Kirwrf?fi
uma
tF
9
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
M
. iJ A
s i 1f
'.
j s
-
irti
g
"t,
41
Y1
VOL. 10, NO. 17
Lincoln, Nebraska, May 6, 1910
Whole Number 485
Sidelights on Saloons
One reader of The Commoner has discontin
ued his subscription because of! editorials which
have appeared discussing the liquor, question.
In discontinuing this (former) reader of The
Commoner says that he Js a saloon keeper, that
he is engaged in a legitimate business and that
he does not care to read a paper which attacks
his occupation. The Commoner is sorry to lose
this subscriber and its editor does not know
to what extent the editorials have described
the business methods of the alienated reader.
It may easily be admitted that there are saloon
keepers who respect the law and honestly en
deavor to conduct their business, in such a way
as to reduce the evils of drink to a" minimum
and the lost subscriber may be one of them
but a business must be judged by its general
character and by the conduct of the average
man engaged in it not by exceptional cases.
The general character of the saloon .is bad and
it has grown worse since the application of
trust methods to it.
The average saloon is the most disreputable
place in the community; it is a bureau, of in
formation on vice; it is the first place one
would enter to inquire for a gambling hall or
for a disorderly 'house. It is likewise the first
place visited by the officers of the law" when they
are looking for 'a criminal, and the first place
closed in case of riot or disturbance.. Those
who defend the open saloon do it on the ground
that it is a necessary evil and 'that the use of
liquor can be better 'regulated by license than
by prohibition -"-it Ms never defended 'on the
ground that the saloon is a center of morals,
an educational institution, a social asset or even
an economic advantage.
It ought not to be necessary to advance argu
ment or to adduce fact's in support of the propo
sition that one engaged fn the' liquor business
ought not to expect praise-1 but should' be sat
isfied with toleration. A 'sidelight, however,' is
thrown on 'the business "by the newly' elected
mayor of Milwaukee.
Milwaukee can hardly be called a puritanical
city; at least it is not "fanatical" on the temper
ance question. It has not yet prosecuted the
brewer who claims that his beer made the city
famous. Its mayor'a socialist gives to the
saloon question 'a" prominent place' in his mes
sage. He says: "The question of the saloon
Is one that has been and is extensively agitated.
In our city the saloon is regulated under the
license system. The saloon keeper who con
ducts a clean and respectable place should be
protected. No trickery to entice him into traps
should be condoned. While the law prohibits the
sale of intoxicants to minors, and this law
should be enforced, at the same time it should
be made a misdemeanor for any one to induce
a minor to obtain liquor under false pretenses."
- Certainly the mayor is "liberal" enough, is
he not? He does not favor "persecution," so
the headlines declare. But now see what else
' he says: "On the other hand, the issuance of
a license to sen liquor can not carry with it
the permission to maintain a house of ill fame
or in any way to abet licentiousness."
What does the mayor mean by this warning?
Have any of the saloons been maintaining
houses of ill fame or abetting licentiousness?
If not, then the mayor's languago is an un
just reflection on the saloons of Milwaukee. If
the warning .was needed, what a horrible in
dictment the now mayor has presented! If his
attention is called to tho matter he will doubt
less assure tho inquirer that he does not mean
to intimate that Milwaukee is worse in this
respect than other cities. In other words, his
criticism applies to tho business generally and
everywhere.
The vociferous champion of "personal lib
erty" should devote a little of his time- to tho
by-products of tho saloon instead of exhausting
his voice declaiming about tho "inalienable
right" to drink. It is time for the men who
want to drink moderately and under reasonable
conditions to separate themselves from those
'who find a pecuniary profit in debauching
society.
CONTENTS
SIDELIGHTS ON SALOONS
GOVERNOR HUGHES' APPOINTMENT
INDIANA DEMOCRATS TO THE FRONT
DEMOCRACY'S OPPORTUNITY AND DUTY,
BY JERRY B. SULLIVAN
COUNTY OPTION IN MINNESOTA
MR. BRYAN IN POLITICS
CHICAGO TRIBUNE POLL ON THE 1912
CAMPAIGN
CURRENT TOPICS
F ' HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
.j NEWS OP THE WEEK
WASHINGTON NEWS
L
GOVERNOR HUGHES' APPOINTMENT
The appointment of Governor Hughes to tho
supreme bench- -will be regarded by many as a
popular appointment. Ho has been put forward
as a reformer,- and seems to be considered one
by a great many good people, but his" reputation
as a reformer -rests -upon a few official acts which
shoy him opposed to grafting and to the indl-
' vidual vices,- but- no one who will examine his
record can 'doubt that ho is in close sympathy
with the exploiting corporations. It will e Re
membered that ho vetoed the bill for the' re
duction of railroad rates after a New York legis
lature and a republican legislature at that
had passed the reduction bill. This measure
gave to the congested- population of New York,
the two cent rate now enjoyed by the more scat-
tered populations -of- tho western states, and his
-veto of it is conclusive proof1 that ho obeys tho
dictates of the railway managers instead of lis
tening to the voice of the public. He is under
stood to be a close- personal friend of Rocke
feller, and the-published reports show that tho
trust magnates- have contributed liberally to his
campaign funds, He has not hesitated to show
that he acknowledges his indebtedness. In 1908
he was the chief defender of the inaction of the
republican party on the trust question.
