The Commoner.
THINGS "ULTIMATE" AND THINGS IMMEDIATE
L
MARCH 29, 1907
111 its issue of March 10, the New York World
printed an editorial entitled "Ultimate Owner
ship." For the benefit of Commoner readers who
do not read the World, tills editorial is printed lu
full. It follows:
"Mr. Bryan finds as much virtue in 'ulti
mate' as Touchstone found in 'if.' lie assures
the reporters that die has not changed his
views on the lailroad question since his Madi
son Square Garden speech, in which he said
he 'had reached the conclusion that the ulti
mate solution would be found in government
ownership.' Any misunderstanding of Mr.
Bryan's position was due to Uie fact that 'un
friendly papers lost sight of the word "ulti
mate" and discussed it as an Immediate ques
tion.' "But why so much insistence on 'ultimate?'
If existing conditions are intolerable and there
is no remedy under constitutional government
as it has been administered in this country
for 118 years, why procrastinate? Why talk
about 'ultimate' solutions when we can have
an immediate solution? Surely the present
' generation, sinful though it may be, has cer
tain rights in the way of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, and there is little sense
in saving all the good things for posterity.
Posterity may not bo worthy of them.
"To quibble about 'ultimate' is beneath the
dignity of a conservative, constructive states
man like Mr. Bryan. If the government must
buy' the property of its Harrimaus, its Hills
and its Morgans whenever these gentlemen do
not behave, the sooner the policy is inaugu
rated the bettor. The longer it is deferred
the more mischief will be done and Oie worse
off we shall be. If there is no longer any vir
tue in organized government to set up stand
ards of financial conduct and punish those
who transgress, the longer we continue on the
present tack the further we shall sail out of
the course. Human nature is not going to
change in five years or ten years or fifty
years. Society will always have Harrimaus,
Hills and Morgans.
, "If Mr. Bryan believes in government
ownership at all he should demand immediate
government ownership. TJut does he really
believe in government ownership, now that ho
has found it unpopular? Perhaps he does,
but we have observed that all the stand-patters
talk about an 'ultimate' revision of the
tariff, and that in their case Mr. Bryan says
it means they are not in favor of revision at
all. Possibly the rule does not work both
ways. And possibly too Mr. Bryan has dis
covered that by being 'ultimately' in favor of
something or other a candidate can hedge
either way."
n
ULTIMATE OWNERSHIP"
It will be observed tliat Uie New York World
takes offense at the. word "ultimate" and inslst3
that "If Mr. Bryan believes in government own
ership at all he should demand immediate govern
ment ownership." "To quibble about 'ultimate'
is beneath the dignity of a conservative, con
structive statesman like Mr. Bryan," It says, and
asks: "Why talk about ultimate solutions when
we can have an immediate solution?"
The World is not speaking with its usual In
telligence when it insists that wo must have
every good tiling at once or not at all. In lSOii
it favored tariff reform and an Income tax, and
yet it was willing to postpone these things and
urge the election of a high protectionist, and an
opponent of the Income tax because there was an
immediate question upon which it agreed with
the republican party. It did not insist upon Im
mediate tariff reform, and yet the World might
have asked itself: "If the World believes in
tariff reform at all why should it not demand
immediate tariff reform?" It Is neither kind nor
just In the World to ask: "But does he really be
lieve in government ownership, now that he has
found It unpopular?" It has reason enough to
know that Mr. Bryan's views upon a question
do not depend upon the popularity of those views.
Ho advocated tariff reform when it was not as
popular as It Is now; he advocated an income tax
in 1800, four years before the democrats embod
ied the idea in a revenue measure; he advocated
the election of United States senators by direct
vote of the people two years before congress ever
acted favorably on the proposition; he opposed
, imperialism as early as .Tune, 1898, before i.t was
possible to ascertain the sentiment of the people,
and he spoke In favor of bimetallism when the
democratic administration, not to speak of the
World, opposed it. Mr. Bryan even questioned
the wisdom of nominating Judge Parker when
the World and the Eagle were fighting over the
front seat on the Parker band wagon. The dif
ference between the "immediate" and the "ulti
mate" in politics is so clear that even the editor
of the World could see it if he would. Jefferson
believed in emancipation as an ultimate soiutiou
of the slavery question but he did not insist upon
immediate emancipation. Lincoln also opposed
slavery as a system but he expressly denied that,
he favored immediate emancipation. It Is the
part of wisdom to look ahead but it is not the
part of wisdom to Insist upon the doing of any
thing before the people are ready for It. Mr.
Bryan said on August HO last that he regarded
government ownership as the "ultimate" solu
tion of the railroad question, but he was careful
to say that ho did not know that Uie country was
ready for It or that a majority of the democrats
favored it. Mr. Bryan has no desire to force gov
ernment ownership upon the country, and he
would bo powerless to force government owner
ship uiion the ..'ountry against the will of the peo
ple, even If he desired to do so. According to the
World's logic no one should see the wisdom of any
reform until a majority of the people see It, or If
ho does see It no should not mention It.
