t y " - w '"'jrtjswi'j; ipw
The Commoner
VOL. 16, NO.-2
t
tt
'.Or-'
S.M ,'
'
, this war Is over. A postponement of final set
', tlomcnl until nftcr the war would, In all prob
ability, niako war unnecessary; the only obstacle
In tho way of tho settling of our disputes has
boon tho fear of tho effect of the settlement on
the present war. But If postponement did not
provont war It would still bo better to havo
it after this war than now. It would then bo
our ww and with tho nation with which wo had
our dispute; but this Is not our war, It Is every
body's war. We can not afford to put our ships
and our soldiers at the disposal of either side
or of any European nation.
Tho American people must also decide wheth
er they are willing, by entering this war, to sur
render tho greatest opportunity that ever came
to any nation, namely, tho opportunity to act as
mediator whon mediation Is possible. And In
deciding this question they will decide another
as far reaching In its Importance, namely,
whothor this Christian nation will disappoint
tho hopes of thoso who havo looked to It as the
highest ropresontatlvo of that moral philosophy
which would build a permanent peace on tho
foundation of love and brotherhood.
If tho President fears that wo may be dragged
into tho war by the death of Americans riding
on belligerent ships, congress can at once re
liovo tho situation by keeping Americans off bel
llgoront ships. Why has ho not asked for such
legislation?
History will never Justify us if we send hun
dreds of thousands of brave Americano to death
becauso a few Americans sailod on ships which
they should havo avoided, into danger zones of
which they wore fully aware. Belligerents havo
a right to buy muntions in the United States, but
thoy havo no right to ask that wo safeguard de
livery with the bodios of American citizens.
Does the President think that any interference
with our commerce would justify us in entering
Into this war? Congress can well afford to make
temporary provision for the aid of those upon
whom tho war has thrown special burdens. Far
bettor appropriate money for this purpose than
in support of a plan which would rob our nation
of its. moral prestige, lead to tho slaughter of a
multitude of our citizons and load future genera
lions with war debts.
VVi ,?.,'PMiUN'.
00
?i
THE ADVOCATES OF "SCAREDNESS"
The fundamental error of tho advocates of
"scarodnoss" is that they ask tho country to
plan for POSSIBILITIES instead of probabili
ties. All things aro possible, and there 'is,
therefore, no limit to tho amount of prepared
ness which wo need if we undertake to provide
against overy imaginable contingency. Suppose,
for instance, that we had a navy twice as large
as tho navy of Great Britain, or even twice as
large as all tho other navies put together. That
would look like sufflciont preparedness on the
sea., and yet it is possible that a storm might
destroy our superiority in a night. Wo might
havo an army of 5,000,000 men, all in camp and
under arms, and yet a plague might destroy tho
camps and leave us helpless in a week. There
is no reason why common sense rules should be
abandoned merely becauso designing profit
Beokers are, able to scare timid people with false
alarms. Common sense suggests that we con
sider probabilities only, not possibilities, and if
we consider only probabilities we can not doubt
that we aro safer from danger today than wo
have been at any time before in half a century.
Income Tax Sustained
Tho supreme court of tho United States has,
by unanimous vote, sustained the present in
come tax law in every particular. Vindication
has thus come at last, after a struggle of nearly
twenty-two years, to those who havo labored to
secure for the federal government undisputed
authority to levy and collect an income tax
Tho decision nullifying the income tax law of
1894 tied tho hands of congress and built a
legal bulwark around the rich in time of war
the poor could be drafted but large incomes -could
not bo touched even in a nation's extrem
ty The change has come and a very salutary
change it is, too; it not only brings Immediate
advantage, but proves that under constitu
tional government the people can rule. IF THEY
WILL BUT PERSEVERE IN THEIR DE
MANDS. There should be national rejoicing
over this decisionit is a triumph for tho com
mon people and for those who have espoused
their cause. w. J. BRYAN.
0
3
0
0
0
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
THE PERSIA AGAIN
The German government has informed
our state department that it has received
information from all of the submarines
operating in the Mediterranean and finds
that none of them are responsible for
tho attack upon the Persia. Austria has
done the same.
This ought to be a lesson to the jingo
press which, without waiting for evi
dence, insisted upon our government tak
ing action that might have resulted in
war. This Incident also shows the un
wisdom of permitting Americans to ride
on belligerent ships. Here is a case
vimre the American not only runs the
risk of going down with a ship, but
throws upon his government the risk of
having to act upon disnuted facts, at a
time when it is next to impossible to find
unbiased and unprejudiced sources of in
formntion. OTIR GOVERNMENT. TH1 OMT.V
ONE O TTTF, ORE AT GOVERNMENTS
NOT INVOLVED JN TJTTS WAR HAS A.
RTOTTT TO DEMAND OF TTS rTTI7,P.NS
TTTAT TT-TEY DO NOTHING TO MF.N
ACE TT-ttc NATION'S NEUTRALITY OR
TO JEOPARDISE JTq RTO-TT" TO
SERVF R A MEDIATOR wwf.n THE
TIME FOR MEDIATION POMF.q TN
TT-ip, FACE OF A STTPREMP. onpHTJ.
TTTMTTV AVn UNPREOEDFIMT-Fn RE
SPONRTRIT.TTTF.q. THTS NATTOM ft AN
NOT AFFORD TO PERMTT A FEW TM
OOMCUDEnATF 0TTT7ENq TO PAPT7Y
ITS TO THP PTHNK OF THE F.F.TVTTNTa
J.V TCOTTOMT.FO.q PIT INTO WT-TTPT-T
TUE PF,T,TjOF.RF,NTR HAVE FATJPM.