It will be remembered also, that ho was the
first prominent man to oppose the Income tax,
and his opposition came after Mr. Rockefeller
had announced, hostility to the income tax
amendment. -The corporation attorneys who
filed an argument against the income tax with
the Albany -legislature presented the same argu
ment tn'at Governor Hughes did, and these cor
poration attorneys with Governor Hughes' pow
erful aid barely succeeded in preventing the rati
fication of the amendment by the state of New
York. What would he do on the supreme
bench if any question arose affecting the income
tax? His speeches show that he feels no hos
tility toward private monopolies, and there is
no reason to doubt that his decisions would be
In line with his speeches.
Governor Hughes exemplifies the Individual
virtues and naturally demands honesty in the
. ' public service, but he is a' shining illustration
of that peculiar type of citizen developed in
this country during tho present generation the
citizen who, personally pious, opposed vice and
is a punlsher of small crimes but shows no In
. dlgnation at the larger forms of legalized
robbery.
ENCOURAGEMENT
Yes, the New York assembly defeated the
resolution to ratify the income tax amendment,
but let no reformer be discouraged. If it Is
defeated by only a narrow margin in New York,
it ought to carry every other state and the
matter can be brought again in Now York when
tho democratic party la stronger.
, Human Rights
Mr. Roosevelt has startled Franco and set
tho United States to talking by his speech 'in
Paris tho first of his European lectures. Ho
discusses citizenship in a republic, and tho sen
tence which has excited tho most comment reads
as follows:
"My position as regards tho monoyod Inter
ests can bo put in a few words. In every civ
ilized society property rights must bo carefully
safeguarded. Ordinarily and in tho great ma
jority of cases human rights and property
rights are fundamental and in the long run
identical. But when it clearly appears that
thero Is a' real conflict betweon them, human
rights must have tho upper hand, for property
belongs to man and not man to property."
It is easy for Tho Commoner to endorse tho
sentiment expressed by Mr. Roosevolt In tho
words above quoted. In fact, Mr. Bryan would
stultify himself If ho dissented from them, for
his words give expression to the same senti
ment that Abraham Lincoln uttered in 1859
a sentiment often quoted by Mr. Bryan. If tho
readers of Tho Commoner will turn to Mr.
Bryan's notification speech delivered at Indian
apolis, Ind in August, 1900, they will find that
the second and third paragraphs in that speech
read as follows:
"When I sayrthat tho contest of 1900 is a
contest between 'democracy on the one hand and
plutocracy on tho other I do not mean to say
that all our opponents have deliberately chosen
to give organized wealth a predominating in
fluence in the affairs of the government, but
I do assert that on tho important Issues of tho
day the republican party is dominated by thoso
influences which constantly tend to substitute tho
Worship of mammon for tho protection of tho
rights of man.
"In 1859 Lincoln said that the republican
party believed in the man and the dollar, but
that in case of conflict it believed in tho man
before the dollar. This is tho proper relation
which should exist between tho two., Man, tho
handiwork of God, comes first; money, tho
handiwork of man, is of inferior Importance.
Man is the master, money the servant, but upon
all Important questions today republican legis
lation tends to make money tho master and
man tho servant."
It will be noticed that Lincoln's declaration
that man is moro important than the dollar, or
goes before tho dollar, is identical In meaning
with Roosevelt's assertion that human rights
are superior to property rights.
In 1905 Mr. Bryan wrote an article which
was published in tho Saturday Evening Post in
which he discussed the relative importance of
human rights and property rights in the follow
ing manner:
"While the issue between the man and the
dollar seems to be an acute one, yet in the last
analysis there can bo no issue between human
rights and property rights, for nothing
moro surely undermines property rights
than a disregard for human rights, and
nothing brings greater security to property than
a scrupulous regard for the natural rights of
each human being. But wo must always re
member that human rights are paramount. In
fact everything depends upon tho establishment
of the true relation between the individual and
dull, inanimate property. The house and Its
foundation are lndissolubly connected, and wo
can not, think of one without the other. So,
human rights and property rights are lndis
solubly connected. We can not think of one
without the other and as, In tho building of the
house, we must think of tho foundation first and
of the house as a superstructure, so in thinking
of society we must necessarily think of human
rights first and of property rights as resting
upon human rights. He who talks of property
rights as If they dould exist without a regard for"
human rights, speaks as foolishly as one who
would attempt to build a house without consid
ering the foundation upon which it is to stand."
Mr. Roosevelt, of course, was not trying to
present a new and startling doctrine, but ho
A ,.rtnMttrtiftT''"7'-' J&ttteMJferib fcf .is&ij.
l .. M
"--:
Jh