Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (March 3, 1911)
VOLUME 11, NUMBER f H s . DIRECT LEGISLATION IN KANSAS Tho Associated Press was in error when It eatd that tho democrats defeated tho Initiative and referendum in the Kansas legislature. The Pittsburg Kansan tells tho real story in this way: "The situation in tho legislature is unprece dented. Tho big mistako made by the people last x fall is easily seen now even by a blind man, was to place in power a party so divided in its sentiments that practically nothing de- mandod by tho peoplo will be given them. "As has been predicted, the republican senate, Uko tho republican congress, repudiated their platform by defeating the initiative and referen dum on February 9th. "This clause gavo the people the right to enact or repeal laws independent of the legis lature. Tho vote stood 18 for tho bill, with 24 against it. It took 27 votes to submit this measure as a constitutional amendment. For two hours tho senate was stormed by tho onomlos of tho resolution, giving explanation to their votes. The five democratic senators, Anderson, Cooke, Hodges, Milton an1 Robert son, stood solidly for tho support of tho meas uro, although it was an administration bill. The yoto stood as follows: Yeas Anderson; Avery, Brady, Cooke, Ganse, Hamilton, Hodges, Huff man, Milligan, Milton, Murphy, Myers, Potter, Quincy, Robortson, Smith, Stannard and Stavely. "Nays Bonder, Brewster, Brown, Caldwell, Cambern, Carey, Denton, Fagenburg, Fowler, Glonn, Harris, Hostrup, Hunter, Lower, Over field, Porter, Reed, Stewart, Stillings and Travis. "On last Friday morning the recall joined tho funeral procession by a vote of 25 to 15 in the senate. For two hours the debate was carried on in the senate, personalities were used and votes were explained. Again the five democratic members stood solidly for tho administration bill, but the seven republican insurgents voting against it were: Avery, Brown, Fowler, Ganse, Morris, Hostrup. "Perhaps there is no political question, on which the average voter is so well informed, and for which there is a more general demand in tho state of Kansas, as has been the initia tive referendum and recall. This is real pro gross which Insures to the peoplo the proper kind of legislation on all issues aB well as tho proper officers and their good behavior while in office. No more flagrant violation of a plat form was over made by tho republicans that voted against those measures. The resolutions will never be enacted into law giving the people their voice in adopting them until there is a clean democratic sweep of the state of Kansas." PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Tho papers which are friendly to different candidates seem disposed to misconstrue the comments which The Commoner has made upon tho different democrats whose names have been .suggested in connection with the presidential nomination. For instance, some weeks ago four names were mentioned, and questions which have been asked concerning them were answered. Some of the eastern papers at once reported that Mr. Bryan had declared the four .gentlemen named to bo available candidates More recently The Commoner haB referred to different public men in connection with their official work. In tho last issue an extended quotation was made from an Ohio paper in regard to Governor Harmon's attitude on the Oregon plan. It might bo as well understood now as later that commendation of particular acts does not necessarily mean that the parties are available as presidential candidates or that thoir nomination would bo desirable. The Commoner is not attempting to select a candi date for the presidency, and Mr. Bryan is not prepared to express an opinion ypt as to which one of the many gentlemen named would be the most available, but that The Commoner may bo free to commend such acts of Governor Harmon's administration as seem worthv of commendation, it is stated now for the benefit of the readers that Tho Commoner does not consider Governor Harmon as an available man lor the democratic nomination for reasons that will be given when the discussion of the subiect seems proper. auuject SUBSIDIZING LITERATURE "The many will be ruined, that the few may n?i PiGm e ?ile 1ev?rytWns is splendid above, all will be rotten below. Fine pictures, noble palaces, touching dramas these may for a tim be produced in profusion, but it will be at the cost of the heart and strength of the nation Even the class for whom the sacrifice has been made, will soon decay. Poots may continue The Commoner. to sing the praises of the prince who has bought them with his gold. It is, however, certain that men who begin by losing their independence, will end by losing their energy. Their intellect must be robust, indeed, if it does not wither in the sickly atmosphere of a court. Their atten tion being concentrated on their master, they Insensibly contract those habits of servility which are suited to their position; and, as the range of their sympathies Is diminished, tho use and action of their genius become impaired. To them submission is a custom, and servitude a pleasure. In their hands, literature soon loses its boldness, tradition is appealed to as the ground of truth, and the spirit of inquiry is extinguished. Then it is, that there comes one of those sad moments in which no outlet being left for public opinion, the minds of men are unable to find a vent;, their discontents, having no voice, slowly rankle into a deadly hatred; their passions accumulate in silence, until at length, losing all patience, they are goaded into one of those terrible revolutions, by which they humble the pride of their rulers, and carry retribution even unto the heart of the palace." The above is the criticism which Buckle directs against the practice of subsidizing litera ture. The nearest approach to it today is found in efforts of trust magnates to subsidize our colleges and the effort of predatory corporations to subsidize newspapers. SELF-CONDEMNED In an editorial entitled, "An Invitation to Mr. Sheehan," the New York World offers to print denials from a number of corporation chiefs that these men are supporting Mr. Shee han for senator. The World makes it very plain that in this instance it believes that the fact that a man is supported by a laTge number of the representatives of special interests is prima facie evidence that he is the candidate of the special interests. Of course, Mr. Sheehan is the choice of special Interests, and he would not