Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 12, 1910)
sy ",VT- 2 The Commoner; r lr k I r i s F ' 1. I R. m. Mr. Bryan s Speech at Grand Island Speoch of Hon. William J. Bryan before tho democratic Btnto convention at Grand Island, Nobraska, on July 2G, 1910, In support of the minority report presented by him as a member of the resolutions committee: Mr. Chairman, Ladles and Gentlemen: I shall read again (ho substitute which I offer for tho majority report on this subject: "Wo favor county option as tho best method of deal ing with tho liquor question." I appreciate tho spirit of fairness that has characterized tho domocrato who, If wo can judge by what has occurred, aro in a majority in this convention, and I assure you that it is with very great re grot that I find mysolf compelled to differ from thoso with whom I have been associated bo Intimately and so pleasantly for so many years. In vlow of tho fact that many democrats think mo responsible for the introduction of' this ques tion, and accuse mo of disturbing tho harmony of tho party at this time; in view of tho fact that many feel that I have forfeited my right to your confidence, I think I am entitled to present my defense. Demosthenes defined tho duty of a statesman by saying that ho should "foresee and foretell." Possibly after three nominations for tho presidency it would not bo presumptuous to count mysolf an humblo mem ber of tho group called statesmon, but if there Js objections to that I am suro you will allow mo to call myself ono of tho leaders of the democratic party in Nobraska. And I think it is only fair to apply to the loader the defini tion of statesmanship given by Domosthenos. It is the duty of tho leader to "foresee and foretell," and I shall not ask you to deal lenient ly with me if I havo fallen below this standard. If I havo not foreseen coming evils and told you of them, sparo mo not; if I have advocated that which is not good for this state, let mo feel your wrath. While I am not willing to accept that definition of party loyalty that puts consideration for tho party good above consider ation for tho state's welfare, yet, for the sake , of argument, 1 am willing to accept that, defini ' ttoh Of party loyalty, and have you measure me by it. If you find that I .havo dono anything ;that Is not for tho benefit of tho democratic party, I ask no mercy at your hands. Do not accuse me of indifference to the har mony of tho democratic party, Who among you has more reason to desire harmony than I? For sixteen years wo havo never had a dissenting vote on our platform in Nebraska; for Bixteen years we havo been in full and hearty agreement in regard to platforms. For sixteen years you have trusted me and I have trusted you. Who less than I could desire to disturb the harmony of the democratic party? You must make a strong case against me if you would overcome the presumption in my favor. ,Not only that, but who will suffer more than I if 1 find myBelf justly repudiated by my own people? My work is in national politics; I travel from state to state, and I am aware that a repudiation by you will bo heralded through out the land and used against me. Do I not know that the paragraphers are already saying that I am to bo turned down in my own conven tion. Is that a matter of no consequence to me? Can you believe that anything less than an imperative sense of duty would lead me to differ with you? Never in my life have I per formed a duty that I less desired to perform; and never have I felt more sure that I was per forming a duty. It has been said by some that I am fighting on this subject now because I am not a can didate. That is unkind, my friends. No one who knows my record will accuse me of fighting under conditions under which I would have kept still if I was a candidate. . Go back to '92 when I was a candidate a candidate for congress without opposition. I went into the state con vention, with only three men encouraging mo I began a fight. They refused to put me on tho committee pn resolutions from my own county, and I was put on by act of tho con vention. I brought in a minority report signed by myself alono and made my fight when friends told mo it would defeat m'e for eon gross. In '93 I was a member of congress, and yet I come back' to a state conventlbn -at Lincoln a convention, controlled by candidates for federal office arid there again I mrtde a fight whon they refused to put me on the com mittee ton resolutions. Did I show cowardice? Was I afraid to jeopardize my own chances toy taking a position? And the year 'afterwards I went out and made a fight for a policy against tho national administration of my party, against tho committee then in charge. Some who now toll me that I must not disturb the harmony of the party were with me ' then fighting for principlo and not asking what the effect was going to be on the party. 1 remember that in '94 the distinguished democrat, Judge Old ham, who has just addressed you, was with us, and we made him our permanent chairman at a time when the money question was so acute that thero was a bolt from our convention. I think if you will look baclc over the last eighteen years you will not accuse, me of being in this fight because I am not a candidate. I am interested because it is an issue, and because individuals and parties must meet issues as they arise. I have been called a dictator because I ex pressed my opinion on, this subject. Havo not others expressed their opinions? Have not the candidates for governor told you what they thought ought to go into the platform and what ought to go out? Have not the candidates for senator expressed their opinion? Havo not many individuals expressed an opinion? By what law am I compelled to suppress an opinion upon a question which affects my state's wel fare and my party's interest? Is it because I have been your candidate, for president? I would not accept an office or a nomination if there were attached to it a pledge that I see wrong done and not raise my voice in protest. And some have said that I am actuated by a spirit of resentment; that I am mad because the liquor interests were against me last fall. Well, my friends, it is true that they traded mo off In this and in other states; it is true that the liquor democrats and liqnor republicans put the liquor question above all else. They traded me in this and in other states, and I would have been defeated in my own state, if it had not been for republicans who, because of state pride, came to my rescue and took the place' of democrats w'hjcr deserted me. In Mis. sduri, also. I J have nb' hesitancy in saying, the infltieftof'the liquor elepierif;1 was sufficient to acbun't t6r my' loss of that democratic state. We hall the same difficulty in -Indiana arid in Ohio. We had the same trouble in Illinois and in New York. And do you say that