Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 3, 1907)
-' (H T .''
",. ,. . v-r ' -m, rjpf v jt w-i".
' J' t
lmt today It stands for positive and"progrcsslvo
democracy and in 1O0S Kb platform, It candidates
and lis organization will bo such as to appeal to
the conscience and judgment of the rcrorm ele
ment of tho country. If tlic democratic party
Ignores Its greatest opporlunlty and disappoints
loyal democrats the Independence League will grow
rapidly, but If the democracy does what It ought
to do-and Tho Commoner believes that ft will
the members of Uie Independence League are likely
to bo found supporting the democratic ticket just
h tho members of the populist party supported
the democratic ticket in 1800 and 1U00.
In tho meantime democratic papers should
treat Mr. Hearst and tho new party as an ally
rather than as an enemy, Wo are going In tho
Hiimo direction even though wo march under dlf-
ferent banners, and there ought to be no quarrel
bo long as we are trying to "cast out devils,"
nlthpugh wo Invoke the name of democracy whllo
Mr. Hearst and his associates Invoke the nuuiu
of tho Independence League. , '
THE CONSTITUTION SUPREME '
Secretary Root and Senator Beveridge seem
o agree with tho president that the constitution '
of the United States is rather an Insignificant
thing when it runs up against a treaty. -Tlioy
argue that a treaty Is superior to the laws and
constitutions of the sovcral states, but they over
look tho fact that a treaty Is unconstitutional If It
violates the constitution of tho United States and
an unconstitutional treaty is not binding. Tho
president and the senators are sworn to support
tho constitution of tho United States and If they
ignore tho provisions of that constitution so much
tho worse for them. Suppbse the president and
-senate should join in a treaty providing that no
American could avail himself of tho writ of
habeas corpus if arrested on complaint of a for
eigner residing in tills country, would such a pro
vision bo upheld by tho courts? Suppose, then,
that tho president and senate agreo to nullify tho
constitutional amendment giving tho state control
of their local affairs, would that bo upheld by tho
If our federal constitution can only' be amend
ed by tho concurrence of two-thirds of both houses
of congress and three-fourths of tho states, or tiy
the concurrence of three-fourths of the states in an
amendment submitted by a constitutional conven
tion can that constitution be 'overridden by tho
president? and senate wlthbut the' approval of tho
popular branch of congress and without consult
ing tho several states? If tho courts hold that
(he constitution Is not binding on tho treatv mak
ing power It will bo time for a constitutional
amendment giving some constitutional strength to
our constitution. ' b
OF COURSE ,
i S11,?m, A fcrowm-'i former president of n
New York insurance company, who - las boon i,?
cepl li prison (fiouteuco. umvjllh.g to ao-
tcnci?,,Mr'c'ora'lWS toWt a Prison son-
WHERE DOES MR, TAFT STAND?
secrotarys.nominatioS T The question tofinP
ally arises Is: For what reform ,?" T mtm'"
Taft stand? loforms does Secretary
which the nrSd uSSPt r
forced the president to accent? h?lQ 8nto
could have secured a bettor ?;,m (1Jl President
ocratic aid, but he como romi J nC?pt,n8 dom
it seem a republican S earai? il S to Wf
in favor"of the IPoffettniUndmS?,"
republicans of the senate votrli i m nt N(whiRh tue
porters ronssuro t o raltollE11, Ba
rounds up the roaittPWiit
toaemos president he w'u.X tto'op ' ta&g"
of Interstate. commerce commissioners; will he ap
point men' who AVniPHtiiiwrt wm -tii t.nii..,n',r ,,,
. :7 T.r. :.. "- ""ttt miu-
ji;o ui umu yvuv sympathize with tho patrons of
Whore does he stand on tho trust question?
is ho against tlio principle of private monopoly or
does ho behove merely In trying to regulate mon
opolies? Does he believe in enforcing 'the criminal
law against trust magnates? And is he satisfied
with the enforcement of the law against just n
few 6f tho trusts?
How about tho Income tax? Does ho endorse
tho president's position on that question? And
does ho regard swollen fortunes as a menace? Is
he for arbitration of labor diflicultles? What does
ho think now of government by injunction? Js ho
, still an imperialist, or docs he accept the American
theory that governments derive their Just powers
from tho consent of tho governed? Is ho willing
to take tho people into his confidence or does he
expect to secure tho nomination without disclos
ing his position, and then run on an amblgudus
platform? Has ho faith enough in his own prm
clples and in the people to make an open, honest
light for definite reforms?
Wiierd dops Secretary Taft stand? What
does ho stand for In the way of reforms?
President Roosevelt's platform said nothing
about reforms In 1004 and the president
himself gave no intimation of reform tendencies
until after tho .election. Will Secretary Taft fot
low tho president's example and fool the big cor
porations or will he follow. the example of several
other presidents and fool tho people?
He should speak now or forever after hold
The New York Tress is a republican paper,
but It has already incurred the displeasure of the
republican leaders, and will yet be read out of
tho party unless it reforms, for this is a sample
of what the Press is saying these days: "This
Js not likelythat the Standard -Oil company win
bo fined $30,000,000 under the conviction at Chi
cago on 3,403 counts of an indictment for viola
tion of the Elklns anti-rebate law. But suppose
tho court does Inflict the -maximum penalty, wilY
any reasoning being bolieve that the oil monopoly
will bo destroyed or even seriously injured by the
soutenco? John D. Rockefeller, who Says he Is'
only a small-holder of Standard' stock, can give
away far more than $30,000,000 a year. The Stand-'
ard Oil company will continue to monopolize the
oil business, and to extend its insidious influence
into every form of American activity, until the
members of the conspiracy in restraint of trade
are branded with the mark of the criminal and
put uuder lock, and key."
