. -,. -,. -rf-n,-
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J, BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 8, NO. 13
Lincoln, Nebraska, April 10, 1908
Whole Number 377
CONTENTS
SPHERE OF THE STATE
.FOOLISH THREATS
"REST AND PEACE AND REASSURANCE"
MR. BRYAN'S SPEECH AT KANSAS CITY
THE BOARD OF TRADE
WHO PAYS THE BILL?
THE METHODS OF 1896 AGAIN
LOCATING THE PULITZER TREASURE
MILLION ARMY PLAN
WASHINGTON LETTER
COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
WHAT ABOUT THE HpUSE?
Referring to tariff revision bills Represent
ative Dalzell, republican, of Pennsylvania, and
a member of the ways and means committee
FsOf the house, is quoted by the Associated Press
as saying:
"This multiplicity of bills and resolutions
does not scare anybody. There ,1s,, no, change
in the situation. At the commencement of the
session the ways and means committee deter
mined that there should be no tariff revision at
this session. Nothing has occurred to change
that decision and it stands."
"At the commencement of the session the
ways and means committee determined that
there should be no tariff revision at this ses
sion. Nothing has occurred- to change that de
cision and it stands!" But what has become
of the house of representatives? Has it, under
the republican party, ceased to possess the power
delegated to it? Is a mere committee to issuo
decrees such as Mr. Dalzell describes?
f0rt l2? & 2
"IMMEDIATELY" BUT LATER
In his letter to the Indiana republican con
vention wherein he pleaded for postponement
of tariff revision until after the presidential
election, Vice President Fairbanks said: "We
can, however, revise such schedules as may
require revision immediately fpllowing the com
ing national election and before the fourth of
next March." -
Well, why not revise one or two schedules
before the election in order to give the people
a sample of tariff revision by the republican
party?
Why not revise the wood pulp schedule for
which revision republican publishers are plead
ing so earnestly?
W t i2& C&
DEMOORAOY APPEALS TO YOUTH
Democracy appeals to the young because
it is the growing doctrine. Behind it are the
eternal and irresistable and eternal forces which
bring victory to Athe truth. The young man
wants an opportunity and democracy insures
opportunity. Democracy's aim is justice ' and
the young man's heart responds to democracy's
arguments.
itw ji &
A GROWING QUESTION
What is the extent of the financial inter
est held by Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the New
York World, in railroad companies and In great
corporations comniouly known as trusts?
This is a pertinent question because- an
honest answer might uncover the special inter
ests for which the New York World speaks in
its present day attacks upon democrats.
"" ...
i "Tin ' 111 nn ' -mi
THE WHITE FLAG?
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE
The recent decision of the supreme court,
sustaining the federal judges in North Carolina
and Minnesota, focuses public attention upon a
subject, consideration of which can not bo much
longer delayed: Shall the lower federal courts
have jurisdiction to suspend the laws of the
various states before the state courts have had
an opportunity to pass upon those laws? The
newspapers which take their inspiration from
the large corporations are congratulating the
country that property is made more secure by
the decision, and that vested interests are
rescued from peril. How long will these papers
be able to deceive the public and to mislead their
readers? Property is in no danger and vested
Interests are not Imperiled. The laws of the
states can bo depended upon to protect property
rights and vested interests. The question is
simply a question of dealing with corporations.
Shall the corporation be regarded as superior
to the natural man? That is the only question
involved. If a natural man locates in a state
and engages in business he must rely upon the
state courts for his protection. The state pro
tects him in his life, in his liberty and in his
property and he resorts to the courts of the
state when he seeks to enforce a right. Under
the present laws and decisions, It is different
with the corporation. A railroad corporation
can be organized in the state of New Jersey
and proceed to engage in business in any of
the forty-six states of the unlom; it gets from
the state a license to build a railroad; it uses
the power of. eminent domain and condemns
land; the state laws protect its property and
the lives of its employes, but when a citizen
sues the railroad for more than two thousand
dollars, or the state attempts to regulate the
railroad, the' railroad contemptuously turns its
back upon the state and the courts of the state
and drags Its adversary into the United States
court. Why should a slate bo so impotent when
it deals with a corporation which owes bo much
to the state?
If the state passes a rate law the railroad at
once enjoins the enforcement of the law on the
ground that it is unconstitutional. While the
courts are deciding this question the state stands
helpless. The law has not been declared un
constitutional by any court, and yet, the state
is not permuted to enforce it. If, after months
or years of litigation, the United States court
decides that the law is not unconstitutional,
then during all of the intervening time the state
has been prevented from enforcing a constitu
tional law. Why not give to the state courts
rather than to the railroads the benefit of the
presumption? Why clothe a corporation with
privileges so much superior to those of the nat
ural man? The democrats of congress are right
in urging the passage of a law withdrawing from
the circuit and district courts of the United
States power to suspend state laws. Let every
corporation doing business in the state submit
its controversies to the courts of tho state, and
thus put itself upon the same footing with do
mestic corporations and with individual resi
dents. If the state courts deny the corporation
justice, the corporation still has its appeal from
the highest state court to tho United States
supreme court. Is not this protection enough?
The big corporations and their defenders,
conscious of the weakness of their cause, con
stantly confuse the issue. The question is, not
whether property shall be protected, for the
state has as much interest as the nation in the
protection of property; the question is, shall the
corporation be brought down to the level of the
God-made man, or shall it be made an object
of worship? The democrats are right in insist
ing that the state shall not be deprived of its
power "to protect its citizens, and that federal
)
jt.j
r V. i