do those interests any harm should he be elected. But the World's effort to defeat Sheehan is not based upon the newspaper's opposition to a special interests man in public office. The special in terests in New York are quarreling over the Benatorship and the New York World in its fight against Sheehan represents one faction of those special interests. If the World ever supported for nomina tion a man who was riot fairly suspected of being what we call a corporation man", then its protestations against Sheehan's candidacy would be entitled to more respect. By the same sort of proof with which the World condemns Sheehan as a special interests candidate (and the proof is good) the men whom the World has put forth as its preferred candidates for the democratic presidential nomination may be con victed of being the representatives of special interests. But the World is unwilling that its candidates for the presidency shall be judged by the same rule it insists shall be applied to Mr. Sheehan WHY THE CANAL SHOULD NOT BE FORTIFIED Charles Seymour, of Kings Park, L. I., gives the advocates of canal fortification something to think about when, in a letter to the Now York World, he says: rK canal?1 fW rGaSnS agalSt fortifyinS Panama "1. Because its integrity and safety would be better guaranteed by treaty between F,, and the United States than by the eno?mols ex! penditure in men and money by this count alone. This money could be better employed if necessary in strengthening and fortifying the Pacific coast and San Francisco. LUine me "2. That tho peace and integrity of qjf land, Belgium and Holland ar f main tahSFh guarantee of Europe, which cannot be safd for other countries of Europe and America Ev the powerful army of McMahon in 1870 nm f erred to be surrounded and captured tlf" rather than cross Belgian toSS8 Sedan 6. I hat the Suez canal ic not fortify ,i h immu from attack in time of war ai though there are about 5,000 British and 20 ruin Egyptian troops in Egvnt w f S '000 as ASS s been made by England fMJ7Vose r enormous sppefl ta , tttrf arms which could ill be spaTed, with the addi tional danger of it being invested by land and sea and eventually falling into the hands of the enemy, even as Port Arthur, after tremendous expense to Russia, fell into the hands of Japan. "Finally, President Taft's statement l warding Canada', that it had not cost this country one dollar, one man or one drop, of blood for defense, would be equally applicable to the Panama canal." A STRONG APPEAL A statement embodying six reasons why tho Panama' canal should be neutralized, bearing the signatures of men and women, prominent in the United States and abroad, has been made public. Richard Olney, former secretary of state; David Starr Jordan, president of Leland Stanford, Jr., university; William Dean Ho wells, author; Charles P. Anderson, Protestant Epis copal bishop of Chicago; William H. J. Faurce, president of Brown university; . Jane Addams, of Hull House, Chicago; George B. Holt, justice of the United States district court, and George Foster Peabody, the New York banker, are among the sponsors of the document. Tho statement follows: "Why the Panama canal should fee neutralized, not fortified. "First Because the canal would be safer in wartime without fortification. According to the agreement signed by The Hague conference in 1907, unfortified coast places cannot be bom barded. "Second Because the original Intention of our government, as distinctly expressed in 1900, and previously, was to prohibit fortifications on the canal. Though this prohibition was omitted in the finally revised Hay-Pauncefort treaty signed in 1902, this in no wise implies that wo ought to fortify it nor was its construction pro posed as primarily a military undertaking. "Third Because, though the Suez canal was built with English money, England agreed to its neutralization. The Straits of Magellan are also neutralized and the interparliamentary union in 1910 declared in favor of the neutrali zation of all inter-oceanic waterways. "Fourth Because the United States in ajl its history has tfever been attacked arid began every foreign war it ever had, and it is too -important a customer for any great nation at this late day to wantonly attack. Though an enemy might in stress of war be tempted to break , its pledge with us, no nation would dare break its neutrali zation pledge with the combined powers, as the penalty of non-intercourse, which would be in cluded in the general treaty, would involve commercial ruin. "Fifth Because, with the experience of nearly a century's peace with England, ensured by our undefended Canadian border line, until we have asked for complete arbitration treaties with all possible future enemies and have been refused, we should be insincere in increasing our war measures. This is especially true in view of the facts that, since, 1902, the nations have signed 100 arbitration treaties and Presi dent Taft has made the Impressive declaration that he sees no reason why any question what ever should not be arbitrated; that the second Hague conference in various ways diminished the likelihood of war; that not only the prize court but the court of arbitral justice is prac tically assured; and that in the summer of ijiu, congress unanimously passed a' resolu iS S ing the PresIdent to appoint a commis sion of five to consider the utilization of exist- ln,iJE,enclestt0,limlt tlle armaments of the KJj. mutHal aBreement of the nations and fnrf 5 tul2 the world navies an international S;0 l9 Preservation of universal peace SSir-a dm .other means t0 diminish expen S?Jor uK"y purposes. T WnElSe5auB0 In the words of Hon. David affnSS & cbalrn?an o the committee on foreign fniHn? ie h0,llS0 of representatives, 'the Sja8"1? LthQ necessary fortifications S?imv ?S he e?S tnan $25,000,000; in all prob Th LliXUla not be less than $50,000,000. fleatton? 2 in? P6S8e ?f malntaining such fortl amoiinf ft 22 Slnes from home would probably tion iin15'?'000' WIth a the fortifica that th lbi'i lt ,lBiSti11 aPPaent that in order to the TTnU?!1 Slg.ht bG ot military advantage of hnttiSSited Ptates in tIme of war a guard an uhSll)S at each of lts entrances would bo that Srtft a nGcessity- " is equally apparent be nnnlLoUCli a suard the fortifications would boumi hf Sa7' if not entirely useless. Wo are it tw n, Solemn trGaty obligations to see to LnfnT?MallBlla11 be and rGmaIn f0reVr as Tn tim It,8h Bhips ln time of war as well us in time of peace, and while it is probably $,