rff'Tyfr,yjp"-'j
The Commoner
u
VOL. 16, NO.
10
-Tr
Record of Wilson; and Democracy Deserves
Indorsement of the American People
(Continued from Pago Two.)
to roliovo this situation with a government
owned merchant marine, but tho shipping trust
ohjectod to it, and the shipping trust controlled
tho republican leadership in tho senate and tho
house. But we had a democratic senate, a dem
ocratic house, and a democratic President, and
now wo have a government owned merchant ma
rine, authorized by law, and it can bo used to
protect the shippers from tho extortion prac
ticed by tho shipping trust.
Mr. Hughes has ventured to denounce this
law; ho has mado it an Ihsuo and you will de
cide by your votes whethor tho President was
right in protecting tho people with a govern
ment owned merchant marine, or whether Mr.
'Hughes Is right in saying that tho shipping trust
or tho shipping industry, as ho calls It, must
not bo interfered with, oven if It does take ad
vantage of tho war to collect extortionate freight
rates.
THE CHILD LABOIt LAW
Wo havo a Child Labor law as tho eighth re
form. I am glad that the democratic party is
leading in this mattor. I am glad that the dem
ocratic party can look tho children of the nation
in tho faco and tell thom that we are endeavor
ing to protect thom from tho greed of any cm
ployor who would dwarf their minds, stunt
their bodies, and coin their blood' into illegiti
mate dividends.
THE EIGHT-HOUR HAY
And then, jusl' boforo adjournment, a new
question camo up, and tho President has shown
his ability to deal with these questions, whether
they havo boon deliberated on a long while, or
aro Bprung upon him as a surprise. There camo
a tlmo when the controversy between tho rail
roads and tho members of four great brother
hoods of railroad employees roached a crisis.
After tho employers and employees had failed
to agroo tho President called them to tho White
houso and tried to bring them together. When
that failed ho proposed a law, and that law was
passed. If any ropublican criticizes that law,
oaJl his attention to tho fact that a majority of
tho ropublican congressmen voted for it.
Tho ilrst effect of it was to savo tho
country from a nation-wide striko a strike that
would havo suspended traillc, paralyzed business
and caused a Iobs of hundreds of millions to tho
producers of perishable products. But import
ant as that was, I do not regard that as most im
portant. Tho groatost effect was tho support it
gave to tho eight hour day in tho United States.
Whilo the immediate beneficiaries of this law
number only between three hundred and four
hundred thousand, every wage earner in
the nation is a participant in the benefits of this
law, for it has brought that struggle to a suc
cessful issue. It has been a long struggle. If
you will read tho platforms of tho parties you
will find that as far back as eight years ago
both of tho great parties declared in favor of an
oight-hour day. I put myself on record as in
favor of an oight-hour day years ago. I be
lieve in it. These laboring men aro a part of
our community; fiioy aro a part of our business
life; thoy aro part of our political life, and they
.have a right to live up to all the possibilities of
American citizenship. If you drive the laboring
man from his bed to his work and from his work
back to his bed again, how iB he to know the
comforts of homo Ufo? And -how is ho to pre
pare himself for tho discharge of the duties of
citizenship? It is a farce to say to tho laboring
man that he is a citizen and then allow him to
bo prevented from preparing himself to enjoy
tho things you give him. Tho oight-hour day
is now a fact, and it has been established under
tho leadership of a President who wisely -used
the opportunity presented,
MR. HUGHES OPPOSES LAW
Mr. Hughes, although he declares himself in
favor of an eight-hour day, says that the Pres
ident was wrong in proposing this law; he insists
tlw law should not havo been passed without
investigation. Well, the republicans, by keep
ing me out of oflice, have left me free to keep
an eye on republicans in ofilco, and I havo been
busy. Mr. Hughes happens to be ono of the re
publicans whom I have watched. When he, as
governor of New York, vetoed the two-cent rail
way faro bill, he gave as a reason that there had
not been timo for investigation. And they are
still investigating down there after eight years
havo passed. Now ho says tho eight-hour law
oughtnot to havo been passed;, that they ought
to havo investigated. Havo they not been in
vestigating all these years? Tho trouble with
Mr. Hughes is that ho takes the side of those
who havo ANOTHER REMEDY and is against
those who have NO OTHER REMEDY. Let me
illustrate: Had he signed the two-cent fare law
in New York the railroads could have gone into
tho courts, .and if they could have shown that"
an injustice had been done them they could
havo suspended its operation. When, therefore,
ho vetoed tho two-cent fare measure, he took
the side of those who had another remedy and
could not havo been injured even had he signed
tho bill, but when he opposed the patrons of the
road ho decided against those who had no other
remedy, for they could not go into the courts to
securo justice.
And so on this question, ho says the President
was wrong that means that, if he had been
president, lid would have taken the side of tho
railroads; ho would have taken the side of those
who HAVE A REMEDY and would have opposed
those who had no remedy except the law that
was proposed, or a strike. The railroads an
nounce that they will test this law in the courts.
If the courts decide that the law is unjust it will
bo suspended, When the President took the
side of the railroad men ho did' no injustice to
the railroads, because they have the courts to
protect them. He took the side of the men who
needed a friend in the White house.
