rBl!:TT'1
WPWWfcI
'in'jiKy ww1 kz ts r TSMfti
1H "ffri!wrfw wi?ifir!
VTf r-T jTTf.'Sffrf,
''J.l-i
V
may ir: X)7l
v-
7
.-
-v -
'$
Letters From the People
Charles Adcock, Hiwasse, Ark. Being a
regular subscriber I wish to suggest to the masses
that the republicans organize a Lincoln republi
can party and nominate for the presidency some
such reform republican as ex-Congressman
Stephens of Wisconsin, or Senator LaFollette for
the presidency and that the democrats endorse
him. Such a fusion, or union, of the masses
would insure a victory for the masses as well
as for the candidates. There is no difference
between Lincoln republicanism and Jacksonian,
Jefferson and Bryan democracy except the
names.
K. Audley, Lindsay, East Brady, Pa. In
asmuch as I hold a good opinion of The Com
moner and its work, I write to say that of the
eighteen periodicals to which I subscribe, The
Commoner has the preference, No article there
in escapes my notice and if all but one of these
periodicals had to be discontinued that one
would be The commoner. The press that de
rives pleasure from hooting at Mr Bryan's
theories of government ownership of railroads
as the ultimate, solution of the railroad question
and the initiative and referendum will somo day
cheer Avhat they now ridicule. This has been .
true of other great questions advocated by Mr. x
Bryanj namely tariff reform and Philippine free
dom. And all originate from the unselfish prin
ciple, states rights. A "square deal" for poor
as well as rich. I fail to see a "square deal"
for everyone from the principle of centraliza
tion. But how many who vote the republican
ticket will tell you that the party for which .they
vote, represents centralisation? I put .it about
one 4n ten thousand. President Roosevelt is to
be admired for his work, but why nominate a
republican on the democratic ticket?
Frank Philbrlck, Bellinghani, Wash. "Why
not LaFollette?" Referring to above quotation
on page two in The Commoner of April 19, it is
easy to answer: Because LaFollette has but
one face and it looks straight to the front, while
Taft, as well as Roosevelt, has two or more faces
looking In different ways.
W. B. Fleming, Cnicago, 111. John Tern- -pie
Graves favors the nomination of Roosevelt
by the democratic party. ' This vagary would
hardly be worthy of serious mention were It
not that there are others who are -of this way '
of thinking. The president is noionly fooling
scores of republicans, but some democrats as
well. What has the president done to merit
the confidence of democratic democrats? He
has veneered his administration with some pre
tenses which smack of democracy. He has
stolen some democratic "thunder," but what
has he done with It? Has he turned his guns
upon the citadel of the enemy of the people?
The railroad merger case was brought and1 de
cided for the people, but is it not a fact that
the merger still exists? An amendment to the
interstate commerce act has been passed, but
at the last moment the heart was taken out of
the bill by the president's consent, and the rail
roads still carry on business at the same old
stand in the same old way. A civil suit was
brought against the beef trust, but that octo
pus was given an "immunity bath." Suits have
been instituted against the oil trust, and somo
,of the .other, trusts., not to dissolve the trust nor
to send their managers and owners to prison,
but to fine them, and, if fined, the people will
pay the fine. Thus it has been with all the re
form, measures of the administration. Mr.
Rboseyelt's reform measures fail to reform.
The"" great conspiracy against the commonweal
still goes on. The great combinations still live.
The people still pay tribute to their old mas
ters. Wealth still continues to concentrate in
the hands of the few. The government is, still
run by the rich and powerful, and the people
are still at the mercy of thejr enemies. The rea
son is plain. The president does not lay the axe
at the root of the tree. He "stands pat" on the
robber tariff, the father of the trusts. He fa
.vors the money trust, the prolific mother of
many trusts. He has failed to invoke the crimi
nal statutes against the arch lawbreakers. lie
goes to the protection of the Mortons. He still
has Root, the cunning attorney of the trusts, as
his chief adviser. He was the willing benefi
ciary of fche contributions for political purposes
jot the predatory corporations. In Pennsylvania
ho went to the support, not of the Lincoln re
publicans,, but thellld Quay machine. In Dela
ware he sided with the Addlcks faction. In
Wisconsin he' supports., not LaFollette, but the
corrupt machine. Everywhere his voice is the
Toice of Jacob, but his hand is the hand of Esau.
