The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, April 01, 1922, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    rvmyy v TW." jfQgiflfpr-r-
The Commoner
VOL. 22, NO. 4
The Commoner
lCntored at the Poatofllco at Lincoln. Nebraska,
an matter.
Hditor and Proprietor Anoolare 15d. and Publisher
FSrllt. Ilmn and BuslncsB Ofjlce, Suite 207 Press Bldt;.
fc . I !
One Your $1.00 Three Month -"
Six Month HO SliiKli Copy 10
In Clubs of Five or Sample copies irroo.
Foreign PoBt. 2e wxti
more per year
. SOllSCHIPTION.S can be sent direct to The Com
moner. Thoy can also be sent through newspupera
which have advertlned a clubbing rate, or through
local agents, where such ngenta have been ap
pointed. All remittances should be sent by post
olTlco money order, express order, or by bunk draft
on Now York or Chicago. Do not send Individual
cheeks, statnpB, or currency.
KBNICWAIiS The date on your wrapper show
the tlmo to which your subscription Is paid. Thus,
January 21 means that payment has been received
to and Including the Issue of January. 1921.
ADVERTISING Rate,s will bo furnished upon
OIIANCJQ OF ADDIireSS .Subscribers requesting
n ehango of address must give old as well as new
Address all communications to
On another page will bo found a press dis
patch from Washington saying that Secretary
Mellon and Governor Harding, of the Reserve
Board, oppose the bill giving the farmers repre
sentation on the Federal Reserve Board. The
reason advanced is, of course, not the real one.
The Secretary of the Treasury was not even will
ing to have the Secretary of Agriculture made
an ex-offlcio member. Such an increase of mem
bership "would have a tendency to make the
board un wieldly'." Well, why not substitute the
Secretary of Agriculture for one pf the other
But the farmers are going to have a mem
ber lot us hope that the selection will be made
from those who have whiskers so as to scare the
rest of the board as much as possible. Farmers
represent one-third of the population of the
couivry and the board can by a majority vote
reduce the value of their crop by billions; why
should not the farmers have a voice?
And why not give the laboring man a voice?
The board can close the factories and bring
about a condition that will result in a reduc
tion of wages.
On what meat doth this banker-director feed
that he hath grown so great? Should there not
ba.a diroctor to represent the business men who
are not in the banking business? They far out
number the bankers. The bankers made their
proilts largely out of those business men. Why
mould the entire' business of the country be at
tho mercy of a board which has no non-banking
business men to represent the rank and file of
those in trade. "The movement to compel the
selection of a farmer who farms is just begin
ning. The time will come when the board will
also contain a laboring man who labors and
a business man who is not a banker. When
these throe groups; the farmers, who constitute
a third of the nation; tho laborers, who are near
ly as numerous as the farmers; and the busi
ness men, who borrow instead of loan (who
with the farmers and laborers, make up nearly
threo-fourtlis of the nation) have each a real
representative on the board, panics will be les
likely because trade squeezing will bo impossible
, An Augusta, Me., dispatch, dated March 21
says: Republicans retain their hold of ,the
Third Maine congressional district, but by a
margin greatly reduced from the- record Repub
lican vote of 1920. John E. Nelson, Republican
was elected over E. L. McLean, Democrat by a
majority of over 6,000. In 1920, tho Republican
majority for congressman in this district was
1 J,4u7.
A Corning, N. Y., dispatch, dated April 11
says: With the Republican normal plurality
greatly reduced, the Thirty-seventh congression
al district elected Lels Henry, Republican
of Elmyria, to the house of representatives to
the 'vacancy caused by the resignation of Alanson
B. Houghton, now United States ambassador to
Berlin. Henry's plurality over Judge Frank
Irvine, Democrat, of Ithaca, was 3,087
In Defense of a
-The Now York Journal of Tuesday, March 21,
1922, in the column which is conspicuous be
cause the name of Arthur Brisbane is published
at its head, contains the following reference to
"Sunday was the birthday of William Jen
nings Bryan, sincere, useful soul. He celebrated
it with a speech denouncing evolution. As he
spoke, just at the bottom of his waistcoat, on
the right side of his body, there snuggled a tiny
veriform appendix that could have refuted all
his arguments. Evolution has made it vestigial,
only a nuisance, but in some of Mr. Bryan's
herbivorous relatives that appendix is more than
twenty feet long, as compared with three or
four inches in humans.
''And the ear with which Mr. Bryan listened
to applause is only an evolution, of the gill with
which his ancestor, the fish, allowed water to
escape, after extracting the oxygen.
"The hand with which Mr. Bryan points and
waves has five fingers, because that was the
number of toes on the foot of the salamander
in the carniferous age millions of years ago.
"It's a pity, too, for the five finigers gave us
the imperfect decimal system. Six fingers would
have made it duodecimal much better, as
mathematicians will tell Mr. Bryan. Ten has
only two divisors, five and two. Twelve has
four; two, three, four, and six. Read Wallace's
book on Darwinism. You'll admire -Mr. Bryan's
power, knowing all about evolution without hav
ing studied it. Darwin was a slowpoke. He
devoted thirty years to his study of earthworms
before announcing the part they' play in soil
Arthur has so often disclosed and discussed
the secrets of my anatomy that I may have
seemed lacking in courtesy not to have made'
before this an acknowledgement of his friendly
interest, expressed in his own peculiar way.