T must' not refer to the liqudr influence in politics for fear somebody will accuse me of being sore over being defeated? I expect to be In politics many years yet, and I expect to do what I can tb 'help the democratic party, but of what use is it to go out and appeal to -democrats on na tional issues if, when we have done our best, a band of "political assassins can come in and rob. us of victory? The liquor question has entered polities, and he is blind who dbes not see it. Just at the time Wh6n we were about to overthrow Can-' nbni'sm' the special ' interests the liquor inter ests among them drew away enough demo crats to. save Cannon. Do you call it resent ment to oppose these interests? I ask why you demoerats who have fought with me do not show resentment at the treatment our party has received?1 (Voice Hit them again.) No,' do not say that; 1 am not here to hit anybody; I am here to present the facts as I find them; and I want you to sit in judgment upon them, remembering that after you have acted, there is a court of- appeals, composed of one hundred and thirty thousand democrats, that will render a decision. Some have said that I ought not to oppose the opinion of my party on this subject. Pray, who is to tell me the opinion of my party on this subject? TO whom am I to go to find out what my party thinks? Might I not assume 'that I know my party as well as1 anyone does? 16 there any other democrat who is acquainted with more of tho " democrats of Nebraska than I am? Is there any other democrat who has kept in closer touch with thes.e 'people than I have? Who is to tell me what the party wants before tho party itself has had a chance to give expression to. its' views? But you say I ought to be satisfied when I see this convention. Well my friends, I can indorse what Judge Oldham has said about the magnificent character of this body, and yet I could bring; you tomorrow a body ten times as large and just as good look ing who would vote exactly contrary to yours You must pardon me if my experience has taught me not to place too much "reliance upon an opinion expressed by a convention on a sub ject that has not been generally discussed. Why, Judge Oldham says ho does not lenow VOLUME 10; NUMBER 31 what county option means;: if, he does not know, how can you expect .one hundred and thirty thousand fellow democrats to express ah in telligent opinion? It is safe to say that not one-tenth of the one hundred and thirty thou sand democrats of Nebraska attended the pri maries that selected and instructed you. In Douglas county, how many of the fifteen thou sand democrats of Douglas county attended tho primaries? Do not be angry; I am simply calling your attention to what you know, namely, that you had no primaries in Douglas county. Your county committee selected delegates to the coun ty convention, and they selected the delegates (largely themselves) to the state convention. How many, I ask, of the fifteen thousand demo crats of Douglas county had a voice in select ing you and in instructing you to vote as you do? I venture the assertion that not one per cent had any voice. Not that I mean to say that you do not accurately represent them; you may, but they took no part in your selec tion. I read of Adams county that there were but three precincts outside of the city of Hast ings represented in that convention. Let me ask the delegates whether that report is cor rect. How many were present outside of Hastings? (Three, three six.) Somebody says six, do I hear a better bid? What right has Hastings, with a brewery, to say she reflects the opinions of. the men in the country? And so I might take county after county. I will venture the, assertion that not ten per cent of the democrats of this state were present at the primaries when these men were selected. I do not mean to say that you neces sarily misrepresent the people wI,o did not take part, and I do not excuse the people, who did not attend the primaries they ought to havo been there, but I remind you that you represent Only a small proportion. I read in a Jefferson county paper, and I believe it is published by one of the members of our resolutions commit tee, thftt one reason why the initiative and ref erendum was voted down, Ws" the county on- vejitiori was not sufficiently representatfy T. am' not willing tb takfe' the opinion lor this convention as necessarily deciding ttffif nuestjon ; on the contrary, when a question Wke' thi's'ls at issue where a city with salbbns has an interest adverse to the people outside go adverse that tho people in the City are hot Villlng to allow the county people to vote you can not say that a convention selected by the cities is necessarily representative of the democracy of this state. But suppose that this convention was com posed of delegates Who had been so selected that every democrat had expressed himself in their selection this question of county option has riot been carefully considered. I remember that in. 1893 we had a state convention, a con vention in which the majbrity was overwhelm ing against bimetallism, and I remember that Douglas county was in that convention in structed to vote as a unit against it; and I re member that one year afterwards We had a fight in Douglas county, and by a vote of two to one secured a delegation to stand with us for the freo and unlimited coinage of silver. That is history in this state, and I am not wil ling that this shall be accepted as a final settle ment of this question. And if it is not, then you can not properly charga that I am guilty of disloyalty to my party when I dissent from the opinion expressed by a majority of you in this convention. I will go further, I believo it is the duty of every democrat to have an opinion and to express his opinion, without asking what others believe. You will agree with me that it is sound dem ocratic doctrine, and has been from time imme morial for a man to express his opinion and accept responsibility for it. This is a moral question. Your majority report says so. On a moral question, I have a Tight to an opinion. I aril ribt required tb ask anybody what 1 shall think on a mbral question. Now let me take the next objectibn that is made, namely, that I am forcing a new' issue, that I am guilty of introducing a disturbing factor when the democratic party is at peace. Let. me give you. the history of this question. I didv.ot create the county option issue; it was here- before I knew anything1 about it. It was here four years ago when I never heard of it at all; two years ago it was an issue in our legislature, and I refused tb express an opinfbn on the subject. They asked me to say a word !i favor of county option, but I said, "No, these men, elected as democrats." ou the ticket with riie, have been pledged, soihe for and some against, and I Bhall not embarrass them by ex- f i .-