V1
2
The Commoner.
.GBUMll; OifNUMBBR 43
1 '" .f'J-
-n?5J!!5f5J!p'V
fc
IV
11
IK,
last democratic national platform, recommended
by a republican president and supported by ft
unanimous voto in the United States senate,
and by almost a unanimous voto in tho national
Iiouso of representatives. It would look like
thoro would be no opposition to the ratification
of tho amendment but powerful interests aro
at work to prevent ratification and these inter
ests aro not meeting tho isBue squarely they
can not. They aro resorting to untruthful and
insincoro arguments. There is not tho slightest
reason to fear that a tax would be put on ALL
incomes.
Nearly all tho European nations collect an
Income tax and not one of them taxes ALL in
comes. Our nation has collected an income tax;
it did not collect on ALL incomes. Several in
come tax bills have been proposed and no bill
drawn by a friend of tho income tax included
ALL incomes. When an editor advocates an
income tax on all incomes he may be set down
as an enemy of the income tax; when he
argues that ALL incomes will ever be included
in any income tax law ho proves himself know
ingly dishonest in his argument.
Who aro back of Judge and Leslie's? Are
its owners possessors of large incomes which
they ate trying to protect from an income tax?
If so, why not deal frankly with the public?
Why try to hide behind the people with small
incomes who aro now overtaxed?
Tho same issue of Judge has a cartoon warn
ing President Taft to beware of the postal
savings bank which his platform specifically en
dorsed. There seems to be no limit to the
attack made by Judge and Leslie's on policies
domanded by the people. Who own them?
"WHO COMMENCED IT?"
Tho Fort Worth (Texas) Record, condemning
Mr. Bryan for his action on tho tariff question,
says:
"Pray, who first called attention to democratic
tariff differences? Who ' voluntarily came to
Texas to raise -an issue? Who served notice
that the tariff position of tho Texas democracy
must bo repudiated or appeal would be taken
to the national democratic convention? Who
challenged vtho soundness of view deliberately
expressed by eighteen democratic senators? Who
proffered a tariff platform which every demo
cratic congressional candidate must approve or
reject? Who was it that voluntarily appeared
upon the scene as the champion of free raw
material and challenged answer to his argument
here and elsewhero among democratic constit
uents?" Yes, who did "commence it?"
What state brought an indictment against the
only tariff law passed by the democrats since
the war? Who repudiated in the senate and
house the national platform of the party, and
even the doctrine that platforms were binding?
Who divided the democrats of congress on the
lumber question, on the hide question and on
tho question of iron ore?
Who divided the Texas senators on the lum
ber question? Who divided them on the ques
tion of iron ore?
Mr. Bryan stands with a large majority of
the democrats of the nation in, his position on
the tariff question. Is he responsible for dis
cord when he defends tho democratic position
on the tariff? Who says that he must avoid
Texas in his speech making tours, and if he is
to visit Texas who sayB that he must change
his views to suit democrats who advocate pro
tection for protection's sake? Mr. Bryan ex
pects to speak elsewhere and he expects to de
fend the democratic position.
, "If this bo treason, make thohiost of it."
PRINCE ITO ASSASSINATED
The assassination of Prince Ito, tho "Grand
Old Man of Japan," will bo mourned by all who
re familiar with his career. He has, for a gen
eration, been a power in his country and has
played an important part in Japan's progress
and development.
Because the Korean question was Japan's
greatest problem Ito was selected to handle it
That his administration of the affairs of Korea
aroused bittoi- resentment among many of the
people of the Hermit Kingdom was chargeable
not so much to him as to the fact that no nation
can govern another except by force and force
alwayB arouses hatred. Japan has done some
wonderful things but she would perform a
miracle if she succeeded in making her domina
tion acceptable to Korea. No other nation has
succeeded in accomplishing such a thing.
Mr. Bryan and the Committee on Rules
In the house of representatives August 29,
1893, the question of amending the rules was
under consideration. Mr. Catchings of Missis
sippi had offered certain amendments to tho
rules. These amendments were debated for
somo time. The debate for one day covers per
haps twenty pages of tho Congressional Record
and tho part taken by Mr. Bryan in that debate
covers nearly three pages. Following are ex
tracts from the Congressional Record of August
29, X893:
Mr. Bryan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a
word in behalf of tho amendment offered by
the gentleman from Mississippi and then a word
in behalf of one or two provisions in the pro
posed rules. I think the remarks of the gentle
man from South Dakota (Mr. Plckler) are
worthy tho consideration of members. Wo need
not disguise the fact that there are in various
parts of the country interests which pertain to
fiose parts alone and that however honest and
however anxious the members of the committee
on rules may be to give every part of the country
fair representation, it is impossible for them to
enter fully into the wishes and interests of sec
tions in which they do not live.
The gentleman from South Dakota has called
attention to the history of this question and
has shown that up to the thirty-fifth congress,
I believe, the committee on rules contained a
larger number of members; and "it is strange to
my mind that as our country grows in size and
as the number of representatives in congress in
creases the number of members of this commit
tee should diminish rather than increase. And
I emphasize what has been already said that
there is not today upon the committee on rules
a member representing that great trans-Mississippi
country.
Tho center of population has been going west
ward. It is now in southwestern Indiana. Take
the western members of the committee on rules,
and they are near to the center of population.
