-o , MAT 20, im 5 'm which th ' multi-millionaires hav been enrich ing themselves. Every session of congress will develop just such differences and can you won der that we, who aro marked for the disfavor of the powerful influences at Washington should want a governor who Is in sympathy with what wo aro trying to doshould want the whole statft government to be in harmony with, the .progressive movement for better laws? . You will understand, I am sure, that I have given you the reasonwhy I want to see Warren Garst nominated for governor. In addition to the work that ho would do so splendidly at home, It would be comforting at Washington to know that the governor of the state was lifting up his voice to aid us in the struggle in which wo are constantly engaged. Is Peoples Movement "The present members of the house of repre sentatives from this district and from the Ninth congressional district and the First congressional- district are devoted followers of Aldrlch and of Cannon, of Payne and tf DalzelL and they have voted and they will vote in the future, if they are returned to congress, just as the Aldrich-Cannon organization determines they ought to vote. Is it strange that Dolliver and myself, who are in the midst of one of the fiercest conflicts ever seen in the national con gress for principles that we believe to be vital to the welfare of the party, of the party as well as of the country, should want Prouty and Byers and Darrah and Bookhart in the house of representatives instead of Hull, Smith, Town er, or Kennedy? "There is nothing personal in the situation. I covet the support and confidence of every man in Iowa', but it is in the highest degree illogical for any man to help me to a seat in the senate of the United States, or to believe that I ought to remain there, to stand for the nomination of Hull, of Smith, of Towner or of Kennedy. The sooner we realize that this division in the ranks of the republican plurality is not ephemeral, the sooner w'e appreciate that it is a movement of the people and not .merely to gratify personal ambitions, the sooner we will become conscious of a great and everlasting truth." MR. BRYAN' AT NEBRASKA CITY 'i. - -On. the"1 'evening of May 16 IVEr Bryan-.spoke at' Nebraska'vClty, Neb"., 'on itie initiative anil referendum-, He said: "I am here f6r three reasons. First, because I like to come to Nebraska- City. It was in my district when I was a member Of congress, and the people of this county have been loyal friends in all my. campaigns. I might justify my com ing, therefore, on the ground that I find a real pleasure in coming. The second reason for com ing is that I desire to refute the charge that has gone out over the country to the effect that you are opposed to free speech, and would pre vent the discussion of a public .question. The action of your county commissioners in refus ing to allow "me to speak in jthe court house has been construed by the newspapers as In dicating that you are so opposed to my position on the initiative and referendum that you are not willing that I should use, for the presenta tion of my views, the court house, which is usually open for public meetings. By coming here and speaking in a larger hall than the cojirt house I prove that those who desire to discuss a pending question will be accorded a hearing in your city and county. The third reason for. my coming is that the very fact that an attempt was made to prevent my speaking here discloses the character of the 'opposition to the initiative and referendum, and I can use this attempt to prevent discussion as a text. I' could, ask nothing better thap that the oppo nents of the initiative and referendum should do everywhere what they have done here, for nothing would add such impetus to our cause as the attempt on the part of our opponents to prevent the discussion of the subject. Free speech lies at the foundation of free govern ment, and he who opposes free speech betrays the spirit of the despot, even if he Is powerless to. enforce the despotism Jthat he favors. Free dom of speech can be defended from every standpoint. The mlnd must be free to think and the tongue must be free to speak if there is to be intellectual progress. The evils that may follow from erroneous arguments are in finitely less than the evils that follow from the suppression of thought. And then, any evils that may follow from free speech are sure to be corrected, while the evils that follow from the suppression of thought .are much more diffi cult to correct. "Freedom of speech is necessary to political The Commoner. progress. Jefferson, the greatest of democrat's, was & most devoted champion of free speech, and Lincoln, who quoted Jefferson an much as any democrat ever has, was likewise a cham pion of free speech. 4 "Moral progress depends also upon freedom of speech. Tho conscience must bo allowed to cry out against what it believes to bo wrong, apd those who aro opposed to freo speech con fess that they aro not prepared to defend tho thing for which they stand. Tho initiative and referendum are advocated because they give tho people a chance to express themselves on ovory question, and thoso who stand back of tho liquor traffic are very short-Blghted when they oppose tho initiative and referendum. They say they are afraid that if tho initiative and referendum are incorporated in our organic law by a constitutional amendment tho question of county option will be presented. Lot us an alyze their position. When they are opposed to the .submission of the initiative and referendum they admit that they are afraid that It submitted it would be adopted, and that, means that -they are not willing that we shall 'have a local ma chinery in this state by which the people may express themselves on a public question. Tho attitude of tho saloon interests is, therefore, that they are so opposed to county option that they are not willing that the people shall have the right to voto upon this question or any other question; in other words they would defeat pop ular government as it is expressed in the initia tive and referendum rather than have tho county option question submitted to a voto, and some of them In this country go so far as to oppose the public discussion of the Initiative and referendum for fear that reform may b6 adopted, and that from Its adoption the question of county option may be submitted to the peo ple. They thus make the liquor question a paramount issue, for when they make it a de termining issue with themselves they must expect that others will also recognize it as a' question that must be settlod. It is not -certain yet whether a special ses sion of the legislature will be called, but if it is not called it is because the liquor Interests