Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (March 1, 1917)
per ttt &?(!? ",rj.'V,"fW:t The Commoner MARCH, 1917 Majority Should Gov ern. Senate Action Following Is a special article sent by Mr. Bryan from Miami, Fla., March 8, to the United Press Associations, Now York. Answering your inquiry, I beg to call atten tion to the fact that there are two questions in stead of one. The first involves the filibuster and the second the merits of the proposedlegis lation. I am against filibustering and have for sev eral years been advocating a cloture rule in the senate. I believe in the right of the majority to rule and am sorry to learn from this morn ing's dispatches that the senate is inclined to require a two-thirds vote for the closing of de bate. A MAJORITY vote ought to bo suffi cient, after each senator has been given reason able opportunity to express' his views. To re quire a two-thirds Vote is to give to the pre datory interests the same power that they now have to prevent legislation hostile to their priv ileges. As long as the rules permit a minority to ob struct legislation, wo "may expect them to be employed to prevent progressive legislation, just as they were employed two years ago to enable the shipping trust to defeat the Presi dent's shipping bill. Whether the senators should use the rules to defeat a proposed measure is a matter entirely in the discretion of the senators, who are re sponsible to their constituents alone, just as the President Is responsible to the general public only when he uses his veto to defeat a measure favored by a majority of the senate and house. So far as I have seen expressions from the sen ators, nearly all of those who voted againBt au thorizing the arming of ships, did so for the purpose 'of compelling an extra session of con gress;' or because they objected o the phrase ology Oflthebill. Since the President has power to call a specia'l session of congress AT ANY TIME, and ask for anything he desires, the jingo press will find it difficult to convince the public that there Is anything treasonable in the desire to have congress In session. Even the most warlike of the newspapers will hardly insist upon the abolition of congress NOW, whatever they might have the boldness to ad vocate in time of war. The second question relates to the merits of the bill. So far as I am able to judge, the ob jections urged were not to giving authority to the President, but relatedfo the language to be employed. And, surely, if congressional au thority is needed the members of congress can not fairly be denied discretion as to the lan guage to be employed. Everyone recognizes that the giving of authority involves serious risks. The public has such complete confi dence in tnePr'esident that congress would not hesitate to confer upon him any power that HE COULD HIMSELF USE, "but the President can not ride on the ship, himself, or handle the guns. He can not ,even direct the man who pulls the trigger. The expert gunner will be some three thousand miles from Washington when he carries out. the authority conferred. He will not only have the. expert's desire to test his skill, but he will be under the Immediate di rection of a ship owner who may have a largo pecuniary interest in landing a contraband cargo. The President has not asked congress to sur render to him authority to declare war; is it strange that congress should hesitate to put an expert gunner in a position where, by his mis take, or, by a mistake of an interested ship owner, he may commit an act of war? The senate and house did not agree as to the phraseology of the proposed bill. The senate wanted to include "other instrumentalities" which the JiQjise thought too vague a descrip tion of the power to be conferred. The house excepted from INSURANCE merchantmen carrying arms and ammunition, and a minority of the house- coniraitteo favored inserting this exception in the paragraph authorizing the ARMING of ships. . I am heartily in sympathy with the -house in "withholding insurance from ships carrying arms and ammunition, and am also in sympathy with the minority of tho committeo In tho belief that tho exception should bo extended to tho arming of ships aa well. Tho bill in both Ben ato and houso provided for protection of Amer icans only when they were LAWFULLY on ships, and it is for congress to say what is LAWFUL. In my opinion, a law should bo enacted withholding clearanco from any bellig erent ships carrying American passengers to Europe. The American papers of tho twenty- ' fourth of last month contained tho following dispatch from Halifax, Nova Scotia: "OCEAN BARRED TO WOMEN" 'Halifax, N. S. Feb. 23rd. A number of women and children, who arrived hero last night on a steamship from tho United States for Europe, wore taken off today by government authorities under a regulation which provides that women and children may not sail from a British port for England at present. "Three American womon aboard tho liner, Which arrived in port last night, were permitted to continue oivthe voyage. Clearanco papers were refused until twenty-five Canadian women and. children had been removed. They wore taken ashore in tugs." If Great Britain will not allow British wo men and children to sail on a British ship bound for England, why should the United States al low American women and children, or even American men, to sail on any belligerent ships" going into the danger zone? It will be noticed that the Halifax dispatch says that "THREE AMERICAN WOMEN were allowed to proceed." Of course, the British officials had no authority to remove American women, but why should the United States allow the owner of a belligerent ship to safeguard a contraband cargo with American women and children, or even with American men? And why should our government permit