Is it possible that these gentlemen, however de
sirous they may be to do justice to our section
of the country, can as fairly represent our peo
ple, can as faithfully urge the importance of
our measures as they could if they lived among
us and understood our interests? And is it
unfair for us to insist that this section of the
United States is just as important as any other
section, and that its interests should be looked
after just as carefully?
It seems to me that if the membership of this
committee was increased to nine, and the
speaker was thereby permitted to select the ad
ditional members from the sections not now
represented, no harm could be brought thereby
to other sections, but that on the contrary jus
tice would be insured to this large part of our
country now unrepresented.
Mr. Hopkins, of Illinois: Will the gentleman
allow me a moment?
Mr. Bryan: Certainly.
Mr. Hopkins, of Illinois: Did the gentleman
from Nebraska hear the proposition of the gen
tleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boatner) to clothe
the various committees of the house with au
thority to control the legislation reported from
them? '
Mr. Bryan: I knew of the resolution before
it was presented in the house, but was not
present when it was read.
Mr. Hopkins, of Illinois: I would ask the
gentleman further if the method there suggest
ed would not meet his approval as presenting a
better system than by tho proposed enlargement
of the committee on rules?
Mr. Bryan: I think that both propositions
might be adopted. The proposition of the gen
tleman from Louisiana helps the case, but it is
not inconsistent with this proposition to also
increase the membership of the committee on
rules.
As has been said, Mr. Speaker, the committee
on rules is the most important committee of
the house. To that committee is committed
the question as to what measures will come be
fore the house for its consideration. We all
know that we do not reach bills on the calendars.
After a few weeks of the session have passed
the calendars are loaded down with measures
too numerous to receive consideration, and there
must be some extraordinary process resorted to
for selecting from among them those which
should be considered. When we give into' the
hands of tho committee on rules almost, the en
tire control of the legislation of the country,
as we do in this case, it is only just and fair
that this commltteo shall be largo enough to
represent every interest in this vast country,
and every section as well.
I do not see what objection can be made to
the suggestion of Increasing the committee, in
view of tho fact that all of our principal com
mittees have been enlarged. That geographical
considerations have weight in the make-up of
the committees is shown from the fact that all
of our committees are chosen with a view to
representing all interests.
Mr. Wilson, of Washington: Will the gen
tleman allow me to interrupt him to say that
if ho will look at the committee on ways and
means and the committee on appropriations ho
will see that irl these committees geographical
considerations were not regarded? I would like
to ask the gentleman to inquire of the member
ship of these committees of the house if they
have been selected with a view to geographical
situations, as far as the western part of our
country is concerned.
Mr. Bryan: I am not hero to discuss whether
or not in the selection of every committee there
has been such care given to represent the various
portions of the country as should have been
given; but I say that the geographical consid
eration is taken into view in making up tho
committees, at least to a certain extent.
But, Mr. Speaker, when we come to act on
this proposition, whether wo shall increase tho
membership of the most Important committeo
of all, and find that there is not a man repre
senting the great country west of the Mississippi
river upon that committee, or that even lives
near the Mississippi river except the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Catchings), who lives on
the east side is it unjust that this part of tho
country should insist on having representation
upon that committee? I submit it to the in
telligence of this body, I submit it to your sense
of justice, if we are asking more than our right
when we ask you to change the rule and permit
the membership of this committee to be en
larged so as to include tho representation from
these sections? It might be possible with a
. committee of five only to cover more than one
half of the country; but with a committee of
nine, there could be no excuse for leaving un
represented the various interests which, up to
this time, have been unrepresented in the make
up of this important committee of the house.
Mr. Wilson, of Washington: We have repre
sentation enough in the west on the arid lands,
but we never get any appropriations to irrigate
them. (Laughter.)
Mr. Bryan: I have not investigated that
particular committee. But having said this
much in behalf of the amendment, I desire to
say a word in regard to the other parts of the
report.
Mr. Cox: Has the attention of the gentleman
been called to the fact that all committees have
been increased in number except this?
Mr. Bryan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Outhwaite: The important committees?
Mr. Bryan: The gentleman has suggested
that the large committees, the important com
mittees Mr. Outhwaite: That is better..
Mr. Bryan. (Continuing): Have been in
creased in number, and yet the most important
committee of all remains only at five, when the
membership of the house has been increased
since our last session.
But I will not detain the Iioubo longer on this
question. I desire to submit a word only in
behalf of some portions of the rule where they
differ from the rules of the Fifty-first congress.
A great deal has been said here about tho
supreme court having ratified or approved of
the action of the speaker of that congress in
counting a quorum. I call the attention of
the house to the fact that the supremo court
simply decided, in a case before it, that this
house had the right to determine, by rule, in
what manner tho presence of a quorum should
be ascertained. Tho court did not say that tho
speaker of the house was authorized, before the
adoption of the rules, to declare that certain
members were present, and therefore that a
quorum was ready to transact business. That
question was not brought before the court.
It is immaterial to us, however, whether the
speaker had'authorlty for his ruling or not be
fore the adoption of this new rule by the house.
It is immaterial to us whether he said in 1880:
i
m
II
n
.ahtfr.
irfafc.W
it.-