SENATOR BEVERIDGE'S MISTAKE
Senator Beveridge discussed an issue which
the facts did not raise and his position w7s di
rectly antagonistic to the platform upon which
Abraham Lincoln was elected, for the platform
declared: "Tho maintenance inviolate oT tho
rights of the states, and especially the right
pf each state to order and control its domS
institutions according to its own judgment e"
cluslvcly, is essential to that balance of power on
which the perfection and endurance of our pol
cal fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless
invasion by armed forces of the soli of any state
or territory no matter under what pretext as
among the gra vest of errors." i-rf as
The national bank charter to which Senator
-Beveridge refers, contradicts rather than con
firms his position for it was not urged by the peo
ple for the purpose of restraining large moneved
interests; it was, on the other hand, advocated
by moneyed Interests and has ever since been de
fended .by moneyed Interests. Even now the na
tional bafflccrs, not satisfied with the advantage
of being banks of deposit, not content even with
tho profits of a bank currency based on bonds, are
urging such an extension of the system as to in
cludo the so-called emergency notes which are in
fact a part of tho asset currency scheme, for which
national bankers have been working fir veari -Most
of tho illustrations given by Senator Bev
eridge aro entirely outside of the discussion r
will mention four of these: First, Iho law for
bidding Iho sending of obscene literature through
he ma lis. The mails aro under federal control.
Tho. authority that is responsible for tho carrvin
of the malls certainly is responsible for tho morals
of the service as well as for the actual transpor
tation of-tho letters and papers. The federal kov
crnment could not excuse Itself if it allowed its
agents to be employed in tho delivery of obscene
literature. The fact that a few persons who mad?
money out of the circulation of such literature it
tempted to employ the state's rights argument
VOLUME 7, NUMKHRHi
' " - - x " "
cannot be used 'to weaken the force of to x
52 Veal && 3
was the only auUiorftTlcould ?&
states were powerless to interfere with thn J?R?
or with interstate commerce, Indt is not ft J
to charge up the sins Of the lotterv comSnL r
the arguments made by its StSJ.v- pany. l
those who believe that" V hnetweTn thtte
and the nation should be preserved P '
.enactment of such laws should not bo cked'a??
ti at the manufacturing interests which oppose
this law are hiding behind the "reserved ririS?S
the states," and while it is true tha TmLydenio
crats are opposing tho senator's bill, some of S
S;IC J"nce Qf manufactures employ
t & "? h0r' und .somo on theoretical grounds
I tiiink I can speak for a considerable element of
the democratic party when I say that too sena
tortbill does not in the least trespass upon stale
The power of congress over interstate nnm
inerce is complete. This power is not only cZ"
P ete, but its exercise is necessary, too various
states being impotent when it comes to JatteS
of interstate commerce. I have given to Senator '
Beveridge's bill whatever support I could I? X
.right in principle; it is necessy, and j? does not
interfere with the reserved rights of the states.
It permits each state to regulate Its own affaira
but the bill recognizes the right of congress to "de
termino the conditions upoS which merchandise'
shall enter interstate commerce. The princlnla
embodied in the senator's bill Is a most lSportant
one. At this time he is applying it to goods pro
duced by child labor; more than six yea?s ago X
democratic platform demanded the application Df
this principle to the trust question. I had this
principle in mind when in my former article" said
it is, not necessary to interfere with the rjghte-o?
the states, in order to enact measures necVssarv
for the. annihilation of the'trusts. necessary-
toat;or Beveridge should be given- credit' for
his championship of the cause of toe chlldrennd"
I wish him every success in his effort to mcuto
SMS8? f lh0, ,BoverWgo bill. I have fS
glad, also to note his advocacy of several other
needed reforms, and I regret that he does not rec
ognize as clearly as I think he should the hnport
ance of toe stato'R nniH SlZ , L-.
-tern The state and toe nation are both necessary
without and f toat work wlSchTnPSSS5
must do together; but the state must 'continue to
be the champion of toe home, toe jschool, the com- '
Z ltya tli,e l0Cal interests which are best u- "
derstood by toe people of each community and
best defended by those who understand S 5-:"
dltlons to he meti .
HARRIiyiAN THE "UNDESIRABLE"
Is there a politician in America ottior thn; .
President Boosevelt, who would Svehe courage"
to link together the names of Harriman, the mf '
road .king and Moyer, Haywood and D'ehs toe'' '
labor leaders as types of undesirable citizen? ' .
Mr. Roosevelt has done just that, but would Sen -ator
Foraker, Senator Aldrich or Senator Snoo?r ''
on toe one side, and Senator LaFoUette W f - -Bryan
or Mayor Tom Johnson on toe other dare
to make such a comparison and risk tho mS2 -quences
of offending in one sentence Te ST
senatve of the most powerful aggi'egaUonP df '" '
capital, and the representatives of a g?eat section' t ' '
JournaimZed lab1' n the rTauTtreTt. &
SpooeTrf inS?e tlT '"
"undesirable citizen "and edenflv iSann,B ?U ''
yelt would not have done it to 1004 Jl' Roos 'V
accepting Harrlman's money aa toZrl Z ?'&
tho Roosevelt campaign S. contributi &$
RSlteimn1Ja ! M
the fact that he 2 Splan ot overlook . v,
able," until after t le Harri ,nn uSJman uudGSU'
publlc. auiman letter was made-
a BowoSTm'nn10 TO. "JW coursgo for
are behind toe bai nHiini, unon men wuo
questioned, and manSe ZTaZT """
propriety, or the fairness o n,7 "If qu1estion' ..
tho president pf the United inlnQattack made h -J:
are ahout to ailZu111 men wh'
is a suspicion abroVSt tses ffi2 .
MK.aiiV .wJfc. .
fi.& Ti ij3ri
Powered by Open ONI