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.
