v""n lml 'jmrin'7iwp "
-."tf
The Commoner.
VOLUME' 11, .SQJMBER 48
AH
W
;i
- v4
T
I ft j t Jt
K! 1
iW.
Iff" ' !
V j i )
I
MM
UlM
to
.- i
ft, m
m
Hi M
KVS!
b;.!fc
; A
iiji '
H;' '!
'?n,'ii.'
w
' '
te,
.V I
H-
,9
Hi
? J
J,!
i
., 3
-
i '
h
i
i
t
I'
ll V i'
H .1,1
SuM l
'Mil!
. Vf
1
hardly spare the Christian virtues out of their
own lives, although they are ungrateful enough
to deny to Christianity the credit of being the
source But while the Journal editor's feeling
toward Christianity is shown by his classing
it with the religion of the Buddhist, the dor
, vish and the African worshipper of idols, how
can ho justify his unfair and labored effort to
confuse a belief in Christianity with z belief
in a statn church. He virtuously protests that
this is no more a Christian republic than a
Mohammedan republic. Let him be calm; no
one is advocating a state religion; no one is
invoicing state aid for the propagation of any
religion or creed. Christians aro as much
opposed as non-Christians to a union of church
and state.
No religious test is applied by our govern
ment nnd none will be applied. The Journal
editor says: "This is a republic, recognizing
no religion, keeping religion carefully out of
public matters, from the lawmaking bodies to
the public schools, keeping church and state
separate and for that, in the name of the
church and the state, God be praised."
To this the Christian Bays "amen," but what
has that to do with the merits of Christianity?
Must a Christian deny or conceal his belief
in the superiority of Christianity as a religion?
Must ho purge from the Bible every phrase that
asserts the supremacy of Christ in the moral
world?
Christians are as loyal to the constitution aB
non-Christians as free as non-Christians to
"render unto Caesar the things that aro
Caesar's." Mr. Bryan knows this by both ex
perience and observation. He has been a mem
ber of the Presbyterian church since he was
fourteen. In politics he has never asked to
what church a man belonged ar whether he be
longed to any. He has supported people of all
denominations and people not connected with
any church. He applies no religious test to a
candidate, whether the office to which he aspires
is high or low. He recently included in a list
of men available for the presidency representa
tives of Protestants, Catholics and Jews, and
there were some in the list of whose religious
views he knows nothing. He can not he just
ly accused of trying to unite the state
with any church. The same can be said of
Christians generally. When Mr. Bryan was a
candidate for president, members of his own
church opposed him as freely and as earnestly
as he was supported by men who differed from
him on religious questions.
When he votes for a Jew he does not ask him
to relinquish his belief that his people are a
chosen people. When he votes for a Catholic
he does not ask him to abandon Mb faith in
his church as the true church. When he votes
for a non-church member he does not ask him
to accept any creed or to profess belief in any
religion; and he does not feel that he is re
quired to abate his interest in Christianity in
' order to talce part in politics.
The Journal editor deplores religious preju
dice and yet his editorial is, in fact, an appeal
to prejudice, hut he will find few as prejudiced
as ho shows himself to ho, and -he can not ox
cuse his prejudice on the ground of "simpleness
of heart" or "childish ignorance." The Chris
tian does not feel offended when the Jew denies
that Christ is the promised Messiah; and the
Jew does not feel offended when the Christian
accepts Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy.
Each works the harder because he BELIEVES
and both Christian and Jew have proven the
value of faith.
Christian and Jew admit, and will protect,
the right of American citizens to worship God
according to the dictates of their consciences,
or not to worship Him at all, and they have no
doubt that non-Christians will be as tolerant
and allow Jew and Gentile to cherish such reli
gious views as they please.
Religious belief includes not only the right of
the non-Christian to criticise Christianity and
Christians, hut the right of the Christian to ex
press faith in his religion.
