w;
jfjj
1
M
4
The Commoner
--n:ji,'
to
ac
0
r-
$si;
?
R-
HE
, .
t
Washington Letter v -
i i i ... i. i i ..r. iii T ;
-TJ - , I
. ". '
! Washington, D. 0., October 21.4The.
Nowi York. World for ihreo or. .four. days.-ihas;
bacn-.carrying in practically the same place
on J ts -first page a challenge to Miv -Bryan , to
prove his alleged assertion that "the great
metropolitan dailies are controlled by,4he trusts .
audi the columns aro open tQ the highest , bid--dor."
It happened that I was present :vrhm-
the speech to which the World in its fluprmno..
virtue takes exception was made. The, World's
quotation is not accurate. But setting, .that,
aside; it-seems worth while, to consider whether
pvonthat expression could not be justified.
. '-Mr,, Bryan did draw a line between the
great icity newspapers and the papers of. the
smaller cities, and ho did say that the latter
and the country press were less involved with
tho great trusts and the stockjobbing corporations-
than tho former. Nobody with any knowKt
edge, of the newspaper business -will question the i
justice of this charge. . - '.
? Nowspapers do not have to bo in the pay
of., the -trusts tovdo the dirty work of tho trusts.
It is. easy for them to denounce monopolies and -,
yot persistently and continually, oppose any po
litical movement which is seriously intended to
put,, the monopolists out of business. Take fov
example.'the Now York World which is challeng
ing Mr. Bryan for an aris.wer, to' its question:
The WOrld has done a great deal of agitatin'g'.,
against trusts and monopolies.' ' It has In my
own judgment accomplished . a great deal of
good -work along that lino. It -was tlie-'first-'
newspaper in New York to show the cdntriihi-'
tiori of life insurance funds to' Mark Hanha Mid1
td'CIeorgo Cortelyou for the' benefit oiv-the re-1
publican 'party. It was two days ago; -the first'
paper to: reveal the fact that the stockholders
and the bondholders of the1 Metropolitan Trac
tioncompany had been robbed of part of the
earnings-of the company in'order."thatit'might .
boa given; to Mr. Cortelyou;'jand:throughhini to
MruRoosevelt. , . u.' . . -r. ,
..Tliis is good work for the World to.;. -do.
But what has it been doing at the same time?
When; in 1896 all of the, people whom.it now
.denounces as trust magnates and monopolists'
were inarching up Broadway, nobpdy. wasmore
onJii1H&8tIc ln their sPPor: than the , editors
of' (ho New York World, In 19,00 the World,
wiich now asks Mr. Bryan to explain wliy met
ropolitan newspapers stand for the trusts, did
stand fpr the trusts. In 1904 when a candidate
acceptable to the trusts and to the .monopolies
of "New York was nominated, the World 'for the
first ;tlme showed some slight "signs of interest
iri the democratic ticket. Today there Js no
one making so strong a fight, or so vigorous a
on'e against trusts and monopolies ad Mr. Bryan
himself ' And- yet day after "day the editorial
c6lStSS tlieWorld and its news '.dolummi
-ar&gYv$i over to denunciation of1 him.4 " ' M ' ?v
vPy. on V10 flrst ftSO.!Mr. Pulitzer 'will !
oftbaslonally print an attack on a trust' Of' -
l3 ? th0 Bi10 things that Mr. T-tugheia
mLR0?tS,ey is doing fop thIr deStructib'ri;
BAit his editorial page is given over' to thee
ntihclation of the only man who hasnieori -mtfde-;
by the trusts their deadliest enemy and who -has
nevev wavered in his enmity to them;
. The issues of the next'campaign are even
.now quite well defined.1 Semttdr lames' :BPrdv
ziery of Tonnessoo, who Succeeds ex-SeriatoV
Carmackfis stopping at the Now 'Will ard. In
conversation with me, he repeated what any
number of prominent democrats have told me
iiu tholast few months. He says the next demo-
eratte'platform will contain 'three fundamental
declarations first, a plank against executive
usurpations and centralization; second, a nlank
for immediate tariff revision; and third, a iefl'--
nito anti-trust plank. Mr. Bryan months aao
practically defined these three issued as Dara-
mount. Senator Frazier merely adds his wod
tq ,thpso of scores of others .to prove twth2
democracy is united on the great fundamontnl
Pvmoiples of the present tlmS a? ifn'vT was .
