SSliwifjSfl
-w -v -pr "'$T9P tT
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 10, NO. 28
Lincoln, Nebraska, July 22, 1910
Whole Number 496
The Value of Primaries
Those who think that the highest duty of a
public man is to avoid being turned down will
find food for reflection in Mr. Roosevelt's first
experience after re-entering politics. When he
reached New York ho found a special session
of the legislature wrestling with the primary
bill recommended by Governor Hughes. He
at once entered the fight and Insisted upon the
passage of the primary bill, but the measure
which he endorsed was turned down by both
the senate and the house. In an editorial in
The Outlook (July 9) he defends his position
and calls attention 'to the fact that the bill was
supported by a majority of the republicans in
both the senate and the houae, but was defeated
because a minority of the republicans joined
with a majority of the democrats to oppose it.
Mr. Roosevelt will be stronger instead of weaker
or having endorsed the measure, provided of
course the provisions of the measure prove sat
isfactory to the public. Without a knowledge
of the details of the bill The Commoner could
not express an opinion as to that particular bill,
.but it is in favor of the primary plan and it
believes that the voters, without respect of
party, favor the principle embodied in the pri
mary. In defending the measure which he sup
ported Mr. Roosevelt says:
"In its essence this is a movement to make
the government more democratic, more respon
sive to the wishes and needs of the people as a
whole. With our political machinery it is essen
laTY6hTCVe""B,n efficient party, buftlie machinery
;ought to be suited to democratic and not
oligarchic customs and habits. The questions
whether in a self-governing republic we shall
have self-governing parties is larger than that
particular bill. We hold that the right of pop
ular self-government is incomplete unless it
includes the right of the voters not merely to
choose between candidates that have been nom
inated, but also the right to determine who these
candidates shall be."
Mr. Roosevelt is right.. The primary is a
democratic idea and The Commoner is gratified
to have Mr. Roosevelt defend it upon the ground
that it is democratic that it Is intended to
make the government more responsive to the
wishes of the people. But how will Mr. Roose
velt oppose the initiative and referendum which
is, if possible, more democratic than the pri
mary? The primary does enable the people to
select the candidate, but the candidate, as Mr.
" Roosevelt' knows, often misrepresents his con
stituents, and at present the constituent is help
less to protect himself. He may select a man
in whom he has perfect confidence and yet find
that the man is secrejtly tied to interests hostile
to the public. He may even bind his candidate
to the platform, but the representative may vio
late the platform as representatives constantly
do. If the people have a right tp select a can-
CONTENTS
L
VALUE OF PRIMARIES
THE RAYNER INTERVIEW
A GREAT MAN GONE
ACUTE ON ONE SIDE
SELF INTEREST OR INTERFERENCE
PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS
IF THE PEOPLE RULE, WHY DON'T THEY
GET WHAT THEY WANT?
CURRENT TOPICS
PRAISE MEETING OF THE FLOWERS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE
NEWS OF THE WEEK
WASHINGTON NEWS
didate, havo they not a' right to enforco the
carrying out of their wishes?
The initiative and referendum gives this right.
Through the initiative the voters can compel
the submission of any question which the legis
lature refuses to submit, and through the refer
endum they can veto any measure which they
regard as objectionable. If the pcoplo of Now
York had the initiative and referendum they
could easily secure a primary provided they
want it. They could by petition force the sub
mission of the proposition and then at an elec
tion they could endorse it, and make it a law.
There can bo betrayal of trust not only once
but continuously even with the primary al
though it is less likely but with the initiative
and referendum the people can protect them
selves from betrayal and insure legislation in
harmony with their wishes and their interests.
Let us hope that Mr. Roosevelt's experience
with the primary question will lead him to the
support of that much larger and more Important
reform, the initiative and referendum. Ho may
even come to understand the value of the recall
after he has had to deal with a few faithless
public servants who secure office by false rep
resentations and then continue in office on the
theory that they have more right to the salary
than the people have to faithful public service.
A GREAT MAN GONE
In tho death of Senator John Warwick Daniel
of Virginia, tho nation has lost one of its great
est orators and statesmen, and the democratic
party one of its most brilliant members. For a
generation Senator JDaniel lias, been one of tho
leaders of his party and'has been conspicuous
in all of its conventions. Ho was one of tho
managers in the fight for tho endorsement of
tho doctrine of bimetallism In 1896, and in Intro
ducing Mr. Bryan at Richmond, Virginia, a few
weeks afterward, delivered one of the most elo
quent tributes paid the candidate during tho
campaign. He took an active part in the con
ventions of 1900, 1904 and 1908, and in all the
councils of the party, as well as in matters of
legislation.
He was a lovable character and his disputes
within the party did not disturb the friendship
that existed between him and those who differed
from him. His services to the state will long
be remembered, and the party throughout the
country will share the sorrow that his death
has brought to his family, to the commonwealth
of Virginia and to the whole country.
