The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, March 03, 1911, Page 2, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

H s
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
"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."
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
"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.
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
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
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
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 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