CONGRESS OUGHT TO APT at ompb.
W. J. BRYAN.
0
0
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
OUTBIDS ROOSEVELT
.tAt St. Louis the President went hp.vond: av
thing ho has heretofore said in bidding for the
jinjro vote. He said:
"Do you realize the task of the navy? Have
ynu ever let, vour imagination dwpR u'non the
enormous stretch of coast from the canal t
inska, from the canal to the northern coast of
Maine? There is no other navy in the world that
has to cover so great an area, an area of defense,
as the American navy. And it ought, in mv
judgment, to be incomparably the greatest navy
in tho world."
Can Roosevelt beat this? If you will let your
MEMORY work instead of your imagination you
will recall that we have not added to our coast's
length in 50 vears, but have, by th canal, in
creased the efficiency of our navv. Why imag
ine? The facts of history are better.
MUNITION MANUFACTURERS AT WORK
It is interesting to know that the presiding
officer at Mr. Roosevelt's recent "Preparedness"
meeting in Philadelphia vas Mr. Albert Johnson,
president of the Baldwin locomotive works, who
is one of the large contractors in war supplies
and that a representative of the Morgan inter
ests and other firms interested pecuniarily in
scaredness" were abundantly in evidence.
Is it possible that the plain people of the coun
try can be duped into giving their support to a
policy that is so profitable to its promoters and
so dangerous to the country?
As governor, Chas. J. Hughes tried to prevent
ratification of the income tax amendment: as as
sociate justice he joined the supreme court in
Sustaining the amendment. Moral: The neonlP
rule. vwyiv
The President will have tho biggest diqan
pointment of his life if he thinks the democrats
thSuwOTid. ls demand for the "biggest nayy
Constant reader: No. Even the most bigot
ed of the plutocratic newspapers do not describe,
the supreme court decision sustaining the in
come tax, as a "Slap at Bryan."
The President says that the world is on fire
and then ho suggests that -we try to extinguish
it by pouring on gasoline. ' ennguisn
Americans on Bellig
erent Ships
Those who oppose legislation keeping Amer
icans off of belligerent ships try to draw a dis
tinction between the warning of Americans in
Mexico and the prohibiting of Americans travel
ing on belligerent ships. There is a difference,
to be sure, but it only emphasizes the arguments
in favor of legislation which will deny to Amer
icans the privilege of endangering themselves
and imperiling their country.
A belligerent ship is as completely belligerent
territory as any land belonging to a country at
war. It is more than that it is a traveling ar
senal and as dangerous as an arsenal on land.
If any American, temporarily residing in a bel
ligerent country, insisted upon staying near an
arsenal knowing that it was an object of attack,
little would be said in regard to either his wis
dom or his rights, because an American has no
moral right to disregard the ordinary precau
tions and thus bring upon his country The dan
gers of war.
The doctrine of contributory negligence ap
plies to nations as well as to individuals, and we
will have difficulty in justifying ourselves if we
give no warning to Americans who are" heedless
enough to jeopardize their lives on belligerent
ships.
It is no answer to the argument in favor' of
legislation keeping Americans off of belligerent
ships' to say that it is contrary to the law of na
tions for ships to be sunk without the rescue of
passengers. Suppose the 'offending government
disclaims responsibility and punishes-the guilty
captain for disobeying orders- does this bring
back the lives of the lost?
Suppose that the captain of the ship that was
sunk in a moment of excitem'ent tried to escape
or endeavored to resist capture. According to
International law every life on the ship would
be forfeited. No diplomacy can restore these
lives. ' ' - ' " '''. -;', -i.se v
Suppose there Is a disagreement" afcto the
facts, the officers insisting that there "waV resist
ance and the attacked country denying it?" Who
is to decide such questions? Who is to deter
mine the truth? We must take one side or the
other! Why should American citizens be per
mitted to put their country in such a position?
President Taft warned Americans to come out
of Mexico and President Wilson repeated the
warning. There is infinitely more reason 'for
keeping Americans off belligerent ships than
there was for calling Americans out of Mexico.
There is but one argument which may be made
against keeping Americans off belligerent ships,
namely: that being no longer able to safeguard
their contraband with the lives of Americans,
the captains of belligerent ships "will have to pro
tect their cargo in some other way. But who
will have the temerity to advance this afgu
ment? W. J. BRYAN,
STEEL TRUST'S INTERESTS
Tho steel trust would probably profit m'ore
than any other corporation by the carrying out
of the scaredness" program. Perkins, Bacon,
Morgan and other directors and stockholders of
the steel trust can afford to get scared if they
iS f"Shten the public into a policy so
profitable to themselves. ;
WHAT STANDARD OF HONOR?
As the President favors a revolutionary policy
for the army and "incomparably" the greatest
navy in the world to defend the nation's honor
would it not be well tp have him define national
honor as he understands it? Much depends SS-
ard o? hoanodrrhnf t!101101' The du6llistfs Stew
ard of honor has been responsible for a great
many deaths, but it has heen legislated out of
existence in the states-shall we make it our na
tional standard? The European standards' ot
honor are responsible for the present war do
we want to adopt any of them?
If we are content to defend our American
standard of honor, a standard in keeping with
fZZ1; 0ur actions and our pro
fessions, we are in no danger of war. Can we
afford to depart from this standard resort- to
threat and "shake the birch" at nations in S
a,f lSg!e? ?an we not be"er afford to set
ance? calmness and Christian forbear-
W:-J. BRYAN.