Why do Mr. Hughes and President Wilson
differ so radically on public questions? It is be
cause thoy view public questions from opposite
standpoints. There is only one line that can be
drawn through society always and everywhere,
namely, tho line that separates the man who is
at heart a democrat from the man who is at
heart an aristocrat. I do not use the word dem
ocrat in a partisan sense. The word is more
than two thousand years older than the demo
cratic party. It describes an attitude of the hu
man heart. Nine-tenths of those who call them
selves republicans are at heart democratic and
some who call themselves democrats are at heart
aristocratic.
DEMOCRAT OR ARISTOCRAT, WHICH?
The democrat believes that society is built
from tho bottom, the aristocrat thinks society
is suspended from tho top. The democrat says :
Legislate for all tho people, for he believes that
the prosperity of the masses will find wa up
through all the classes that rest upon the mass
es. The aristocrat, believing that socieTy s
suspended from tho top, says, and he says it
honestly-.-for he believes it.- Legislate for tho
well-to-do and then be patient and wait untS
their prosperity leaks through on those below
n JSn1)lai?S Why Mr' HuSlles took the side of
the railroads on tho two-cent fare bill, why ha
vetoed the bill giving the poor of New York a
sZTtX?011??1' why he took ttS
side of the big tax dodgers on the income tax
amendment, why he took the side of the sMnnW
trust on the new shipping law, and why hfias
taken the side of the railroad manager i against
the men who asked for an eight-houf day And
it explains also, why Mr. Wilson has taken the
?n? Q ,8ld n a11 stions. Will you vote
to take the government out of the hands of Mr
tt ove" ato ltVr?FTiyG "and'tSrn
friends' HUgheS and Ilis reactionary
vrSTcSr & rrsttrgia -ks. b
two other reforms that I askyot JeodS?
PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE
promise of ultimate Imlonendo P'nos the
the history ot this $ the ti glvo
eighteen years aso Tnt .- ?ght 1)eBan
raised its head tho a 1 " tlmi,eriali3m
it. It supported the BMoTresoiutS ? S(tru?k ftt
u February . whAX
treaty was signed that gave us the Philinnt
The Bacon resolution promised ultima P "
pendence, and in 1900, a year after, thed"
cratic platform demanded ultimate indeS"
ence, and it repeated tho domand in 1904 ioXq
and 1912. Our party has now carried out
promise and the law recently passed announces
the world that we have not repudiated the Dec
laration ot Independence; that we do not intend
to continue a colonial policy. The democratic
party has not only done justice to the Philin
pines, but it has done justice to its own naZ
and reputation. We can now stand erect and
deny that we have, surrendered to the temnti
tions that overcome monarchiesthe temnta"
tion to throw the net of government over he n"
less people and govern them without reran i '
their wishes. . gartl to
THE. THIRTY TREATIES
And, eleventh, the treaty plan. Europe liaq
had machinery for war, but not for peace. Eu
rope could go to war on a minute's notice but
had no machinery for dealing with questions
that defied diplomatic treatment. And until
within four years, we were as poorly supplied
with machinery for peace as Europe. Until
within four years the best treaties we had were
the twenty-six known as the arbitration treaties
and they had two serious drawbacks. In the
first place, they only ran five years and then
they died, and when one of these treaties died it
, had to be renewed just as it was made in tho
beginning. It had to be ratified by two-thirds
of the senate, and, therefore, one more than
one-third .could prevent the extension of a treaty,
notwithstanding the President and a majority of
the senate might wish to renew it. Each of
these treaties also had four exceptions, namely;
questions of honor, questions of independence,
vital interests, and the interests of third parties
the very questions out of which wars grow.
We now have thirty treaties with thirty na
tions, numbering a billion and three hundred
millions, or three-fourths of all the world; and,
besides this, we have the endorsement of tho
principle by three other- na'tions With a combined
population of over one hundred millions. Today
we haxe either treaties, or agreements on the
principle, with all the nations of the world, of
any size or population, with the exception of less
than five.
Instead of running for five years and then
dying, these treaties never die. They run on
and on and on for twelve months after one side
or the other has asked that the treaty be dis
continued, and if neither side asks that
the treaty be discontinued, the treaty runs on
and on forever. I believe that neither side will
ever ask that ono of these treaties be discon
tinued I have such faith in these treaties that
I believe that a thousand years from now the
name of Woodrow Wilson and my name will be
linked together in these treaties in the capitols
of the world, and that these treaties, by furnish
ing machinery by which peace can be preserved
with honor, will still be preserving tho peace of
our nations.
But, what is more important than their length
of life, they have no exceptions. These treat'es
were intended to close the gap tliat other trea
ties had left, and they do close the gap. Every
one of these thirty treaties provides that every
dispute of every kind alids character, no matter
what it is, if it defies diplomatic treatment, shall
be submitted to an international tribunal for
investigation and report, " arid a year's1 time is
allowed for the investigation and report, during
"which the parties are pledged not to resort to
war. .
If they had had treaties of this kind
in Europe there would have been no war. They
had only twenty-four hours to answer the ulti
matum that went from Austria to Servia; Euro
pea diplomats told me that, if they had only
had a week, they could have prevented that
war. Our treaties provide a year's time for
passion to subside, for questions of fact to he
separated from questions of honor and for Hie
peace forces of tho world to operate. Already
Argentine, Brazil and Chile have paid us t'io
high compliment of jcopying the plan of these
treaties into a treaty between the three great
powers of South America, so that war is made
a remote possibility now in South America, as
well as between us and the thirty contracting
nations.
These treaties have been so universally ap
proved that they could muster no .more than five
votes against tho ratification of any one, and
,m
V