The railroad managers are constantly Increas
ing the number of advocates of government own
ership by their exploitation of the public and bv
their opposition to regulation, but while this edu
cational work is going on there are several re
forms upon Avhich the people are already prepared
to act, and the World will not be permitted to
turn attention ftwny from these immediate ques
tions by its frantic efforts to confuse the public
mind. We will point out tendencies as we see
them, Mr. Editor, but we will settle questions as
we reach them. It is not necessary to shut one's
eyes to the future in order to deal with the .pres
ent. Neither Is it necessary to abandon one's
views of tilings ultimate in order to act vipon
things immediate. (
oooo
Says the Milwaukee Sentinel: "The Commoner
thinks the New York Press 'talks like an old
fashioned populist organ.' Well?" Of course it
Is well. It shows that everw now and then a re
publican organ sees the error of its political wayrf.
Wo even have hopes for the esteemed Sentinel.
The Chicago Tribune says: "You must have
noticed that municipal ownership Is most popular
In cities where It has not been tried." That Is
Just about as true as most of the political argu
ments advanced by the Chicago Tribune, and ob
servant people have noticed nothing of the kind
indicated by the Tribune.
WHAT ABOUT THE G. O. P.?
The Wall Street Journal pays to George W.
Perkins a fine compliment because of his
?54,000 contribution to the conscience fund. The
Journal says: "But the significance of this act,
commendable as it is, is not simply personal. It
marks a decided advance in political morality and
corporate fidelity. It is also one of those acts that
shows how effective in the long run the public
conscience is as a standard of authority for the
members of the community."
Will Mr. Roosevelt and Secretary of the Treas
ury Cortleyou recognize the "standard, of author
ity?" Will they insist that the republican party
management show that their conception of honesty
Is at least as high as that of George W. Perkins?
OOOO
GENERAL LEE'S EXAMPLE
Grover Cleveland has written to the Tennessee
legislature what is called "a warning against rad
ical insurance legislation.," Mr. Cleveland's advice
on this subject would have more weight from the
disinterested standpoint were it not for the fact
that he is an employe of the great insurance com
panies from whose exactions the authorities of
Tennessee and those of other states are trying to
protect the people. And this recalls the Interesting
and instructive letter written in 1808 by General
Robert E.'Lee, at a time when General Lee needed
money badly. He was offered a position at the
head of air insurance company. His reply to the
offer was what Thomas E. Watson well calls "a
sermon on standards of taste and public service,"
and was as follows:
."Lexington, Va., December 23, 1868. Dear
Mr. B : I am very much obliged to you for. your
letter of the 12th and the kind interest you have
shown in my welfare. I approve highly of your
views, and especially of your course, and feel
satisfied that you will accomplish groat good. I
have considered Mr. F 's proposition, and though
I believe that the southern business in the present
condition of our affairs, it seems to me, would be
attended with great trouble, and should be man
aged witli great care. In my present position I
fear I should not have time, even if I possesed
the ability, to conduct it. Life insurance trusts
I consider sacred. To hazard the property of the
dead, and to lose the scanty earnings of fathers
and husbands whohave toiled and saved that they
may leave something to their families, deprived
of their care and the support of their labor, is to
my mind the worst of crimes. I could not under-,
take such a charge unless I could see and feel'
that I could faithfully execute it. I have there
fore felt constrained, after' deliberation, to de
cline the proposition of Mr. F . I trust that the
company may select some better man for the po
sition, for I think in proper hands it would ac
complish good. For your interest in my behalf,
and for Mr. L 's kind consideration, I am very
grateful. And with my thanks to both of you,
and to Mr. F for his kindness, to whom I trust
you to explain the reason of my course, I am,
truly yours, R. E. LEE."
oo
THE PANAMA MYSTERY
Evidences are multiplying to show that Wil
liam J. Oliver is a great contracting engineer.
He made the low bid for the contract of building
the Panama canal, but for some reason or other,
no one knows just what, his tId was thrown out
after having been virtually accepted. There: ha ve
been some queer tilings in connection with that
Panama canal job and the Oliver circumstance
was not the least strange. When his low bid was
finally shelved Mr. Oliver made an outcry, as was
natural and excusable. But since then something
has happened.
And the thing that happened Is significant.
A newspaper dispatch says that Mr. Oliver has
been made president of a big trust com
pany at a fine salary. And that sort of a
job is considerably better and easier than jab
bing a spade Intd the stiff and germ ridden mud
and sunbaked clay of the isthmus. Wallace made
a good start, and then received a call to come home
and take something better. Stevens took up the
work with a vim, and lie, too, was called home to
take something easier and better. Then Shouts
followed. Then came Oliver, a responsible con
tractor, who put in the low bid for the job under
the new order of things. Just as he was about
to start for the Isthmus he was notified that all
plans had been changed and the army engineers
decided upon as bosses of the work. At about
the same time comes the report that Mr. Oliver
is to be made president of a big trust, company.
There are some very mysterious doings con
nected with that Panama canal job.
OOOO
SAVING HIS FACE ''
"Mr. Ilarriman," says the Cleveland Plain
Dealer, "left the White house with a smile on his
face." Surely our esteemed contemporary did not
expect him to leave with a patch of court plaster
on it? Washington Post. ,
A smile on "his- face?" Isn't that the place
for a smile? Besides, he couldn't have deposited
that smile in the White house when lie left. Mr.
Roosevelt has no use for it. New York Herald.
Perhaps, as the Chinese say, he was trying to
"save his face."