The Commoner.
Ho stands for concentration of federal power'
and the obliteration of state lines. He is the
representative of Hamlitonlanlsm, not of Jcffor
sonian democracy, or Lincoln republicanism.
Why, then, should he be the nomlneo of the
democratic party? Ho is not the worst republi
can, but ho is bad enough. It is true his policy
has tended to an agitation which is distasteful,
as his petty suits have been annoying, to the
plutocracy. For this the Harrlmans, et id omno
gonus, do not like him, and may wish to seo
him turned down by his party. There is one
warning that ought to bersounded. In the event
the plunderbund fall absolutely to control the
next republican convention, it will undertake to
manage the democratic convention, and to se
lect and elect its nominee. It will prefer an
other Cleveland to Roosevolt. The duty of the
democracy is not to nominate Roosevelt, but to
see to it that the democratic convention is loyal
to democratic principles, and that its standard
bearer shall be one known to the democracy as
Its true champion.
Sol W Johnson, Rippey, la. Enclosed I
hand you a clipping from Farm, Stock and
Home, published at Minneapolis, Minn., which
speaks for itself and looks to me like conclusive
evidence of the way our government is run. I
would like to see these figures published in The
Commoner with such cpmments as the editor
deems fit: 'The following estimate of presiden
tial campaign funds for the years given has been
going the rounds of the press for several weeks,
and so far as we have noticed its approximate
accuracy has not been disputed; therefore it is
inserted here as a text for a little comment that
may be of some value as a lesson in 'popular
government,' which wo like to flatter ourselves
we enjoy in something approaching perfection;
and, besides, both table and comment will be
timely just now, when the subject of regulating
contributions to campaign funds is before con
gress. The table follows:
Republican. Democratic.
1860 $ 100,000 $ 50,000'
1864 V..'.. 125,000 '50,000V
1868 ; 'i 150,000 ' 75,100,0
1872 ........ ' 250,000 - 50,000
1876 950,000 900)000
1880 :... 1,100,000 355,000;
1884..". Til ;'.': :.".; . 1,300,0007 1.400,000
1888.....' '.-.. 1.350,000 , '855.tf0'0'
1892 1,850,000 2.350,000
1896 16,500,000 675,000
1900r. 9,500,000 425000
1904 3,500,000 1,250,000
The aggregate amounts for the twelve cam-"-palgns
are $36,675,000 for the republicans and
$8,435,000 for the democrats, which is not very
complimentary to the innate goodness and help
fulness of the first, for if it had been really good
and helpful would it have required so much
money to keep itself in power? The steady and
rapid growth of the fund of both parties down"
to 1896 is significant, but much less so, and
less alarming, than the startling fact that in
every instance yjctory has been on the side of
the largest purse! In two years out of the
twelve tho democrats had the largest campaign
fund and only in those years was their candidate
elected! He does not krfow how his fellow clti- -zens
feel about it, but the writer feels profound
ly humiliated by this revelation. 'Schooled from
youth in the theory that this is a government
of and by the people it not only humiliates but
shocks the writer to learn that it is a govern
ment of and by the dollar. He has had suspi
cions of this condition, but is compelled to con
fess that he never expected, to see it6 truth dem
onstrated mathematically. Now, seriously, fel
low, citizens, can you expect "this republic to en
dure If dollars instead of men are to determine
its policy; If the longest purse continues to be
the controlling factor in the most Important of"
our elections? In fact, has not the republic al
ready disappeared, since it is. shown that the
dollar and not the man has been the controlling
factor for many years?"
