President Harding's
Proposed Plan
February 28, 1923.—William Seaver Woods
Editor Literary Digest, New York City: I am
heartily in favor of the plan proposed by Presi
dent Harding for participation with reservation of
independence on our part. I believe that our na
tion should accept every invitation extended for
advice and for the exercise of our moral influence
for the promotion of peace. Because of our na
tion’s disinterestedness, no other nation is so
fully trusted by the European governments. This
confidence imposes a responsibility which we
have no moral right to shirk. We should not
only be represented on the court of arbitration,
but we should also be represented on the tri
bunal for investigation. Investigation will settle
more disputes than can be settled by arbitration
and these disputes are more serious than the
ones that can be settled by arbitration, because
all arbitration treaties exclude vital interests.
However, our participation should always be on
the condition that we shall not be bound by the
action of other nations except insofar as our
government affirmatively endorses the action
taken. We cannot surrender the right of con
gress to declare war and should not surrender
that rigiit even if we could. Since congress alone
can declare war, nothing should be done without
action of congress that commits us to the use
of force or robs us of full freedom to decide
when the time for action arrives. President
Harding’s recommendation very properly in
cludes reservation of independence, but I think
the plan should also include representation upon
the tribunal of investigation as well as on the
court of arbitration. W. J. BRYAN.
REPRESENTATIVE OLDFIELD’S ATTITUDE
ON BRITISH DEBT
(In the House of Representatives, February 22,
Congressman Oldfield extended his remarks on
the refunding of the British debt. His remarks,
reproduced from the Congressional Record, are
reproduced below.—Ed.)
Mr. Speaker, when this bill passed the House
on February 9 I made an argument on the floor
in opposition to its terms. I felt then that I
made a legitimate argument against the bill and
feel so yet. The crux of my argument was that
the British taxpayers should pay the same rate
of interest on the bonds they issue, with which to
pay their obligations to us, that our taxpayers
must pay on the bonds we issued when we
loaned the money to Great Britain. As I said,
I feel that ttris is not only a legitimate argument
but a reasonable and sound1 argument. I was
taken severely to task by the Wall Street Journal
of date February 10, and was criticized and
abused by this great representative of Wall
Street financiers and international bankers, and
I shall place this article in the Record to show
how the representatives of Wall Street interests
abused me for my attitude.
(From the Review and Outlook.)
CRITICS OF BRITISH REFUNDING
“Repesentative Oldfield, of Arkansas, speak
ing of the British plan for refunding the debt
to us, is reported as declaring, “While it is said
that this settlement comprises the best terms
possible, I do not know whether they are or
not.” There is not space in this column, or per
haps in this whole newspaper, to discuss so vast
a subject as what Representative Oldfield doesn’t
know. What he does know could be dismissed in
about three lines, after deducting the things he
knows which are not so. He speaks of taking
the “people’s” money at 4 % per cent to lend it
to the British at 3 per cent. He estimates this
difference at some figure approximating $1,000.
000,000, apparently by multiplying 1 % per cent
by the extreme limit of the period, and doing it
incorrectly.
“But the American people are buying their
own 414 per cent bonds in the market through
the Secretary of the Treasury, and he is doing
his necessary new borrowing at lower rates. To
ex%act a usurious interest from the British for
more than half a century, on the theory that we
once paid 4 ^4 per cent ourselves, may sound like
good finance in the Ozarks and it would be popu
lar in Hester Street, New York. But whatever
we may have paid fo* money under the pressure
of war, we can not charge more than the rate of
interest on a credit as good as that of the Brit
ish, which will be at less than 3 per cent long
before the first 10 years are over.
“And what Mr. Oldfield, of Arkansas, did not
learn at the crossroads grocery, where he ob
;Sln*eru concePtionB of international finance, is
Ja\the period he uses with which to multiply
the difference of 1 *4 per cent in interest includes
the complete amortization of the loan. (Amorti
f.aVo'11, ™eans the provision for repayment, Mr.
uidneld.) One of the greatest weaknesses of
popular government is that it is average govern
ment and never expert government. It is neces
sary to get it down to the intelligence of a Con
gress of Oldfields. But the Oldfield has always the
first charactertistic of ignorance. It by turns
despises, distrusts, and fears what it does not
understand. Thus Congress adds another inter
est limitation to the refunding Dill, totally un
necessary and operating as a bar to settlement
with other nations, exactly as the meddlesome
and unintelligent limitation of 4 *4 per cent over
25 years acted in the present case.
“Nothing could have done more to stimulate
international good will and also to relieve the
burdens of the American taxpayer, with their
unanimous acceptance of the Debt Commission’s
terms by a rising vote. This was the gracious
thing to do. The American taxpayer will not lose
a penny by the difference in bond interest, be
cause the Treasury can buy Liberty bonds in the
market and refinance at whatever the current
rate of interest may be. To what a point have
we come when we confuse boorish insolence with
democracy?”
When you have read this article you will real
ize that the Wall Street Journal made no argu
ment in refutation of the argument which I
made, but confined its statement to the lowes*
sort of critic sm and abuse. In my reply I shall
not stoop to the level of the Wall Street Journal.
I have no desire to enter into a controversy with
this paper, but my advice would be that when
they criticize a Member of Congress they should
refute the arguments of the Member of Con
gress, instead of descending to the low level of
this article. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Con
gress now 14 years. I was born and. reared in
my district within 25 miles of where I now re
side. No better people live than the people of
my district. I did not come here to represent
the ideas of Wall Street, the international bank
ers, or the Wall Street Journal, but, on the con
trary, I came here to represent the plain people
of my district and State, and the honest taxpay
ers of the country. I still contend that we should
not be any more generous to the taxpayers of a
foreign country than we are to the taxpayers of
our own country.