. ., .'MAiqh of what tho new Tennessee flsnntnn
says is worthy of consideration To miS e
HfIly plne the Present adminlsKioi
le tendency toward centralization has been go
ng on at a, very rapid rate. Sq marked has thfs
tendency become that the question , whether
opal q K government sliall he prJft
JlnhQ ?ne otJhQ amount issued of the
next campaign. If present tendencies continue
LBtaf:11,1),0re more eographSX!:
sions qf a highly centralized government."
That thesG views , of Senator Frazier. - aro
no mero nightmare of a democratic statesman
is evidenced by the proposals of the present
administration. The plea for a federal incor
poration law,, the idea to appoint federal re
ceivers fo unlawful trusts,, the violation of the
eleventh amendment to the constitution that is
implied in ,tho enjoining1 of state dfllcials by
federal .ciourt ttUe' 'growth of government by
commission, rtre" all striking evidences of . this
tendency.
Concerning tlie! tariff, Senator Frazier's re
marks are equally pertinent. He saidt ' "An
other plunk iii the- platform should demand a
revision of the tariff, hot -in the far off, indefi
nite futurei:nbr by those friends of th.e present
tariff who would practically not revise It at all.
The republicans have been promising revision
just before election for a long time, but the
Dingley schedules go on just the same."
Widt, Senator Frazier says about the tariff
needs no comment. But his belief, as expressed
to me, that the national platform should be
modeled after the recent Nebraska platform,
which it is said was drafted by Mr. Bryan, is of
great'sighificande. :
WILLIS J. ABBOT.
r.
.1.
Letters From the People
'William, L.-Rbss, 410-Gaskill street, Phila
delphiav fa' -it to6k the American nation over
thirty years' time' to stettheli4 judicial machinery
a going against "the 26 Wall Street gang of
representative business men," how long will it
take to collect that '"$29,000,000 Landis fine?"
If the term "aurfrchy0 means the unrestricted
persoh'aT- will and initiative of the individual,
have' we hot a certain type of anarchists, such
as our predatory trust magnates. As fine a
collection t of real anarchists as ever practiced
the social idea. If not, what is their civic
standard? There Is more such simple practical
information needed, but the above may 4 hdld
your attention for a while if ydu are not too
busy chasing yo.ur share of the present "one
sided prosperity." If so, then don't worry about
your own personal civic business. Leave that
to tho experts (the politicians) and their em
ployers. They will gladly take care of it for
you;-., .' .,-. . .
J. E. Pauley, LaFayette, Ind. Did you.
read closely President Roosevelt's speech at
Indianapolis? Why do I see nowhere com
ment on the statement that corporation attor
neys' should not engage in polities. This is not
the words but the sentiment, as I remember it
as published in the independent News of In
dianapolis. Another point, in all the freight
rate discussion I see no one suggests that in
asmuch as all freight is classified, and broken
an"d carload lot rates arfr made, why Is there
not an in and ' out- price, that so much a car
or so much a hundred for receiving and loading
freight, and so 'much' for discharging or unloading-freight.
This to be the same regardless of
the" haul, then let the ra'te for hauling- be so
much ,pev an.ile,. or so . much for any distance
not oyer fifty or o,ne hundred miles, and so
much for .additional hundreds or fifties or frac
tions thereof. '.Let the shortest line rule be
tween competing hqinfs. There should be also
uniform transfer fees where a change of roads
Is necessary.
i-
H. S. Julian, Kansas City, Mo I desire
to call attention to the provision for thf rr.n
tlon ot.Unfted states senatorsire'ct by the
people. . Section 3 of Article I of the Oanntth?