Mr. Bryan believes in God as a creator, pre
server and father; he belioves in the Bible as
the word of God and he believes in Christ as
Son of God, Savior and Example. He believes
that Christianity is the greatest force in the
world for good; he believes that history proves
its civilizing power a power that propagates
itself not by forde but by example and he can
not be fairly charged with offending adherents of
other religions or opponents of all religions,
when he states what ho helievos to be a fact.
If he is mistaken as to the fact let the mistake
he pointed out and condemned, hut no one is
Justified in accusing him of giving offense to
those holding other religious views ,or of at
tempting to convert the government into an
agency for the propagation of a religion.
WHARTON BARKlftl'S TESTIMONY
Following is an Associated Press dispatch:
Washington, Nov. 28. Wharton Barker, a re
tired banker of Philadelphia, sprung a sensation
on the senate committee on interstate com
merce today when ho alleged that a New York
financier told him in 1904, that the financial
interests would support Theodore Roosevelt for
president "because the latter had made a bar
gain with them on the railroad question."
Mr. Barker's statement came in the midst of
a vigorous attack on the "money trust," in
which he alleged also that President Roosevelt
had been given the detailB of the impending
panic of 1907 several months before it hap
pened, but took no action to prevent it. He
declared that the Aldrich currency plan was the
handiwork, not of Former Senator Aldrich, but
of Mr. Warburton, of the banking firm of Kuhn,
Looh & Co., of New York, and that a fund of ,
$1,000,000 had been started to insure its
adoption.
"Three or four weeks before the r'ection in
1904," Mr. Barker said, "I was walking down
Broadway when I met one of tho most dis
tinguished money kings in New York, 'a man
now dead. ' He said to me:
" 'We are going to elect Roosevelt.'
"I expressed surprise and asked if he' had
given up the support of Parker. He said yes,
that they had frightened Roosevelt so that he
had made a bargain with them."
Members of the committee looked somewhat .
incredulous and Mr. Barker added:
"I wish Mr. Roosevelt were here."
"I wish he were," Senator Townsend said,
"it would be interesting."
Mr. Barker said the financial giant, 'whom he
declined to name, told him that "Roosevelt had
made a bargain on the Tailroad question."
Mr. Barker continued:
" 'He is to holler all he wants to,' he told
me, 'but by and by a railroad hill will he
brought in by recommendation of the presi
dent cutting off rebates and free passes, which
suits us, who own the railroads, permitting the
railroads to make pooling arrangements and
providing for maximum rates.' "
The railroad man added, Mr. Barker said,
that under the latter authority it "would be pos
sible to add from $300,000,000 to $400,000,000
to the total freight charges paid by the Ameri
can public.
"I told him I didn't believe Roosevelt had
made any such agreement," Mr. Barker said,
"but when the annual message of 1905 went to
congress he recommended most of those things.
I wrote to President Roosevelt and told him
what I heard, and that I had thought the man
lied, but now I must believe he had not. It was
the only letter of mine Mr. Roosevelt ever failed
to answer."
Membors of the committee asked Mr. Bar
ker to give the name of the financial man who
had told him that Roosevelt was to be elected.
"I can not do it," Mr. Barker said, "but sub
sequently somebody was alleged to have stolen
some correspondence between Mr. Harriman and
the president telling of $250,000 put up for
eleotion expenses in the city of New York."
Referring to the panic of JL907, Mr. Barker
said a man who was present at a conference
at J, P. Morgan's house in May, came to him
in Philadelphia and wanted him to use his
influence with President Roosevelt to stop a
plan that had been mapped out, he alleged, by
the financial leaders. The man was a captain
in the rough riders, he said, and had used his
own influence with the president, but without
avail.
"The plan," Mr. Barker said, "contemplated
the curtailment of loans, the withdrawal of
credit, tho putting away of money by those in
terested where they could get it when they
needed it to stop the panic and tho enforce
ment of the various state laws regarding the
holding of cash reserves by the banks and trust
companies."
Mr. Barker said that in October when the
financial upheaval reached its crisis, he urged
President Roosevelt to distribute tho $145,000,
000 of cash on hand in the treasury among the
banks of Chicago, Philadelphia Boston and
other large cities.
