-4
'APRIL 10; 1901
The Commoner.
1 4. - -
-.
Mr. Bryan's Speech at Kansas City
Referring to the democratic dinnor held
at Kansas City, March 30, -the Associated
Press said: "Democrats 'from all parts of Mis
souri, to the number of two thousand, attended
a banquet in convention hall la this city tonight
.under the auspices of the Young Men's Demo-
.cratia clubs of Missouri, at which W. J. Bryan
and Judson Harmon of Ohio were the guests
of honor and .prominent speakers and the re
cipients of the repeated ovations from the
'fifteen thousand persons who thronged the hall.
bEach banqueter paid one dollar for the privilege
of attending. Even the distinguished guests in-
isted upon, tne democratic . prerogative of pay
ing for their plates, and the affair proved to bo
pone of the most elaborate political affairs held
in the state. Democratic clubs in St. Louis, St.
Joseph and other cities of the state sent dele
gations to the meeting. Among the guests were
four ex-governors T. T. Crittenden, D. R.
Francis, Senator W. J. Stone and Alexander M.
'Dockery. The meeting- essentially was a Bryan
affair, spontaneou In marking- every feature of
his candidacy for the presidency."
- Mr. Bryan's speecli was as follows- .
' ' In this great' city, on the boundary lino
-between Missouri with her rock-ribbed, democ
racy, and the west, which until 1896 was count
ed as republican territory, we have met to begin
the campaign of 1908 and to present those prin
ciples and policies which ought to appeal to
progressive republicans as well as .to traditional
democrats. It is only a recognition of a fact
which is becoming clear to all, to say that there
is a democratic element in the republican party
to which a successful appeal can be made. I
might give several evidences of this fact. In the
first place, what is known as Roosevelt sentiment
is strong in the valleys of the Mississippi and
the Missouri; and the Roosevelt sentiment is
not so much attachment to a person as devotion
to an idea with which the person has identified
himself. And what is this idea? It' is the idea
that conditions are not what they should be.
Before a remedy can be applied, the need of a
remedy must be admitted. For years the demo
cratic party has been pointing out the abuses
which have heen growing under republican rule,
but those abuses have been denied by repub
lican leaders and the country has been congrat
ulated upon the possession of everything essen
tial to its welfare. Republican platforms "have
been full of fulsome eulogy of the republican
party and barren of promises of reform. Even
the platform of 1904, upon which President
Roosevelt was elected, was silent in regard to
governmental evils and gave no hope of relief.
To the surprise of democrats and to the surprise
of republicans as well, the president Immediately
began to recommend remedial legislation, taking
as his guide the platform declarations of the.
democratic party. He did not follow in the
footsteps of democracy out of any desire to
compliment the democrats .or to encourage them,
but simply because the democrats had pre
empted all the ground in front, and he could
not go forward without trespassing upon their
land. It is not strange that his suggestions
were hailed with delight by democrats and met
with indignation by republicans. Whether the
president cultivated a reform sentiment in the
republican party or only revealed a previously
existing sentiment, we shall never know, and
the question is not material anyhow. It is suffi
cient that that sentiment now exists. It is suffi
cient that it is so strong that the president is
praised by the masses just in proportion as he
assails the predatory corporations and pleads
for reforms that look to the restoration of
equity and fairness in the government. The
president is not a democrat, for he leans toward
Hamilton rather than toward Jefferson, and
favors a concentration of power in Washington
and a centralization of government which demo
crats regard as distinctly hostile to the national
.welfare. The president does nt believe with
'Jefferson' that reforms must come from the
masses and that the government is good in pro
portion as the 'people can make it their own
and administer by their own hands in their own
interests. He believes rather, as Hamilton did,
that there is a governing class, and that the
governing class ought to deal honestly and gen
erously with the masses. He has never advo
cated the election of senators by the people.
Notwithstanding his knowledge of h.e senate's
subserviency to the favor seeking corporations,
ho does not appreciate the purifying influence
that popular elections would have upon the sen
atorial body, and his failure to recognize this
can bo accounted for by his Hamiltonian viows
of government. And yet, looking at the sub
ject from his point of view, ho reaches the same
conclusion on some questions that the democrats
reach, as they vio,w the subject from the demo
cratic view-point. Among the rank and filo of
republicans, there is a democratic sentiment, for
Hamilton's doctrines do not appeal to the imag
ination or to the reason of the average man.
These republicans have been quick to recognize
the president's good purpose and to see in his
recommendations a tendency toward better
things. It is proof that the reform sentiment in
the republican party is not only large but mili
tant, that the corporate Interests, powerful as
they are, have not been able to coerce the middle
west into the support of any of the republican
candidates who are regarded as reactionary.
This in itself is the most hopeful sign of a
democratic victory, for, the president having
aroused this sentiment, the republican party
must. satisfy the expectations excited or lose the
support of the rankand file of the party.
Now what prdgpect'is there that the repub- .
llcan national convention will satisfy the urgent
demands of reform, republicans? I venture to
predict that no serious attempt will be made to
satisfy these demands. Two things are neces
sary to establish confidence in the intenton of
the republican party to repeal Its own laws and
to reform the abuses which hav,o grown out of
republican legislation and administration; and
these two things are, first, a platform specifically
pledging the party to clearly defined reforms,
and, second, the nomination of a ticket com
posed of men endowed with a spirit of reform.
