2
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 27
I
i
k
r.
I
fc
I
i.
from it. Consideration of the subject has been
forced upon the party not by the advocates of
county option but by the opponents of it. Tho
bhuno primarily rests upon a handful of demo
cratic senators who thwarted the efforts of tho
majority of tho democrats of the senate and
house to submit tho initiative and referendum
at the regular session. Tho democrats of Doug
las county still further accentuated the issue
when they declared against county option last
summer, and tho breweries and other special
Interests havo closed all doors of escape from
tho issue by entering upon an organized effort
to Control the next state senate with a view to
preventing the enactment of any legislation ob
jectionable to tho corporations engaged in tho
production and sale of liquor and other corpora
tions pecuniarily interested in legislation. Those
also must share tho blame who refused to lend
their influonco to tho calling of the special ses
sion which would havo postponed tho question
of county option until after the adoption of tho
initiative and referendum amendment, when it
could be brought. up by petition and decided
without causing division In the parties.
"When I speak of blame attaching to certain
persons who are responsible for forcing the
county option question into tho campaign I may
bo using the wrong word perhaps I should say
credit instead of blame. It may possibly be to
tho party's advantage to escape tho discussion
of national issues and to make a fight on tho
liquor question. It may be that the party is
stronger on this issue than on national issues.
If so, those who are responsible for making
tho liquor question tho prominent question in
tho campaign should be credited with the ad
vantage which they bring to the party. I shall
not deserve any of tho glory myself, if glory
comes out of the situation, because I have tried
to prevent it. Governor Shallenberger, Con
gressman Hitchcock and Mayor Dahlman will
be entitled to divide the honors between them
I shall not attempt to state in what proportion
if the party wins a victory through the adoption
of their plans. y
However, as wo must now meet the issue, I,
like other democrats, am interested in having
tho party do itB duty to itself and to the state.
If wo must havo a fight on tho liquor question
It is important that our party shall take tho
right side, for the liquor question is not a
transient one, and besides having economic and
political features it involves a question of
morals. As democrats differ in regard to the
course to bo pursued there ought to be free and
full discussion among democrats, and I hopo
that differences of opinion as to liquor legisla
tion will not be permitted to disturb tho per
sonal friendships which have grown up in our
party during our harmonious co-operation.
The first thing to agree upon is that tho
policy of tho party Bhould be determined by the
voters of the party; when wo have reached an
agreement upon this proposition we can then
proceed to ascertain what a majority of the
democrats desire.
Should or state convention take a position
on county option or should it evado tho ques
tion? Some say that tho question of county
option should bo left to tho senatorial and legis
lative districts, and that the state convention
Bhould make no declaration upon the subject.
But those who think thus seem to forget that
the governor must concur in legislation. He
must sign or veto tho bills which pass the senate
and house, and since it roquires a three-fifths
vote in both houses to pass a bill over his veto,
his position is a matter of vital importance. Is
it possible that any will question the propriety
of inquiring as to tho views of the governor
upon an important question which is to come
before him? Is it possible for a candidate for
. governor to go through a campaign without an
nouncing his views on a great question, upon
; the decision of which he will exert so larce an
influence? Is a candidate worthy of the con
fidence of the voters if he is not willing to an
nounce his position on such an issue? And if
the announcement is to bo made, should it not
be made before tho primary rather than after
ward? Since the declaration of the candidate's
position would be equivalent to a platform de
claration, what objection can there be to the
declaration being made by the party? Is it
fair to tho candidate to throw upon him the
burdon of stating the party position on a dis
puted question? And is it fair to tho party to
throw upon it the risk of having the candidate
state a position antagonistic to tho views of
tho members of the party?
As our convention will bo held before the
primaries it would seem wise for the party to
f take such a position as it thinks right upon
The Commoner.
this subject, and then the voters can proceed
to select the candidate who is best fitted to
carry out tho platform.
But there are several objections to silence
at such a time as this. The proposition before
tho stato is an affirmative proposition -and
silence under tho circumstances would be
equivalent to a declaration against county op
tion, the only difference being that by silence
wo would add cowardice to error.
Silence would not only be construed aB an
endorsement Df tho position taken by the liquor
interests, but a policy of silence would enable
the liquor interests to control our state organi
zation, run our state campaign and put every
democratic candidate favorable to county option
in tho attitude of opposing tho party's policy.
This plan may suit those who are opposed to
county option, but those who favor county option
can hardly be expected to give this great advan
tage to the opposition.
A modified form of this plan contemplates
a platform pledge that the candidate for gover
nor will sign a county option measure if it
reaches him, but otherwise it relegates the en
tire subject to legislative districts. This plan
would simply remove the possibility of a veto;
it would not relieve the party of the odium of
being known as the liquor party, nor would it
prevent the committing of the state organization
to opposition to county option. A democratic
candidate could run for governor upon such a
platform and spend his whole time denouncing
county option, provided he concluded each
s'peech by explaining that in spite of his opinion
ho would obey the platform and sign a county
option bill if it reached him. Such a platform
would leave him free to use his personal in
fluence, his prestige and his official patronage
to prevent the passage of the measure. I sub
mit that the wiser course is for the party to
decide what Is right and then take its stand
and defend it. County option is either right or
wrong. It is an important issue one that can
not be ignored and our party ought not to be
afraid to define its position and to take re
sponsibility for it.
