"jW" Jf t '
T Sf "
The Commoner
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
VOL. 14, NO. 4
Lincoln, Nebraska, April, 1914
Whole Number 660
THE TOLLS QUESTIO
N
The house of representatives responded to the
president's appeal and passed the Sims bill re
pealing the free tolls measure. As the details of
the vote will he found on another page, it is
sufficient for the present purpose to say that the
vote on the repeal bill stood 247 for, 162 against,
giving to the president's recommendations a ma
jority of 85. An analysis of the vote reveals the
fact that 220 democrats voted for the repeal and
only 52 against, showing that the president's
position was sustained among the democrats by
a vote of more than four to one. The republi
can vote on the proposition stood 93 against and
23 for, or a little more than four to one against
the president. The progressive vote stood 17
against the repeal and 3 for, or a little over five
to one against the president. As there are 432
votes- in the house, the president secured a clear
majority of the entire house in favor of the stand
ho has taken.
The fight was a bitter one, and a number of
the democratic leaders spoke, worked and voted
against the repeal of the tolls measure. As the
opponents of repeal have dragged into the dis
cussion much that can nqt fairly be regarded as
legitimate argument, The Commoner begs to call
the attention of its readers to the facts in the
case.
"GAG RULE"
First, as to the charge of "gag rule." The
committee on rules reported a rule allowing 20
hours for debate; none of the friends of free
tolls a:ked for more time th ,n that before the
rule was reported, but during the discussion of
the iv le the charge was made that the presi
dent's supporters were attempting to cut off
debate and force the measure through under a
"gag rule."
What are the facts? When the subject first
came up the opponents of the repeal measure
asked for 8 hours, and it was granted them.
They then asked that the time be extended to
15 hours, and this was granted. Later they
asked that the time be made 20 hours, and this
was granted. The charge that the time was un
duly limited can not fairly come from the friends
of free tolls, for when the free tolls measure
was under consideration in 1912 the debate on
it occupied less than three hours. It will be
seen, therefore, that seven times as much time
was given for the discussion of the repeal meas
ure as was given for the discussion of the orig
inal measure giving free tolls ' to coastwise
vessels. When it is remembered that four-fifths
of the democrats favored the repeal, while a ma
jority of the democrats opposed the free tolls
measure, it will be seen that the friends of the
repeal measure were exceedingly liberal in the
allowance of time as compared with the friends
of the original free tolls measure. In the face
of these facts,, one must be very biased in hia
opinion to accuse the president's friends of an
attempt to adopt a "gag rule" or to unduly limit
debate.
TUB PLATFORM PLEDGE
In tin discussion of the repeal measure it was
impossible to confine its opponents to a discus
sion of the merits of the question. They stoutly
contended that they were standing upon the
platform adopted at Baltimore, and assumed to
themselves a superior sort of virtue because of
the sanctity with which they invested this par
ticular plank Of the platform. The readers of
The Commoner have long since learned to regard
a platform pledge as binding and they are en
titled to know the grounds upon which the demo
crats of congress acted in repealing a measure
endorsed by the platform.
There are three facts to be considered facts
which the friends of free tolls have refused to
discuss. First, that there was another plank in
the platform, or rather another clause, which
was practically a part of the same plank which
contained the free tolls declaration. This clause
had to do with the encouragement of the mer
chant marine and reads:
"We believe in fostering, by constitutional
regulation of commerce, the growth of a mer
chant marine, which shall develop and strengthen
the commercial ties which bind us to our sister
republics of the south, BUT WITHOUT IMPOS
ING ADDITIONAL BURDENS UPON THE PEO
PLE AND WITHOUT BOUNTIES OR SUB
SIDIES FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY."
The merchant marine includes ALL the ships
belonging to American citizens, and it will be
seen that the democratic party expressed a deep
interest in the upbuilding of the merchant
marine, and yet, notwithstanding the import
ance of the subject and the anxious concern felt
by the party for the rehabilitation of the mer
chant marine, it specifically declared against
bounties and subsidies as a means of aiding the
merchant marine. The action of the free tolls
CONTENTS
THE TOLLS QUESTION
BEWARE OF THE SPECIAL INTERESTS
CONGRESSMAN OLDFIELD A CASE IN
POINT
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN OHIO
CANAL TOLLS DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
THE BRYAN BIRTHDAY DINNER
WORK OF THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET
IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
domocraU in ignoring this plank Is incompre
hensible, because its language is clear and spe
cific and it reiterates a doctrine for which the
democratic party has stood from timo im
memorial. This opposition to bounties and sub
sidies, whether granted openly and directly or
whether granted secretly and indirectly, as they
are through a protective tariff, is a fundamental
article of democratic faith.
But while the friends of free tolls are able to
overlook the plank above quoted, with its clear
and ringing declaration against subsidies and
bounties they regard as sacred the following
lines in which the party endorsed free tolls:
"We favor the exemption from toll of Ameri
can ships engaged in coastwise trade passing
through the canal."
Why do these few wordc stand out so brightly
before the advocates of free tolls? And why
are they unable to see or remember the words
condemning bounties and subsidies? What
opiate does the little plank contain that it can
make those who accept it oblivious of the larger
plank? By what rule of construction can the
small plank be made binding and the large one
be ignored?
The secret of the strange power exerted by the
little plank is to be found in the fact that it
carefully conceals the means by which It Is to be
carried out. Had the word "subsidy" or
"bounty" been inserted in this plank, it could
not have secured the endorsement of the con
vention because the contradiction between this
plank and the larger plank would have been im
mediately apparent. If the same care had been
- used in the drawing of this plank that was used
in the drawing of the plank on the merchant
marine, it would have read as follows:
"Wo favor the exemption from toll of Ameri
can ships engaged in coastwise trade passing
through the canal, BUT WITHOUT IMPOSING
ADDITIONAL BURDENS UPON THE PEOPLE
AND WITHOUT BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES
FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY."
Second, but even If the platform had not con
tained within itself a complete refutation of the
position taken by the advocates of free tolls, the
president would have been justified In the posi
tion that ho took by the changed conditions
which confronted him. A platform is a pledge
and is as binding upon an official as the com
mand of a military officer Is upon a subordinate
tho statement can not bo made stronger. But
the subordinate officer is sometimes compelled
to act upon his judgment where a change, of
which the commanding officer is not aware, has
taken place in conditions. It is not only the
right of the subordinate to judge the situation
for himself where conditions have changed since
.the order was given, but it is his duty to do so.
It is true that he risks his position if he mis
calculates the condition, and disobeys when he
H
M
tv
