Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 1, 1909)
The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR H VOL. 9, NO. 38 Lincoln, Nebraska, October 1, 1909 Whole Number 454 THE BIG BATTLE IN TEXAS "Mr. Bryan is trying to secure harmony in the only way in which harmony can be secured, namely by securing united action on a definite policy. If the advocate, nf a tariff on lumber, iron ore, wool, etc., can convert the whole party let them do so, and we will then have harmony, but must the rest of us keep quiet while they work?" The Houston (Texas) Post accuses Mr. Bryan of trying to divide the party because ho defends the doctrine of free raw material. The Post Bays: "It is but fair to Mr. Bryan to tell him that tho democrats of the south are not going to follow him to the lengths he proposes, as much as they admire him, and if his latest invasion turns out to be a campaign against individuals, as those who are now applauding him assert, he will find in the end that he has accomplished nothing for the democratic party but factional strife, nothing for the, sane reforms he has espoused but indefinite delay, nothing for him self but a diminishing public regard. It is not for the Post to suggest Mr. Bryan's course of action. He knows what he is about, even it he -fails to realize the probable ultimate effect oyiiis campaign. But the Post knows he is dis a'ppointinirscores of thousands "of men who have" always rallied jto his cause when his political fortunes were at stake, and they are going to take leave of him if forced to the choice which he seems determined to submit to their con- sideration." How soon blindness overtakes a man when he begins to put the pecuniary interests of a few abovo the rights of the many! Dividing tho party? Was it in tho interest of harmony that a Texas convention condemned tho only democratic tariff law enacted since tho war? Was It in the Interest of harmony that tho protectionist democrats raised an issue that di vided our party in congress, and even in Texas? On how many questions did tho Texas delega tion vote solidly? The two senators differed on lumber and iron ore, and the Texas delega tion in congress differed on both lumber and hides. Lot the Post poll tho Texas delegation on tho platform suggested by Mr. Bryan at Dallas and it will vflnd that tho party latalresdydH vlded.' lirgQmothetetoitctWfraS manifested itself among, democrats who rep resent districts in which there are powerful corporations demanding special favors. Tho divisions among our democrats in the senate and houso have greatly impaired our chancos of controlling tho ' next congress, and if we control tho next congress we can not agrco on a tariff law as long as these difficulties exist. Mr. Bryan is trying to securo harmony in tlio only way in which harmony can be secured, namely, by securing united action on a delnllo policy. .If tho advocates of a tariff on lumber, iron oro, wool, etc., can convort tho whole party lot them do so, and wo will then have harmony, but must tho rest of us keep quiet while they work? Tho Post will find that the saw mill Interests can not bring tho whole party to favor a tariff on lumber they can not control a majority of tho Texas delegation. Will a majority of the i Tcxasjkdejegatlon favor a tariff ' V ironfferoT Will a majority opposo tho proposed plank, "Free hides, free Joathor, freo harness, free boots and freo shoos?" Lot the "Post bo frank and confess that ft Is" more anxious to protect a few rich producers of raw material than it Is In harmony or in guard ing the interests of tho masses. MR. BRYAN'S EL PASO INTERVIEW Mr. Bryan gave the following Interview at El Paso, Texas. In answer to an inquiry from one of the local papers as to whether ho had anything to say in regard to Senator Bailey's Dallas speech, he replied: I read Senator Bailey's Dallas speech on tho train this morning as I was- coming into El Paso. It is an able presentation of his position as able a presentation as can be made, and I am very glad to have his side of the proposition presented by one who can put the .best appear ance upon it, for when the voters of Texas have CONTENTS THE BIG BATTLE IN TEXAS MR. BRYAN'S EL PASO INTERVIEW MR. BRYAN'S TARIFF PLANKS THE DEMOCRATIC TARIFF POLICY DROPPING THE MASK THE NEBRASKA ELECTION MR. BAILEY'S SPEECHES NORTH POLE LITERATURE " REVISION FOR THE EDITORS THE NEW YORK DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE CURRENT TOPICS WESTERN OPINION OF MR. TAFT'S EN DORSEMENT OF ALDRICHISM LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE HOME DEPARTMENT WHETHER COMMON OR NOT . .NEWS OF THE WEEK read it, they will know that nothing better can bo said In defense of a tax on raw material, and as he has not answered my arguments, tho voters will have a right to assume that no ono else can. His speech does not require an an swer in detail. I may, In future speeches refer to particular arguments he advances, but all that needs to be said now can be said very briefly in this interview. Senator Bailey does not attempt to meet sev eral of my arguments and he does not fairly present some of the others. His misinterpreta tion of history Is surprising. He says that we wero defeated In the congressional election of 1894 because the doctrine of free raw ma terial was embodied in the Wilson bill. He certainly has not forgotten that tho defeat in 1894 waB due to the fact that the silver ques tion divided our party at that time and that a majority of our party opposed tho position taken by the democratic administration on the uncon ditional repeal of the purchasing clause of tho Sherman law. And, further, if he will examine the election returns of 1894, he will And that about the only districts that we carried wero districts in those portions of the country In which he says the people resent the doctrine of free raw material, while we lost the districts in those portions of the country where they have practically no raw material to protect. Ho also overlooks the fact that in 1892 wo elected a democratic president and secured a large democratic majority In congress on a platform .jiim. .,it" im -ti!i:i. :.? rinwf:fs which endorsed tho doctrine of free raw ma terial, and he will remember also that wo won that victory after tho house of representatives of the Fifty-second congress had passed several freo raw material bills, for which both he and I voted. , Is it necessary to overlook entirely a national victory and to misinterpret a congres sional defeat In order to find support of the senator's theory? Senator Bailey gays that the national plat form of 1896 was in harmony with the Texas platform of that year, and he demands tho right to construe tho tariff plank on the ground that he wrote it. That is tho position taken by the Aldrich republicans in regard to tho last repub lican national platform. They demand tho right to construe tho word "revise" because tbey in serted it in tho platform, but the western re publicans insist that they also have a right to construe tho word "revise," and they construe it as a promise of reduction. The words which Mr. Bailey Inserted in the democratic national platform of 1896 do not appear In the Texas state platform; neither do the words "raw ma terial," which were In tho state platform, ap pear In the national platform. He construes, tho platform as an attack on free raw material, but it was not so construed in other parts of tho country. As to the binding force of platforms, he does 'not meet the proposition which I presented. He discusses whether ho should be bound by a na tional platform made after his election, and i T :4l ?' H H' !M ''!: Mill-. '.'.t- 4 .aljjuuuj bjil!ggaU ir Wt(WliiTiMlNl.rtttit-iafl.l. j-lU !&- !. .,.4W Afc-rf.j.