The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOU 12t NO. 37
Lincoln, Nebraska, September 20, 1912
Whole Number 609
Take Your Citizenship Seriously
In its issue of September 9, the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch printed a short editorial that ought to bo read in every precinct, in
every state of the union and posted up on every schoolhouse, and in every counting room and factory of the land. Here it is: "There is
nothing more important than that we should take our citizenship seriously. Some people take it as a joke, some as a game, some as a selfish
purpose and some as a chance to help friends or grind axes. No man is worthy of citizenship unless he regards it as a mission and uses it
for the common good to free his fellowmen from every kind of servitude and oppression and make them their own levers to raise them
selves to better estate. Citizenship is a duty, and every man who has a high ideal of life, who makes it brave and serviceable, has a right to"
to be called a citizen and no other should be enrolled upon the roll of honor. A citizen is a man who honors his city, his state and his
nation by ljving right and doing good. Such a one regards citizenship seriously. The duty of citizenship is committed to each man as ft
trust to be discharged always for the common welfare and the higher purpose. A ballot is to be used for the benefit of mankind and not
for the advantage of individuals."
ROOSEVELT ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Several circumstances conspire to suggest tho
propriety of a few words in regard to Mr. Roose
velt's views on the subject of campaign contri
butions. In his Archbold-Penrose statement Mr.
Roosevelt says: "Aside from this matter of
corporations," (corporations are no longer
allowed to contribute), "my attitude as to con
tributions now is precisely what my attitude was
in 1904, and will not be changed. I do not draw
the lino againstjajzeand. never shall. The,,con
ditiohs. 1 1 impose are," first, that the contribu
tions shall be received without any kind of
promises or obligation, expressed or implied;
and, second, that the money shall be spent in
honest fashion and only for legitimate expenses.
I have no sympathy with the proposals to limit
the contributions to $5,000 or $10,000 or any
other sum. If the virtue of a party is so frail
that it will weaken ff the contribution is over
$10,000, it will also weaken if it is under
$10,000. It is morally as bad to solicit or ac
cept $10 for improper reasons as $10,000. To
limit contributions to $10,000 will be no hard
ship to a reactionary cause, a cause championed
by the enormous majority of the men who can
contribute each to such sum. But we who fight
for the cause of the people, as a whole, have only
a few supporters among the very rich. These
few supporters are from the nature of the case,
idealists, men of tho kind, who, when their in
terests are aroused give generously and without
thought of personal return. I welcome their
contributions, when made in such a spirit; I am
honored by their support and receive it as freely
and gladly as it is given. I shall make precisely
the same return to all who contributed, and that
return is to serve the whole people by striving
for social and industrial justice."
The above quotation presents four proposi
tions; first, that his position on the subject of
contributions is PRECISELY THE SAME that
it was in 1904; second, that he insists that con
tributions shall be received without any kind
of promise or obligation, expressed or implied;
third, that the money shall be spent In honest
fashion and only for legitimate expenses; and,
fourth, that he Is opposed to any limitation
whatever upon the amount of individual con
tributions, and always will bo.
No time need be spent upon the third propo
sition; namely, as to the things for which the
money shall be spent. No public man would bo
willing to admit that he favored any other kind
of expenditures than those described by Mr.
Roosevelt, although there might be a wide dif
ference of opinion among politicians as to what
would be considered "honest fashion" and
"legitimate expenses."
The first, second and fourth propositions de
serve attention. He says his attiude is PRE
CISELY the same now that it was in 1904. It
will be interesting, therefore, in this connection
jto know what his attitudo was in 1908 tho
period half way between 1904 and the present
day. The issue In 1908 was whether campaign
contributions should be made public BEFORE
tho election or AFTERWARD. Tho democratic
platform declared in favor of publicity BEFORE
the election, while tho republican platform was
silent on tho subject. Mr. Taft, however, an
nounced that the contributions made to his cam
paign would be made public AFTER the election,
and in a correspondence which I had with Mr.