Arthur is a unique creature. Besides being a
highly paid writer on subjects political and so
cial, he 3eems to have spare time to davote lo
biology, psychology, zoology, and several other
'ologies. But he is not impartial, bestowing his
affections equally upon his intellectual compan
ions. On the contrary, he shows a marked tend
ency to specialize in man's family tree. He has
looked into the subject carefully, and having min
utely inspected himself, externally and internal
ly, finds so many resemblances between himself
and the brutes that he" has reached the conclu
sion that he has in him the blood of the beast
instead of the breath of the Almighty. Having
decided this question, and having adopted a
philosophy that teaches that "whatever is is
right," he glories in his lineage and loses no
opportunity to. express his pity for anyone who
can find pleasure in imagining himself made in
the image of God.
Whenever a man has a dominating impulse, he
gradually brings all of his activities into har
mony with that impulse. So with Arthur In
stead of twirling a mustache, he pats the'point
n his ear which Darwin tells him is so much
like the point in the ape's ear as to leave no
doubt of a common ancestry. When he chews
his food he shifts the burden to the "cwSnl
teeth" because by so doing he feels that he is
Uvea Way' PaylnS UiS respects t0 distant rela
Those who have noted with awe and admira
tion the wrinkles that, like minature Alps rise
at his will from his massive brow may have
imagined that he was trying to look wise. Not
so Arthur knows, as his friends do, that his
wisdom manifests itself without any console
effort on his part. Those wrinkles are . Bimniv
a way he has of reminding himself that helol
sesses some of the rudimentary muscles with
which the horse is wont to wlggTe his ears
Arthur has learned from Darwin that only a Sw
have inherited this physical characteristic t
'Vef $&? an!ma,s' 5 "8Urv "
I might mention other survivals, but as he oniv
refers to my appendix, my ear and my fingers I
ZS?otZant! oast ot a neater fammaritv
with him than he does with me tt"my
The trouble with Arthur is that n hQ v,
to establish blood connection wUh'the jngHe
has tried to trace the pedigree of but ono-thirS
of himself, and that the lowest third. He haa
given less time to man's brain and sni,i ti
Darwin (if we can trust Mr. Brisbane)0 gave tS
worms. Arthur's friends, even though Hi
self, they may be denied the delights of conHffyr
companionship with him, suspect him of ha
ing an intellect that reveals no similarity
a simian brain. When we visit tho zooloeioIS
gardens we never say of a gorilla, "He reminX
me of Arthur." uus
Darwin says that everything in the human
mind can be found in miniature in tho mind of
the brute, but Darwin did not know Arthur No
monkey can ever hope to use his tongue as
Arthur does, much less aspire to the written Ian
guage in which Arthur is so proficient.
Man is the possessor of a soul, as well as a
mind, and here too, Arthur can find no hint of
kinship with the brute. When Arthur surveys
the handiwork of man and contemplates the
measureless vision that travels faster than the
mind can run and siezes upon high ideals that
elude the grasp of reason, he forgets the baboon
and the chimpanzee and is absorbed in man and
his destiny. Arthur is too wise of brain and too
big of heart to boast of being a son of an ape
or brother to a woJf or cousin to the monkey.
It is only his modesty that leads him to hide
in a cage in a menagerie ho belongs on the
hill-top where worshipful man builds tpmples
to Jehovah. W. J. BRYAN.
On another page will be found a letter writ
ten by Governor William D. Denney of Delaware
to the City Council of Wilmington, Delaware,
in response to a request from the city council
that the governor aid in amending the Volstead
Act. The governor's reply is Worth reading.
Surely few city councils would be guilty of so
open a defiance to the Constitution and it is to
be hoped jthat if there are any more such, the
governors "of their states will answer in the same
way as did the governor of Delaware.
.The prohibition amendment was adopted in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitu
tion and surely the "wets" had advantage
enough in the fight that resulted in the ratifica
tion of the amendment. If they had been able
either House of Congress they could have pre
vented submission. But the "drys," obtained
more than two-thirds of both houses in Congress,
which means that tho representatives of more
than two-thirds the population of the United
States voted, to submit prohibition.
If the "wets" could have held one branch of
the legislature in thirteen states they could have
prevented ratification, ut they have been able
to hold only three houses out of the ninety-six
two in Connecticut and one in Rhode Island.
No other reform has ever been adopted by so
large a vote. In order to take prohibition out
of the Constitution the "wets" would have to
secure two-thirds of both houses and three
fourths of the states, just .as the "drys" did.
If they could not hold one-third of one House
how can they hope to get two-thirds of both
houses? Ifthey could hold but three branches
of the legislatures out of the ninetv-six how can
they hope to secure seventy-two branches in
thirty-six states, the number necessary to ratify
a repealing amendment even if they could suc
ceed in submitting such an amendment?
And again, if the "wets" could not prevent
the adoption of prohibition when the women
voted in but a few states, how can they hope to
bring back the saloon when the women are vot
ing in all the states?
The "wets" knew that they cannot repeal the
prohibition amendment; their only hope is to
secure a majority of Congress pledged to vio
late the Constitution. Could lawlessness go
farther? Even if they secured a majority base
enough to attempt to violate the Constitution
by authorizing the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors, the Supreme Court would he
in duty bound to nullify such a law.
All that a "wot" Congress could legally do
woud be to increase the alcoholic content
from one-half of one per cent to a high
er per cent but below an intoxicating per cent.
If the "wets" can not get enough alcohol to
make them drunk, why do they make such a
struggle to get more than one-half of one per
cent? What they really hope to do is to get a
Congress that will refuse to make the appropria
tions necessary for the enforcement of tho law
and thus inaugurate a reign of lawlessness.
Even the most ardent advocates of prohibition
have never brought against the "wets" as grae
an incident as they boastfully confess to, viz..
that of favoring lawlessness. , ....
Strange that a city council should take tne
position that the Wilmington Council did, ana
fortunate for the state that it had a law-aDia-ing
citizen for governor. What would wew
Jersey's governor have done in such a case.
-iijJnU 4 1 'JM