Mayor Dahlman is the candidate of those
who believe that the party should declare
against county option. If county option is really
wrong Mr. Dahlman's followers are to be com
mended for his willingness to risk his political
fortunes upon the correctness of his position.
He announces that if elected he will veto the
county option measure; those who believe
county option wrong and want a county option
bill vetoed can express themselves by voting
for Mr. Dahlman.
While, in my judgment, a declaration against
county option would lead to inevitable defeat,
still if county option is wrong, why should we
be unwilling to suffer defeat? Better defeat
in a righteous cause than victory by the espousal
of that which is wrong or injurious to the state.
And I am not sure that a policy of evasion
would be any less disastrous to the party than a
straight-forward declaration against county
option, for evasion would mean the same thing.
There are, on the other hand, those who think
that county option is right and that it should
bo endorsed by the state convention. I agree
with those who think thus and, if I may assume
to speak for them, shall briefly state the prin
cipal reasons.
First, County option ought to be endorsed
because it is right. A distinction should be
drawn between county option and the closing
of saloons in any particular county. The ques
tion is not whether saloons shall exist' in this
or that county but whether the people of the
county shall have the right to decide questions
affecting the saloon. Either the majority or
the minority must control. If the majority of the
people of the county havo no right to decide the
saloon question for the county then tho minority
of the people of the county have the right to con
trol on this subject. This is not a new question.
It has appeared all through history, and not in
frequently the few have controlled as against
the many. There havo been many forms of
government in which the rights of the majority
were ignored. In some cases the authority of
the few has been based on force, in other cases
on birth or brains, and in still other cases on
money. Shall we now recognize a new oligarchy
based on beer? Are we to have an aristocracy
of appetite, which Is to determine the saloon
question for us? The democratic party can no
more champion this now form of aristocracy
than it could the older forms. Democrats may
differ as to the wisdom of any particular meas
ure proposed in a county, but can democrats
differ as to the right of the majority to act on
this subject? By what logic shall we distin-
guish between the right of tke people of a city
to act upon the liquor question, and the right
of tho people of a precinct or the people of a
county or people of. a state? County option
simply recognizes the right of tho people of a
county to speak upon this subject, as the people
of the town or city now speak, and as the people
of the state have the undoubted right to speak.
When the right of the people of a county to act
upon this question is recognized in this state,
as it is in many other states, the people of each
county can be trusted to consider the subject
and to act upon it according to the conditions
to be met.
Second, The county option democrats who
are candidates in the various senatorial and
representative districts are entitled to the sup
port of the .state organization and to the help
which they will derive from the state cam
paign. If county option is right those who
stand for it as legislative candidates are entitled
to the advantage which a platform declaration
would give them. They certainly have a right
to ask that the party in the state will not re
buke them openly by a declaration against
county option or indirectly by an evasion of the
subject.
Third, The conditions which confront us in
this state at this time require immediate action.
The conspiracy which has been formed between
the liquor interests and other special interests
to control legislation will continue until it is
overthrown. More than that, it will grow
stronger and more arrogant with each victory.
It must be defied and defeated some time and
it will be easier to do this now than later.
This combination spent money in 1908, it is
spending money now, and it -will continue to
corrupt politics until its power is broken. Then,
too, we have a presidential campaign two years
hence, and while national issues ought to be
paramount in the present state campaign, it will
be still more important that they shall be para
mount in 1912. Now is the time for action.
There are other reasons that may be given and
other legislation on this subject that ought to
be considered, but I shall discuss them within a
few days.
In taking up this subject I am fully aware
of the strength of the opposition that I shall
encounter. We have' against us the liquor in
terests of the nation and the favor-seeking' cor
porations of the state are their allies. Our
opponents are supplied with an abundance of
money, they are unscrupulous as to methods
and able to deceive a' great many voters through
the newspapers which they control. But I have
an abiding faith in the intelligence and in the
integrity of the rank and file of our party and to
these I appeal. I am not a candidate for any
office; I desire nothing at the hands of my co
workers; they have already rewarded me far
beyond my deserts, and I am indebted to them
for whatever influence I may have. This in
fluence, whether it be much or little, I regard
as a sacred trust, and I shall use it for their
interest according to the light that I have. I
am aware that a great many of those who differ
from me on this question have no personal in
terest in the liquor traffic and no sympathy with
its debauchery of the home, Boclety, and the
state,, and I shall not allow a difference upon
this subject to make me forget the support
which they have given me in past campaigns.
But I shall do my duty in "this campaign as I
have tried to do it before, and I believe it to
be my duty as a citizen and as a democrat to
do all in my power to save the democratic party
from the domination of the liquor interests and
their allies. w. J. BRYAN.
PUBLICITY OP CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Speaking in the house of representatives June
25, tho house having under consideration the
conference report on the bill providing for pub
licity of campaign contributions Representative
Ollie James of Kentucky delivered the follow
ing speech:
Mr. Speaker: We are told by the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Norris) that both political
parties favor this legislation. I know of but
one way to arrive at a judgment upon what
political parties stand for, and that is by how
they vote when questions come up for consider
ation. Legislators and parties are known, like
trees, by their fruit. The republican party in
control in the other end of this capitol strike
out the house provision of publicity before elec
tion and substitute publicity after election. How
does this measure come to ub? It comes amend
ed in this way and in the last hours of the ses
sion with an approaching congressional election.
And what remedy do you offer the voter, that
.?',
.$'
v1:
inn?,nf.