V. B. Kittel, New Richmond, Wis. I took
a good deal of Interest In a, letter written by
Mr. Graves and published by you April 19. I
can't share Mr. Grave's opinion of its being
necessary to give the president another term
to finish up unfinished legislation desired by
most of our people. All honor to the president
for having adopted some of the measure dem
ocrats have advocated for years. No party is
justified in nominating a man for president who
don't fully endorse the sentiments and prin
ciples of that party. The president antagonizes
some of the vital principles of our party. They
are too woll known by well informed men to
need enumerating here. To endorse him is to
surrender thoso principles; wo can't afford that.
It seems to mo we have some .people who aro
ready to tumble ovor oach other to givo the pros
idont credit for things that ho don't deserve
Tho rate bill is defective in so many respects it
amounts to a control that don't control. How
can a commission know what a just and equit
able rate is without knowing tho value of tho
property? If I rightly understand that bill tho
commission hasn't tho powor to force an unwill
ing witness to toll some things ho don't want
tho commission or tho public to know. I could
show wherein tho meat inspection law .Is fnr
from what farmers need but space forbids it
being done now. Tho presidont didn't have tho
powor to ,paBS either of tho bills mentioned had
not"" popular demand from tho pcoplo insisted
on it. Tho great neod of our times is to put
partisanship aBido. Place tho good of tho public
above party, carofully and Impartially investi
gate tho position of each party and see whether
their history justifies tho opinion that tho plat
form contains tho .economic questions that deep
ly concerns us and that tho general complexion
of tho convention justifies tho opinion that tho
platform is a declaration of principles they mean
to carry out instead of an affair to fool the peo
ple and got in on. Once when Sonator LaFol
lette was speaking in a political meeting horo In
.the jiorth part of Wisconsin ho said there is no
use of electing me governor unless you elect a
legislature that will carry out the measures I
advocate. That sentiment is just as good to use
with congressmen as with members of a stato
legislature. When voters generally In tho va
rious states will seo that tho men who aro sent to
congress will represent the interests of labor
as well as capital thero will bo no trouble about
any good president getting the various reforms
we are in need of. -
TOMORROW
There's a bully time a-comln' and it's only over
there,
There's a pickin' up o' happiness a-layln' down o
care,
There's a chucklin' in the breezed and a-singln'
W everywhere.
And a walkin' in thc-sunshine in tho mornki'.
x
v f ,
r Jniere' a rlng-nround-n-rosy with a dimpled hand
. to hold,
There are buby- pyes a-laugbin' full o' happiness
an' bold
As can be, and yellow tresses shinin' like a mess
o' gold,
And a walkin' In tho sunshine In the raornlu'.
There's a place just over yonder where tho sliigin'
streamlets run ,
In and out o' coolln' shadows, tlnklin' in the yel
low sun,
You'll have hardly stopped your grumblin' till
your laughin' Is begun,
And you're walkin' in the sunshine in tho
' mornin'.
So cheer up, It's over yonder, just beyond tho
farthest hill, .
There'll be callln' in the moonlight and the song o
whippoorwill, . ,
There'll be perfumes ten times sweeter than a
jasmine bloom-can spill,
And a walkin' in the sunshine in the mornin.
. ' Jf M. Lewis, In Houston, Texas, Post
f DID HE THINK OF HER?
4
Did he think of her when he struck the 151ow
Of her who sits where the light is dim?
Of her who, crushed in her endless woe,
Would willingly give her soul for him? ' f
His victim fell and was freed from care
And ceased to suffer and ceased to moan;
But she lives on to remain aware
That his blow fell not on the dead alone.
Did. he think of her when he raised his glass.
Of her who weeps through the lonely night?
Of her who prays as the moments pass
And trembles as one who was haunted might?
Did he pause to think, ere his lips were pressed
On the tainted mouth and tile painted cheek,
Of her who rocked him upon her breast
When his heart was pure and his hands wero
weak? l
Oh, he pities her now! He has time at last
To give her a thought out she weeps .away!
Her heart is crushed and her joys are past,
Her hopes were slain where his victim lay.
And, .whether the law Is to be denied
Or whether its punishment shall be telt, .
- Her soul has already been crucified,
Her breast was struck by the blow he dealt,
S. E. Kiser, In Chicago Record-Herald. t
fl
i
!
1
. rt '