THE LA PAZ COLLEGE
Mr. Bryan has received from Mr. George A.
Carden, a well known lawyer living at Dallas,
Texas, this letter: "Herewith I send you check
for $10 for the college at La Paz, Bolivia. I
wish you success in this enterprise."
FAIR NOTICE TO BREWERS
"No man is so big and powerful," says the
Omaha World-Herald, "that he can compel ether
men, who are freemen, to allow him to do their
thinking for them." That is pretty straight
notice to the American brewer.
WANTEDMEN
(James Russel Lowell on Wendell Phillips.)
He stood upon the world's broad threshold; wide
The din of battle and of slaughter rose;
He saw God stand upon the weaker side,
That sank in seeming loss before its foes.
Many there were who made great haste and sold
Unto tho cunning enemy their swords;
He scorned their gifts of fame, and power, and
gold,
And underneath their soft and flowery words,
Heard the cold serpent hiss; therefore he went
And humbly joined him to the weaker part,
Fanatic named, and fool, yet well content
So he could be the nearer to God's heart,
And feel its solemn pulses sending blood
Through all tho wide-spread veins of endless
good.
The Rayner Interview
Wido publicity is being given to an interview
by Senator Rayner of Maryland, in which th
following paragraphs appear:
"Will Mr. Bryan and his followers permit the
democratic party to nomlnato a president of
the United States and to send to tho pcoplo a
platform of its own construction? If ho shall
insist, as I havo no reason to think ho will, that
ho must select a candidate for us and that ho
must frame tho platform, then wo must rise in
our might and assert the principle that no man
has the right to dictate the nomination and
formulate tho principles of tho democratic
party.
"Three times havo wo gone down to defeat
under tho platforms that wo could not defend
before tho people, and It would bo absolutely
fatal now for tho democratic party to again
rush into the arms of disaster in pursuit of
policies that can not be maintained."
It Is worth whilo for tho democrats of tho
nation to consider tho abovo paragraphs. Tho
second paragraph explains tho first. Senator
Rayner thinks that we havo been defeated three
times because wo had platforms which we could
not defend. To which defeats does ho refer?
Wo havo had FOUR defeats in succession, 189G,
1900, 1904 and 1908. Senator Rayner does not
say that wo havo gone down to defeat four times
on platforms that wo could not defend, but only
three times. Which defeat does he mean to
except from his statement? Undoubtedly the
defeat of 1904. But why does ho overlook that
defeat when tho party polled a million and a
quarter less votes than In either of tho other
three campaigns? Probably because that year
the nomination suited Senator Rayner. Senator
Rayner In giving advice to tho party ought to
explain just what his attitude was in each of
tho three campaigns. It is evident from his
statement that ho was not satisfied with three
of tho platforms, and he does not want tho
party to rush into disaster by pursuing the
policies endorsed in those platforms, but what
about tho campaign of 1904? Is he willing to
rush into the arms of defeat by pursuing tho
policies endorsed in that campaign?
He asks whether Mr. Bryan and his followers
will permit tho dem'ocratic party to nominate
a president of the United States and to send
to the people a platform of its own construc
tion. Mr. Rayner need not bother himself about
Mr. B.yan. He has no desire to dictate. One
individual out of six and a half million Is not
able to do much harm anyhow. Tho democratic
party of which tho senator speaks in such a
fatherly way contains so many democrats that
Mr. Bryan is not likely to have much influence
unless a great many democrats agree with him,
and it is hardly fair to call those who agree
with him his followers; they are his co-workers.
. He does not assume any authority; ho does not
ask them to accept his views; but It so happens
that he and they, thinking independently, reach
the same conclusions on a number of questions,
and are they not entitled to a voice in the nom
inating of a president and in tho writing of a
platform? Ono would suppose from Senator
Rayner's remarks that Mr. Bryan and his fol
lowers were a little group in one corner of the
democratic party and that they were trying to
control the policy of a much larger group, which
.Senator Rayner describes as "wo." He says,
"we must rise in our might," etc. But who are
"we?" Are they the ones who believe that our
platforms have been indefensible in three cam
paigns? If so, why did' they not rise in their
might and write those platforms? We have
never had three platforms more clearly written
by the people themselves than the platforms of
1896, 1900 and 1908. In tho last campaign
the "we" element of the party did its best to
write a platform, but succeeded in securing
about one-tenth of the convention. Must that
"wo" control tho next convention in order to
assure us a platform that can be defended?
The democrats of the United States might as
. a
M
'i
M
,
4
!
m
if
i
.VI
t
w
m
w.
(1
n
M
-J
m
t
i
', 1 1
-:i
f
i
m
i. Mjj(dl
4&& Vfc V