tion of the United States, says: "The sena?P"
of the IJnited States shall' bepompod of two
senator f rmi each state, chosen by the legis
lature thereof, , for sis years; arideacUeX
shall have one vote." You will notice that the
framers used the word "chosen,"' and not elect
or select. . Now, my proposition is aj thatit
could, lie rea:che'd; by the state-constitution re
quiring that elections be held by direct voto
of the ecmlO for the election of Uni ed Stl?es
senators .and then that the legislature of thl
state when- it met be compelled to choose thl
candidate receiving the highest vote at said
e lection. That in no way would cpnflict wUh
tho federal constitution, but follow it. There
have been a number- of states, I believe fh
major ty Of them, through their leg slatures
have, petitioned ti& congress1 of the SSffS
States to submit a constitutional amendmenf
to accomplish this end, but the result has beTn
the same that has met the humble pet?tidS
-.frVpLENUMBER 41
in Russia for relief, from rbbtiery, by annoalin
to the robber himself to relent. In the ff 2?
if the legislature of any state should be x,Z'
suaded that the present method of seloctinJ
United States senators is wrong; that it is nrn
ductivo of bribery and corruption, that it it,"
ables a favored few to further their evil "
signs, and tighten their grip upon special ui
vantages they now hold by law; then it v,;inl
simple enough for it to adopt a resolution' sh
mittlng a constitutional amendment to th..
voters of that state directing that at the kpih-v 1
election preceding the date of the expiration n
the term of a United States senator, that at ,,
election the legal voters of said state shall vorn
direct for their choice for United States senaror
and that when tho legislature assembles it sh ,ii
choose and elect the candidate receiving tho
highest number of votes at said election And
pf course every member of the legislature will
be legally bound by his oath, to ratify the p
lection of the voters of his state. This method
would have this in its favor, over an amendment
to the federal constitution; that if upon trial
the direct method of selecting senators resulted
in a better and stronger Set of men being sent
to the United States senate than was sent bv
the legislatures electing them, then by the lawk
of evolution (survival of the fittest) the direct
system of election would be adopted in all tho
states. If on the other hand it proved erroneous
and a weaker and less able set of men were se
lected by direct vote than by the legislative
method, then. the state constitutional provision
could be repealed, and resort be had to the pres
ent method.
' The NeW Issue
an,. T?.e follwing editorial , -under the title
The New States Rights Issue" is taken from
ythe New York.Uvening POstt-
It was nearly twenty years, ago that air.
Bryce wrote in the American Commonwealth
that, while a democrat always admitted frankly,
that his cherished doctrine of states' rights had
no bearing "on any presently debated issue,"
he still insisted that "should any issue involv
ing the rights of the states arise, his party will
be, as always, the guardian of American free-
5nV., iT point fs wortk recalling, now that
this historic tenet of the democratic party is be
in.put forward as a possible'major issue next
year. There was "not a word about states' rights
in either of the party platforms of. 1904. Can
it be that in Jess than three, years' the matter
has unexpectedly arisen as a factor in party
alignment?
That democrats of all schools do take an
Interest in this issue is indisputable. While
Mr. Bryan in Nebraska was drafting, a platform
demanding that "federal remedies' shall be added
to, and :not substituted for state remedies,"
Judge Parker at Jamestown was asking "by
what process- of reasoning the executive has
reached the conclusion that for the various de
partments of the federal government to seize
pover not granted by the states and the people
is to protect and defend the constitution.' "
Even republicans show some concern over the
subject. There were more republicans than
democrats among the state attorneys general
who, in convention this week, asked congress to
prevent the Interference of 'the inferior federal
courts with the progress o: test, cases through
the state courts. Congressman McCall, who re
cently called attention to the five-fold increase
since 1897 in the sm spent annually for various
branches of federal inspection, is likewise a re
publican, of an "undesirable" sort.
It is unnecessary to recapitulate, the acts
and measures which have given present mean
ing to the shibboleths of a past generation. The
federal authorities have been doing and talking
of doing a great many things which, whether
done or neglected In practice, had always been
considered among the duties allotted to the
states. The reaction was unexpected. Instead
Ox consenting to have their work done for them,
the -states began to busy themselves. Some
state or other now claims to have shown the
federal government the way in nearly every one
of its late activities. All are making new asser
tions of purpose and efficiency. From a parcel
of anaemic, undecided, futile damsels, the states
have come to be regarded as a sisterhood of
Valkyries, compared with whom the central gov
ernment a a kindly grandmother, to whose lap
menaced qorporations gladlyiXun to be cuddled.
The .extension of the field of federal activ
ity has generally, proceeded pn the theory that
a practical people did not care much about