aTe opposed to the initiative and referendum. If the liquor interests can control enough senators to prevent tho submission of the question not withstanding the fact that the democratic gov ernor favors the initiative and referendum, not withstanding ,. the fact that a .majority of. the democratic senators and members favor the In itiative and referendum, and notwithstanding the fact that an overwhelming majority of tho democrats of the state favor It and a largo majority of republicans alsoif this Is the con dition then it would seem that we must settle the liquor question at once whether we want to or not, in order that wo may take up other questions the consideration of which .lis now obstructed by the liquor interests. The liquor interests are responsible for the forcing of the county option question into the arena of politics, and they have only themselves to blame for the results that shall follow tho -growing indignation against the impudence, the insolence, and the sordidness of the liquor interests." Mr. Bryan then proceeded to discuss the In itiative and referendum as a method of legisla tion, and its connection with the liquor question. ' ANTI-INCOME TAX METHODS It will be remembered that the income tax law of 1894 was declared unconstitutional by the' supreme court by a majority of one, and it will also be remembered that that majority of one was secured through one judged change of opinion between the two arguments. It now seems that the resolution ratifying the Income tax was defeated in tho New York assembly by one vote, and that that one vote was cast by a democratic representative named Friend, who changed his vote. It seems that Friend's seat was contested, and the election committee was under the control of the combination that was fighting the income tax. Mr. Murray, a pro gressive republican from New York City, was leading the fight in favor of tho amendment, and when Friend voted against "the In come tax Murray denounced Friend for his change of position. According to the New York Times Mr. Murray, pointing his finger at Friend, said: "This man, in revers ing his action on the income tax admitted that he had to do so to save his seat. If there is an ounce of courage in the soul that he has pre sumed to possess let him stand up in this pres--ence and square that statement with his sworn obligation as a member of the assembly." After Friend had changed his voto on the income tax tho contest was docidod in his favor and he was seated" by tho assembly. Thq Springfield Republican, commenting on Friend's flop, says: "It now appears that ratification of tho in come tax aimmdmont by tho Now York assem bly was provonted by tho 'flop' or a democratic membor, named Friend, whoso scat therein was under contest. Ho had. been olectcd on tho face of tho returns in a Now York City district by a scoro or so of votes. Ills republican oppo nent contestod tho result, and an assombly com mittee has been having a recount. This com mittee Is controled by machlno republicans who aro opposed to tho Income-tax amendment. At one time In tho count the committee found tho republican contestant ahead, and Friend had voted for tho amendment when it flrsj; camo up. Tho last ballot-box, however, turned a republican plurality of about twenty into a plurality for Friend of threo, and so ho keopa his seat and t)ion votes against the incomo lax amendment. Ho explains "his 'flop' by saying ho. has been convinced by Governor Hughes 'cogent' argu ment against the amendment, but as this argu ment had boon before him long bofore he voted on tho amendraont tho first time, there aro cries that his change-about is related in fcomo way to tho recount. Ho himself says ho hopes tho publicity ho is now getting will help his law business. But for his ratting, the incomo .tax amendment would today stand ratified by tho assembly of tho state most counted on to voto it down." How proud tho capitalistic opponents of tho incomo tax must be of tho methods which they employed! And how proud Governor Hughes must be of tho "cogent" reasons that wore suffi cient to convert Mr. Friend. Tho friends of the income tax have reason to congratulato themselves upon tho strength of their cause. Either Governor Hughes has very little influ ence in tho state, or else tho Income tax senti ment is very strong in New York. If It re quires all of Governor Hughes' Influence, added to tho Influence of tho predatory corporations and the election committee, to defeat the income tax amendment by one vote, and that a vote coerced by the threat of expulsion, how large would the majority In favor of the Incomo tax amendment bo without Governor Hughes' op position, or with" his support? JEFFERSON'S VIEWS Tho Saturday Evening Post says so many good things and strikes so many blows for clean er politics and better government that ono does not feel like condemning It harshly for an occa sional mistake. It finds fault with Mr. Bryan's statement that Jefferson's views continue their majestic march around the earth. It asserts that tho democratic party is weak and unable to grapple effectively with modern problems in proportion as it is guided by Jofforson's views. It declares "that the reforms that have won most popular approval of late years have been gained-precisely by Increasing the power" of the government and setting bounds upon Individual liberty for example, the liberty of directors to run a railroad as they please." The editor of the Post was not at himself when he gave this example, for no well informed person would ac cuse Jefferson of endorsing tho kind of Indi vidual liberty displayed by a railroad director who would run the railroad as he pleased. There is a wide difference between tho liberty of the individual when he acts for himself and tho liberty of an individual who acts for others. Jefferson drew that distinction wlth great ex actness, and while he insisted that the indi vidual should not be unnecessarily restricted, he was tho champion of restrictions upon thoso who acted in a representative capacity. No one has gone farther than he in insisting that the representative should bo not only restricted but carefully watched. If tho editor of the Saturday Evening Post will study the views of Jefferson, he will find that whatever progress we have mado in reforms has been made along Jefforsonian lines and that wo would have made still greater reforms had Jeffersonian principles been more fully applied. GLADNESS If you have a word of cheer, Speak It where the sad may heaT; "Can you coin a thought of light? Give It wings and speed its flight; Do you know a little song? Pass the roundelay along; Scatter gladness, joy and mirth AH along the ways of earth. A. M. Worden, in Progress Magazine. V ' ti-JBli