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&&&