tho United States to be drawn Into this war by tho folly of any American citizen who so disregards his country's welfare as to desire to travel upon a belligerent Bhip, whether for pleasure or for profit? V W. J. BRYAN. THE SENTIMENT AGAINST WAR Miss Jano Addams, Hull House, Chicago, 111. I am In hearty sympathy with you in your effort to givo to the almost universal sentiment against war an opportunity to express itself1. Wo shall support the government In the event of .war, but as friends of peace,, we are in duty bound to do all in our power to save our coun try from war's horrors. The President, senators and representatives desire to carry out the wishes of the people, but they can not know what the masses want, unless citizens everywhere express themselves In tele grams and letters. - This is tho only way In which to overcome the misrepresentations of the jingo portion of the metropolitan press, which, while denouncing all pacifists as unpat riotic, daily distort the news and demand war. There are several alternatives which are preferable to war and these should be consid ered by congress before declaring war. Tho submission of the question of war to popular vote by means of tho referendum, except in case of actual invasion, is the best way to de feat the war trafflcers and the "worshippers of the scimitar." The people who must share the sufferings and sacrifices, if war comes, should be consulted as to whether war is necessary. ; The militarists are for universal training and service, and yet they vigorously oppose ft refer endum which would allow these very people a voice in deciding when the nation should resort to the sword. Urge all5 to communicate with officials directly and at once. W. J. BRYAN.' There is not a particle of difference between the ".honor" that led men to face one another on the duelling fjeld'and the "honor" that the militarists assert s sullied when this nation refuses to restent an unintentional blow. Even tho duello demanded that no hostilities fol lowed an offer to apologize. It may be stated, in all fairness, that Colonel Roosevelt has abandoned all claim upon the Noebel peace prize for the current year. "Standing by the President" Tho Washington Times of Wednesday, Fobrijr ary 28th, gives its readers a sploudld illustra tion of tho hypocrisy of tho Jingo papers. Thcrf papers, tho Times being ono of tho ultra-ones, question tho patriotism of any ono who raises his voico In behalf of peace, or who ovon ex presses a hopo that war may bo avoided. In its Ibbuo of February 28th, the Times glwa raoro than a half column to a rabid denunciation of Mr. Bryan, for "rush ng north from Florida to Washington to save tho country yet again." No epithet is too severe In its denunciation of Mr. Bryan for alleged "Opposition of Mr. Bryan to. tho President at this Juncture," and yot at tho very head of the first column is the following double-hjadcd editorial: "MENTAL STRABISMUS" "Tho Presldont has said that ho was waiting for an 'overt act' boforo taking tho final stop that should make us at war with Germany. Yesterday he was quoted as saying that while ho could not doflno an overt act yot he and everyone else would know It when they saw It. "If the sinking of tho Laconia was not an overt act, It wo havo not been sufficiently of fended to take that last, long delayed stop which all have postponed In tho hopo of return ing German sanity, thon we aro all suffcrfnc from mental strabismus und nono so severely afflicted as tho President himself." It will be seen that tho Times not only criti cises tho President for being unablo to doflne an overt act, but accuses him of being afflicted with "mental strabismus," because he docs not seo in tho sinking of tho Laconia a causo for war. Has Mr. Munsey, the owner of the Times, any FINANCIAL interests that would be en hanced by war? He Is a man of largo means, has ho any"Jnvostmonts In tho corporations that profit by war In any steel companies, tor instanco? Or Is ft simply blood-thirstiness due to a depraved nature? Standing at tho door of the White houso, this journalistic follower of the war-like Roosevelt, waves his barbarian club over tho President, day after day, and threatens him with an editorial beating, if he does not plunge tho country Into war, make widows of American wives and or phans of American children. A man who denounces as COWARDLY all who argue in favor of peaco ought to have the courage to state to his readers whether, In ad vocating war, he Is influenced by tho sordid hope of financial profit, or Is simply giving .ex pression to his brute Instincts. W. J. BRYAN. THE REAL MOTIVE On another page will be found an extract from a speech delivered by Colonel Harvey at a dinner in Washington. It will bo seen that ho is in favor of getting into this war, The REAL motive back of most of the jingo cru sade for big armies and navies is not to pre vent war, but to bring on war. Tho Colonel says, "And glory openly and proudly in the present prospect of conflict which so many hold calamitous." Colonel Harvey renders the general public a service in uncovering tho motive which so many friends of war have been careful to conceal. A DAY OP PRAYER Mr. John A. Slelcher, Leslies, 225 5th Ave., New York, My Dear Mr. Slelcher: Your favor of January 6th at hand. I am heartily in sympathy with your plan to nave the end of the war celebrated by a day of prayer in tho churches. The conclusion of pfe4je would certainly bo a cause for thanksgiving. I would go oven farther why not have a day of prayer with all Christians uniting in a peti tion for peace? If Christianity is what we be lieve it to be, Christians ought to have an influ ence in bringing peace, and not wait until peace has been brought by other means before act ing. Very truly yours, W. J. BRYAN. 1 i nfot&&&
