr
form. Now, republicans, is this any evidence the
democratic party has more faith in the people
than the republican leaders? But, my friends, J
want to go farther than that. I want to show
these young republicans that this difference of
opinion about the government, this difference In
faith In the people, manifests itself iri other ways
and even In the opinion that people have of the
formation of society. (Interrupted by noise in
the audience.)
They act as if there were pickpockets over
there. The pickpocket always attempts to start
the people to moving in order that they may pick
their pockets while they try to keep their bal
ance. Let me ask, are there seats there where
those people are standing?
Now, my friends, I want to call your atten
tion to the difference. If two or three of you
tall men would step over into that crowd and
stand awhile no, you needn't take any club, all
they need to know is that 'they are disturbing
others and they will either stop or go away
whore their conversation will not disturb.
It is very easy, I think, to reach the people
if they understand they are doing wrong. The
great trouble with republicans Is that they are
Innocently doing a great deal of wrong and we
can't make them understand It Now, there Is
this difference in the Ideas in regard to the con
struction of society.
The democrat says that society Is built from
the bottom and the republican thinks that society
is suspended from the top. The democrat says,
make the masses prosperous and then all who
rest upon them will share in the prosperity, but
the republicans say, make the well to do' pros
perous and their prosperity will leak through on
those below.
If I could bring a republican and put him on
the stand here beside a democrat, not one of you
republicans, because you are not republicans at
all, but I mean a sure enough one one who really
is in sympathy with the dominant policy of his
partyif T could bring such a republican here
and put bim beside a democrat and question the
two, I could find out which was a democrat and
which was a republican by just telling a Bible
story and asking them what they thought about it.
- I would tell the story of Dives and Lazarus,
; .when Lazarus had to eat the' crumbs that fen
from Dive's-tablo, and the democrat would speak
up and say it was too bad that Dives had to live
on crumbs and he would try to find some way to
so change conditions that every o"ne could havo
a table of his own and no one have to hang
upon the charity of another.
But what would the republican say? He
would say it was a lucky thing for Lazarus that
there was a Dives near so he could get some
If you doubt it let me give you a familiar
argument that will show you the truth of what I
say. Go and hear the speech of some great re
publican and you will come away with the idea
that the important men are the men who givo
employment to laborers. That the laborer ought
to be constantly grateful that he has a job. This
man insists that the laboring man, wouldn't have
any work if there wasn't somebody who employed
him and, therefore, the employer is the important
man and not the laborer, and yet you go into a
factory and you will find that no manufacturer
employs men to, work for him unless that man
can not only produce enough to pay his own wages,
but a surplus over as a profit to the employer be
sides, ..and the great trusts will give you their
reports showirig they pay in dividends sometimes
as much as they pay in wages and that means
that the employes not only earn what they re
ceive, but 100 per cent profit for their employer.
Now, my friends, have you not heard men
talk as though all you had to do was to make
the employer prosperous and all the rest of the
people would be prosperous. The democrats in
sist that the man who works for wages is as
much entitled to consideration as the man who
pays his wages.
. The democrats insist that the man who toils
on the farm and in the factory and in the mine
and, produces wealth is as important a factor
in society as is the man for whom he works. This
is democratic doctrine and you will find this
difference runs all through the legislation of this
country,, and republicans will do things in na
tional politics that no republican would think of
doing in his own home affairs. For a quarter of
a century we have been running this government
I don't say we in a partisan sense I mean those
who run it have been running It on the theory
if they jusjt give enough money to the employers
that the employer would take care of the labor
ers. No republican would follow that principle
iri his own family. Go. into your,. courts and; look
at the wills made by. republicans, and you will
find that they know too much about human na
ture to act in their own affairs like they permit
their leaders to act What republipan, who is
about to die and had an estate to leave, would
leave it all to one child and just say in his will,
I have confidence that this child will deal justly
'with all the rest of the children. -Now,'
why wouldn't you do it?
You would not dare to trust your, town child
to deal justly with those who are of his own
flesh and blood, and therefore when you make
your will you give each child what you think
that child ought to have and do not leave your
fortune to the mercy of even a brother of tho
blood! And yet for a quarter of a century we
have been voting $10,000,000, $50,000,000, $100,
000,000 to the employers of this country and leav
ing it to them to be. just and generous to their
employes. These employers will trust men whom
they never saw, when they won't trust their own
children to be just with their brothers and sis
ters. And what is the result? We have been
building up fortunes in the hands of the few
while the wealth has been drained from the
pockets of the many.
Now, my friends, I want to show you that
our doctrines have received vindication from sev
eral directions. When I was a candidate I had a
majority in this county. I think I had a better
majority than usual, if I am not mistaken. (To
Mr. Hackney): Didn't we do pretty well here
in '9G?
Mr. Hackney: Over 2,000.
Mr. Bryan, continuing: My friends, our opin
ions and our positions at that time have been
vindicated. We. said the people needed more
money. We said more money would make better
times. We said, if the farmers could sell their
product for more lponey they would have more to
spend at the stores, and when the stores had
customers they could buy ttf the factories better,
but our opponents said we had plenty of money
and didn't need ,any more, and yet, when they
refused to give us the money the country needed,
God took pity pn us and opened the gold mines
and frorii tnemu there poured,;;,. forth a yellotf
stream. ..v '
It went intoth channels $ trade and W0
have B0 Mr '.bent , more money Vta circulation
1 (i
(i ::
1 ':
(v - - .
L Vt,
-it'ti , affxw rfaUa
'. i