'JTT
t rUf" i V TJl " ftf
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
-1-v
VOL. 7. No. 14.
Lincoln, Nebraska, April 19, 1907.
Whole Number 326.
I -v
5 KV TCY - "iM "r"
WMNTEBFmblndrdmha Will Shine With Reflected' Light
CONTENTS
MR. BRYAN ON "THE STATE"
WHY NOT LAFOLLETTE?
THAT FIVE MILLION FUND
THE "CONSERVATIVE" SOUTH
A GOOD PLATFORM
PRESIDENT DEFENDS SUBSIDY
A GREAT STATE IN THE MAKING
PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE WHEN?
. PARAGRAPHIC PUNCHES
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
- WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEW.S OF THE WEEK '
( MR.
BRYAN ON "THE STATE" )
A MODEL CONSTITUTION
The-Oklahoma constitution is in print and The
Commoner ventures the opinion that it is the best
state constitution in the United States. It will be
discussed in detail later, but this tribute is offered
now. It is a people's constitution and the "corn
field lawyers" who wrote it to use the phrase
coined by the New York Tribune have reason
to be proud of their work. It ought to be ratified
by a unanimous vote and the democratic party
whose representatives framed It deserves a splen
did victory as an endorsement. It is a model
constitution thejbest in the nation.
oooo
A FOOLISH MAN
Of course Mr. Harriman was very foolish for
thinking that he was entitled to some considera
tion after having put up $50,000 of his own money
and 200,000 of the money belonging to his friends.
Senator Beveridge's article on "The Nation,"
which appeared in the March issue of the Reader
magazine, presents very clearly the views of' those
who see no danger in the enlargement of the
sphere of the national government. Having him
self no ulterior motive and being conscientiously
devoted to his theories he presents very baldy and
without qualification the position of the advocates
of centralization.
He says: "What is the national government
whose growing powers are so 'feared?' It is
the American people in the mass. And what are
the states? They, are the same American people
split up into forty-six groups. So there can be
no danger from the national government except
the danger that comes from the American people
themselves, acting in common; and, of course,
the people are not going to injure themselves or
their own interests."
This is a very plausible argument and it would
be sound but for the fact that it entirely over
looks the reasons which are urged in the defense
of local self-government
Yes, the people of the states are the same peo
ple who act together as parts of the union, but
when the people of a state act together on a local
matter they are nearer to the subject under dis
cussion and, therefore, can act more intelligently.
If the arguments in defense of local self-government
are unsound, then the whole theory of self
government Is defective. It must be assumed that
the people want to do what Is right upon no
other theory can we have self-government. It
must also be assumed that the people can act
most intelligently upon that which they best un
derstand. That they can best understand a tiling
with which they deal daily Is axiomatic; and it is
equally true that they will study most those things
in which sthey. are individually interested. To il
lustrate: If I enter a public hall- and announce
that a distant city is in conflagration, the audience
will hear the announcement calmly, although, of
course, with regret and with sympathy ,for those
who are suffering. If, however, the announce
ment is made that Mr. Smith's house is on fire
and Mr. Smith is in the audience, one membdr of
the audience at least will become intensely in
terested in the subject. If the announcement is
made Unit the building next to the opera house Is
in flames, the . whole audience will become
aroused, because every one will feel that he is
personally concerned in the fire. ' So the question
which vitally concerns one section of the country,
while it arouses the people of that section, may
not disturb or at least disturb but little those In
a remote part of the country.
"Of course the people are not going to injure
themselves or their own interests," says the sena
tor; but suppose the people of one section decide
that they have no discernible Interest In what la
being done in another section, are they likely to
study the question as carefully as they should?
And if they attempt to act upon a question re
mote from them are they sure to act wisely? Two
questions now before the country may be, used for
an illustration. Take the race question in the
south. The people of the northern states do not
come Into contact with the black .race as the peo
ple of the south do, and because the experiences
are different In the two sections the views of the
subject are different If a citizen of the north
moves Into the black belt he soon recognizes that
he has a different situation to deal with from that
which confronted him in the north, and his views
of the subject are likely to undergo quite a change.
Even a winter's stay in the south is apt to have
an educational Influence upon the citizen of th
north and he ceases to make sweeping criticisms
of the southerners.
The race question on the Pacific coast presents
another Illustration. The people who come into
daily contact, with the Orientals have a familiarity
with the subject which those cannot possibly have
who live in other sections and who seldom sec
one of the emigrants from Asia. The school ques
tion is one that enters into the life of every com
munity and the people who send their children
to a school are more concerned in the welfare 6t
"iLir,i