It will not do to say that the platform is
immaterial. The president has felt the need of
an honest platform; if he had been elected on
a platform which candidly outlined a course of
action, he could have used that platform to lino
up the republican leaders in favor of the prom
ised legislation; but without such a platform
he has been impotent to lead, and republican
senators and members have laughed at his
recommendations. If, in the coming campaign,,
the republicans have, an ambiguous platform,
filled with glittering generalities, and fragrant
with bouquets thrown at the republican party,
a republican president, elected upon it, would
be as powerless as the present president has
been. I say powerless for what has the presi
dent succeeded in doing? There are more trusts
today than- there were when he entered the
office,, and he has never succeeded in getting a
law enacted to strengthen the present law. Ho
has not succeeded in putting a trust magnate
in the penitentiary, and the only large fine that
has been imposed has .aroused more criticism
than commendation among republican leaders.
He has not secured any tariff reform, and yet
he has been in office for over seven years. He
has not secured the enactment of the necessary
labor legislation. He has not secured an In
come tax, and the republican senators forced
him into a compromise on the railroad question.
But even a good platform would be worth
less without a candidate who embodied the
spirit of the platform. And what candidate have
they? If the president had picked out Senator
LaFollette, a real reformer; if the republican
party had rallied to Senator LaFolletto's support,
it could have compelled the confidence of reform
republicans. Senator LaFollette has a record
as a reformer; ho has fought corporate domina
tion In his own state for a decade. As a United
States senator, he has boldly denounced the rule
of the favor seeking corporations, and has un
covered the, double dealing of some of his party
associates. He stands forth a champion of the
doctrine of equal rights and has the courage
of liis convictions. But they put him out of
the last national convention, and he will have
but little influencojn the coming convention.
The president has picked out Secretary
Taft and given him the support of the adminis
tration. Without tho support of the adminis
tration, the secretary would scarcely have a
state in the convention, and with the president's
support, he is having an uphill fight. He has
no record as a reformer, and his speeches do
not indicate a definite purpose or a courageous
program. He may be tho best man that the
president could find among his cabinet officers;
but Secretary Taft's superiority over his col
leagues is due, not to his positive virtues but
to the fact that none "of the rest of them have
any reform tendencies whatever. In fact, the
widespread reform sentiment among the repub
lican masses is not reflected to any considerable
oxtent among republican leadors.
What docs Secretary Taft stand for? What
does ho denounce as wrong? What does he pro
poso as a remedy?
What would ho do with tho trusts? He
tolls us that ho would not exterminate them,
but simply regulate them. But tho republican
party has tried that, and Instead of rogulatlng
tho trusts, the republican party has been reg
ulated by tho trusts. Does ho advocato any
strengthening of tho anti-trust law? No. On
tho contrary, ho favors tho weakening of tho
law. He wants to Insort the word "unreason
able," bo that tho law, instead of prohibiting
all combinations In restraint of trado will pro
hibit only unreasonable combinations. In othor
words, ho would transfer tho case from tho
Jury to the judge. Instead of proving to tho
satisfaction of a jury that there was a combin
ation in restraint of trado, tho government
would have to prove to tho satisfaction of a
judgo that the restraint was an unreasonable
one that tho industry strangled by tho trust
was not strangled in a polite and gentooL way.
What doeB ho propose on tho tariff, ques
tion? Revision but not until after tho elec
tion. Ho has boon tho president's close ad
viser for soveral years, and yet ho has been able
to restrain his tariff reform Ideas all this time.
Tho extortion practiced under tho cover of high
tariff has never disturbed him. It Is only when
he becomes a candidate and has to meet a grow
ing sentiment in favor of tariff reduction that
ho blossoms out as a revisionist. But oven In
his most passionate utterances, ho does not allow
himself to bo carried away from tho protectivo
theory. He wants it distinctly understood that
the revision must bo in tho hands of tho frlonds
of tho tariff that Is, In tlu hands of those who
think that they are benefited by the tariff. And
he resurrects the fraudulent argument that has
been used to build up the present tariff wall,
namely, that we must havo a tariff "just high
enough to cover tho difference between tho coat
of production hero and abroad." When did tho
republican party ever ask for more tariff than
this? What republteun has over advocated a
higher tariff than this? Tho trouble Is that
they leave tho protected Interests to determlno
for themselves how much tariff Is needed; and
Secretary Taft shows no disposition to depart
from that custom.
What reform does Secretary Taft propose
for tho benefit of labor? Tho laboring men in
sist that they are entitled to trial by Jury; but
Secretary Taft went all the way to Oklahoma
to find fault with a provision in tho Oklahoma
constitution securing this protection to tho
laboring man.
What Vellef does Secretary Taft propose
to give us from the burdens which imperialism
has imposed upon tho country? The appro
priation for the army and navy has Increased
more than a hundred millions a year since wo
entered upon our colonial experiment. Our
army is more than twice as largo as It was in
1896, and we are still denying in tho Philippine
Islands the doctrine set forth in tho Declaraton
of Independence, that governments derive their
just powers from tho consent of tho governed..
What is Secretary Taft going to do on tho
railroad question? In one speech, he took occa
sion to explain that tho president was not re
sponsible for rate reductions; this would indi
cate that Secretary Taft does not favor rate re
duction. Is he la favor of authorizing the inter
state commerce commission to ascertain the
present value of the railroads? Is he willing
to prevent the future Issue of watered stock?
Does he urge reduction In freight and passen
ger rates, wherover and whenever such reduc
tions can be made without injustice to honest
investments? He has given no assurances on
these questions, and wo must judge what ha
would do by what he now says or fails to say.
If when he is trying to secure the support of
reform republicans, he is so evasive on the
subject, what could we expect of him if he were
elected?
But we have a sidelight on Secretary Taft'g
views, which shows conclusively that he has no
intention of relieving the public at large from
the abuses that have grown up under railroad
management. He appeared before the insular
committee of the house some threo years ago
and testified to matters relating to tho Philip-,'
pine Islands. In this testimony, which was a
matter of record, he stated that when governor
of the Philippine Islands he tried to compromise
a railroad's claim against the government fox
A