"He wanted to do it," he said, "hut lie called
in Mr. Knox and Mr. Cortelyou and Mr. Root,
and instead of depositing in the outside cities
he plunged tho whole amount Into Wall street.
It broke the country, but it saved the gamblers."
The Philadelphia man, whoBe banking house
at ono time was financial agent for the Rus
sian government, declared that tfiose who
backed the Aldrich monetary plan had begun
a "propaganda" in which it was promised to
spend $1,000,000 to secure the indorsement of
the proposed currency legislation.
"Yesterday a banker in Philadelphia started
to collect that city's share of the money, $100,
000," he said.
He declared that the "great money oligarchy
in New York controlled all lines of finance, in
dustry and -transportation and that no legis
lation designed to break up the trusts would
strike at the root of the trouble.
"Few people appreciate how by control of
the money of trust companies, savings hanks
and national and state banks this money trust
has throttled individual enterprise," he said
He urged a law that would compel national
banks to hold their legal reserve in cash instead
of having the power to redeposit part of it in
the banks of New York.
"Nothing but those immense reserves, vary
ing from $250000,000 to $350,000,000 makes
New York the money power it is." Mr. Barker
said, insisting that the Aldrich currency plan
would strengthen this financial force by enabling
the hanks to use public credit for their own
ends.
Senator, Cummins expressed the opinion that
the plan did not sanction the use of public
credit or place any obligations upon the govern
ment. Mr. Barker urged a central bank of the
United States to be controlled by directors
chosen from arbitrary districts covering the
whole country.
"That would take the people out of tho
' clutches of Wall street and put- them in pos
session of their own rights," he said.
William R. Loyall of Richmond, Va., also
appeared before the committee and declared tho
decree to dissolve the American Tobacco com
pany was a "roaring farce." He also asserted
that the Sherman anti-trust law, if strictly in
terpreted, was unconstitutional and needed
amendment.
Associated Press dispatch: New York, Nov.
29. Alton B. Parker, presidential nominee on
the democratic ticket in 1904, took issue today
with the statements made yesterday by Whar
ton Barker in so far as to apply to Mr. Barker's
intimation that the financial interests ever had
intended to support Parker against Theodore
Roosevelt;
"Mr. Barker probably did not weigh his words
carefully enough," said Mr. Parker when his
attention was called to that part of Mr. Barker's
testimony before the senate committee in which
he said an eminent financier, now dead, had
told him the money powers had decided to
desert Parker and had made a bargain with
Roosevelt.
"There can be no doubt whatever," he said,
"that the republican party and tho interests
which constituted its leaders were always in
opposition to the democratic party. But it
served their purpose then to get Mr. Roosevelt
better trained in leading strings, and to that
end they withheld their checks for a time and
talked of hostility and undoubtedly spoke
occasionally in friendly terms of the opposing
candidate."
THE RECALL OF JUDGES
To the Editor of the New York World: Who
Is doing more to bring about the Tecall of the
judiciary than the judges themselves?
Who that has read the cases of the Oil and
Sugar trusts and of the many rich smugglers
and food-adulterators does not feel that this
issue is being forced upon the people by the
prospective victims of it themselves? Who Is
doing more to make a mockery of our vaunted
equality?
I am not clamoring for the recall of the
judiciary, but can one do otherwise than think
it desirable on reading the Duveen case and
many others? P. A. Neumann, N. Y., Nov. 20.
INVITING SOCIALISM
When trust magnates say that competition
can not he restored between big corporations
they invite socialism. If the doctrine thus con
tended for is ever accepted hy the public, then
the only remaining question will he whether
the profits of monopoly shall be enjoyed by a
few favored individuals or by the public. The
democratic party is opposed to socialism and it
therefore stands for a restoration of competi
tion. It may be difficult to "unscramble eggs,"
as Mr. Morgan- suggests, but it Is better to sepa
rate the members of a trust than to endure
either private monopoly or its legitimate off
spring socialism. -.
:
..t tr. i
fc I I M J1 ,JC
Ix&.a, " .Writ IVlfW-y
rTHPiT"