Roosevelt he not only indorsed Mr. Taft's posi
tion but proceeded tadefond it as follows; "I
emphatically approve of tho publication of cam
paign contributions and expenses AFTER tho
election, whether provided by law or not. You
have shown by this letter of yours that if tho
contributions to Mr. "Hughes' campaign fund had
been made public before election, you and those
who act with you would have striven to givo the
false impression that Mr. Hughes was unfit to
be trusted with the position of governor, and
you have shown by this letter of yours that If
Mr. Harriman's contribution to the campaign
fund of 1904 (and incidentally I may mention
that I am informed that this particular contri
bution was not used for the national campaign,
but In the New York state campaign), had been
known before the election, you and your sup
porters would havo endeavored to use the fact
of its having been made as an insincere and un
truthful argument to show that I could not bo
trusted to deal out exact justice to Mr. Har
rlman." It will be seen that at that time Mr.
Roosevelt was afraid to trust tho public to make
a proper use of tho information if publicity was
given before the election to the names of con
tributors and the amount contributed. Two
years ago Mr. Roosevelt announced his conver
sion to the doctrine of publicity BEFORE the
election, and It has been assumed since then that
he favors publicity before tho election. Are wo
to understand that Mr. Roosevelt stands PRE
CISELY where he did eight years ago? If so, ho
must now be opposed to publicity before tho
election, for the position taken by him two years
ago was precisely opposite to what it was in
1908. If he now believes In publicity before tho
election it shows a gratifying change, a- real
progressive movement on his part within four
years.
It is difficult to treat Mr. Roosevelt's second
proposition seriously, namely, that contributions
are purged of taint when received without any
kind of promise or obligation expressed or im
plied. The idea that that sort of a condition
would relieve an objectionable contribution of
its evil quality would be absurd if advanced by
any one less distinguished than the ex-president.
To say, for instance, that Mr. Perkins, who is
a director in the steel trust and officially con
nected with the harvester trust both of which
organizations are Intensely Interested in the ad
ministration of existing laws and in the enact
ment of now laws on the trust question to say
that Mr Perkins can make largo contributions
innocently PROVIDING ho makes them with tho
understanding that they shall havo no influence
upon the man whom ho helps to elect, Is llko
saying that a judge can receive favors from
litigants PROVIDED ho receives them with the
distinct understanding that thoy are received
"without any kind of promise or obligation ex
pressed or Impliod." It is a well settled prin
ciple of jurisprudence that a judge shall not re
ceive favors from parties Interested, and no
juggling of words or rhetorical legerdemain can
convert tho bribery of a Judgo into -an innocont
and patriotic contribution to the Judge's ex
chequer. In taking the position that tho Inser
tion of a spectacular condition can ovorcomo an
Implied obligation Mr. Roosevelt does not add
to his reputation as a moralist. Ho knows that,
as a rule, the men interested In predatory cor
porations give with an eyo single to their In
terests, and ho ought to know that, as a rule,
men are unconsciously, If not consciously, In
fluenced by a feeling of gratitude. Ho is asking
too much of a confiding public when he asks
that they endorse a policy by which tho bene
ficiaries of privilege and favoritism shall bo per
mitted to elect tho officials who aro to regulate
them, ami then trust tho officials so elected to
deal impartially between the givers and tho pub
lic when the subject of favors comes up for con
sideration. Jefferson, whoso namo is now used
to Invito democrats into tho progressive party
but whose career has aroused only criticism from
Mr. Roosevelt In the past, understood men bet
ter than Mr. Roosevelt seems to understand
them. Jefferson said that free government
existed In jealousy rather than In confidence
that confidence was everywhere tho parent of
despotism. The kind of confidence which Mr.
Roosevelt Invites us to extend on tho subject of
campaign contributions would prove tho prolific
parent of deception and corruption, however
honestly and -innocently it may be urged by the
head of tho new party.
Mr. Roosevelt's fourth 'proposition states a
position that he will not long bo able to main
tain. Tho limitation of contributions is Inevit
able. Congress has already limited tho amount
that a candidate can expend; a senator is not
permitted to expend more than $10,000, while
a congressman is limited to $5,000. Tho house
of representatives at Washington recently de
cided an election contest against a member on
the ground that his family expended moro than
the law allowed, and this, too, although the evi
dence seemed to show that the candidate himself
was kept In ignorance of tho amount which tho
other members of tho family were expending. If
a candidate is to be limited as to the amount he
can expend; if oven hJs family can not spend for
him more than he Is himself permitted to ex
pend, surely there can be no logical objection
made to a limitation upon what third parties
can expend.
Let us take a case. Suppose the harvester
trust has a plant in a congressional district, and.
1
i
t
yCSi
