Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 8, NO. 11
Lincoln, Nebraska, March 27, 1908
Whole Number 375
CONTENTS
NEWSPAPER MISREPRESENTATION
PROTECTING DEPOSITORS
SUPPORT YOUR WEEKLIES
THE WALSH SENTENCE
ATTENTION, SECRETARY TAFT
MR. BRYAN ON "WHY DEMOCRACY"
LAFOLLETTE'S GREAT SPEECH
WORKING FOR THE MILLION ARMY
WASHINGTON LETTER
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
PROTECTING DEPOSITORS A SUCCESS
The Oklahoma law providing for the in
surance of bank deposits has been in operation
less than a month but, so far, all indications
point to its success. Four hundred and sixty
six state banks took out insurance certificates
certificates being denied to twerity;six banks that
could not pass the rigid examination. There
are in the state 309 national banks. Of these,
twenty-nine had, by the tenth of March, re
ceived certificates, seventy-three had been ex
amined by the bank examiners and will go in
as soon as the stockholders ratify the contract.
More than sixty national banks have requested
examination, and others have called- stockhold
ers' meetings to determine the policy of the
bank.
It is predicted by those in position to
know that within a short time practically
every bank in the state will have taken advan
tage of the insurance.
The Bank of Commerce, of Shawnee, Okla.,
on the 29th of February, inserted the following
advertisement in a local paper:
"Before the Depositors' Guaranty Law went
into effect, we had on February 12, 1908. De
posits, $230,544.54.
"Seventeen days under the protection of
the Depositors' Guaranty fund of the state o
Oklahoma our deposits have grown to be, $270,
324.89. "An increase of $39,780.35.
"No reason to worry.
"What more do you want?"
Who will say that the Oklahoma plan is
not succeeding? It has been said that banks
would go out of business rather than to incur
the risk of having to pay the depositors of other
banks. Experience does not support this. The
state banks have come in, and the national banks
are trying to get in, and deposits are already
increasing. The people feel that they have a
safe place to deposit their money.
The deposits are going to be protected; the
big bank will not much longer be permitted to
build up a "prestige" at the risk of the deposi
tors of the country and the welfare of each
community.
$ 0 i $
OMIT THE OTHERS
The Wall Street Journal says: "There are
two things which bring the Standard Oil com
pany under condemnation. One is its obstinate
opposition to the principle of reasonable corpor
ation publicity, and the other is its unfair, un
sound methods of competition."
Well, it will hardly be necessary to men
tion the other objections.
L' 1
JT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHOSE OX IS GORED
NEWSPAPER MISREPRESENTATION
The following letter explains itself:
Lincoln, Neb., March 18, 1908. Mr. Win.
E. Gonzales, The State, Columbia, S. C. My
Dear Mr. Gonzales: Your favor at hand. I ap
preciate the fight which you are making against
the misrepresentations indulged in by the New
York World and those who echo its editorials.
It is not for me to discuss the question of avail
ability of candidates. I have never stated that
I was the most available candidate or that I
could poll the most votes. That is not a ques
tion upon which my judgment ought to be ven
tured or accepted. I have simply stated that it
is a question for the voters of the party to de
termine. As a democrat I have resented the claim
that a few editors should decide this question
for the people. I am -a believer in free speech
and in a free press, and I recognize the right of
any editor, whether his circulation be large or
small, to state his opinion and his reason for it,
but thos who read his opinion have a right to
givo it such weight as they think it deserves. I
have insisted that the readers ought to know
what pecuniary interest the editor has in the
questions under discussion. For instance, I
asked the World to state editorially what finan
cial interest its owner, Mr. Pulitzer, has in the
stocks or bonds of railroads and in the stocks
and bonds of corporations commonly known as
trusts. The World has not yet seen fit to ans
wer the question. He is reputed to be inter-
osted In a number of corporations which are af
fected by legislation, and his readers are en
titled to know what his interest are. If he has
interests adverse to the Interest of the public, ho
is not a disinterested judge as to candidates or
platform. If he has interests that would be in
juriously affected by legislation needed by the
people, then his opinions are worth no more
than the opinions of Mr. Harriman or Mr. Rocke
feller. I do not deny the right of Harriman, or
Morgan, or Rockefeller or Pulitzer to own a
paper and present their views to the public, but
I do contend that in the interest of honesty and
fair dealing, the owner of the paper should be
known and the interest of the owner in the ques
tions frankly stated. '
The World's unfairness is evidenced in ev
ery editorial. In the first place, it ignores entire
ly the election of 1894 when the democratic
party was overwhelmingly defeated. This elec
tion occured before I had any influence in na
tional politics. It occured when tho party was
being conducted along the lines laid down by the
World. It is deliberately unfair in ignoring this
election and charging the defeats of 189G and
1900 to me, just as it is unfair in ignoring the
still worse defeat of 1904 when it was again the
party's adviser.
It is prophesying when it snys that I cannot
curry any states that I lost before and that some
vihoi' democrat can. How does it know? What
gift of prophecy has it? It thought in 1904 rhat