Mr. Blanton, l want to asK tne gentleman
from Arkansas if this commission that made this
settlement with the British Government had not
been lenient and generous, how could the Brit
ish Government pay these £100,000 gratuities to
these big admirals and generals and lesser gra
tuities to these lesser officers? We had to make
some kind of provision out of the American ex
chequer so that these gratuities could be paid in
England.
Mr. Oldfield. In answer to the gentleman I
will say that in the speech that I delivered on the
9th I used practically this language, that I
thought if there had not been so much drum
beating around the world by England she would
probably have more money with which to pay
her debts. I have heard the statement made in
regard to this piece of legislation that we are
helping our own people indirectly when we are
giving a generous treatment to Great Britain, be
cause then they will have money with which to
purchase our surplus products, and it would thus
be of indirect benefit. In the language of my
friend from New York (Mr. Cockran), I would
be very glad to see Congress begin to help the
people directly instead of helping them indi
rectly.
Mr. Steagall. If we are going to start out
showing favors at the expense of this Govern
ment to the other governments based on the idea
that will revive international trade, had not we
better get busy and pass the bills now pending in
both Houses of the Congress to provide for the
lending of a couple of billions to Germany in or
der that they may begin to pay?
Mr. Oldfield. Well, the one argument is just
about as sound as the other. I will say to the
gentleman, however,,I would not be in favor of
lending any more money to foreign governments.
One begins to doubt the efficacy of some kind
of advertisements when he discovers that the
prime object of the advice freely given is to have
one buy more of what the advertiser has to sell.
The packers are promoting a campaign to get
the people to eat more meat and are marshnling
arguments to prove that this makes them hap
pier and healthier. Now if the bakers were giv
ing this advice one would have confidence in
its value.
Why Not Ayres?
In looking about for a candidate fcr 1924 the
Oemocrats should examine into the availability
of all the prominent Democrats. The Commoner,
without intending to urge anyone man as the
BEST man, will bring before its readers from
time to time the names of men whose records
are worthy of examination. Today it directs at
tention to Honorable W. A. Ayres of Wichita,
Kansas. He is a lawyer of prominence in his
state with legislative experience in the House of
Representatives at Washington.
He had won a prominent place among the
leaders of the Democratic party of the House
when, two years ago, he went down in the Re
publican landslide. This, however, was no re
flection on him when it is remembered that be
ran something like sixteen thousand ahead of his
ticket and was barely defeated. Last November
he ran again and was elected by about sixteen
thousand. He is sound on every question and
will make friends as the people become ac
quainted with him and his record. If the Demo
crats were as well supplied with newspapers as
the Republicans are, a man like Congressman
Ayres could soon be made known to the ent re
nation. He deserves a place among the Demo
crats who are available for this high position.
W. J. BRYAN.
GOVERNOR I’INCHOT
On another page will be found an editorial
which appeared in the Miami Metropolis in
praise of Governor Pinchot. The Commoner is
glad to publish it. It has been the policy of this
paper to give credit tb public officials, Demo
cratic and Republicans alike, when they do their
duty. Governor Pinchot’s outspoken loyality to
the prohibition amendment and its enforcement
deserves praise. He not only advocates enforce
ment but announces that all enforcement of
ficers will be dry—he setting an example by total
abstinence. This is the only logical position for
an executive to take. If the enforcement officers
are not only dry themselves they carfnot con
sistently enforce the law\ and they are not LIKE
LY to enforce it if they are worrying all the
time about where they are going to get a drink
themselves. Governor Pinchot's attitude will
put him in the forefront of the fight for enforce
ment and make him the logical candidate of the
Republicans in the next Presidential cainpa gn.
He nas the qualities that we need just now in
the White House. Strength to his arm; may his
example inspire the nation's executives to do
likewise. W. J. BRYAN.
A GREAT ORATOR GONE
(An editorial by Martin H. Glynn, in his paper,
the Albany, N. Y., Times-Union, March 1, 1923.)
A great orator, one of the greatest in this
country since Daniel Webster’s day, is gone; and
Bourke Cockran is no more.
With his leonine head; his heavy features; his
big, flashing eyes; his silvery hair; his stocky
form, his broad shoulders and swelling chest—
he was a picturesque figure. He had a magnifi
cent organ of a vo*ce whose attractiveness wag
increased with a delightful trace of Irish brogue
which clung to him like a memory of fcis boy
hood days. This little brogue counted more in
the winsomeness of Bourke Cockran’s oratory
than the uninitiated ever imagined. The com- ,
pelling secret of Cockran’s oratory though, lay
in strength and power. He had a wonderful
knack of grasp ng the kernel of an argument,
developing it into a hundred different phases
and driving each phase home with blows of
Jovian power. In rhetorical elaboration he had
kaleidoscopic versatility and insinuating grace.
Bourke Cockran was educated in the old
fashioned school of classical studies and his
oratory wore the impress of this training. He
knew the value of the music of syllables, the
magic of connotation, and the fetching vitality
of “bell words’’ in rhythmical cadence. He
knew the rousing qualities of the epigram, the
balance of the antithesis and the lulling sway of
long-swinging periods. In building up cumula
tive periods—so dear to the Latin rhetoricians—
Bourke Cockran had no equal in his day and
generation. The late John Daniels of Virginia
may have had more poetry in his soul—but
Daniels had so much prose poetry in his
speeches, so much warbling of singing birds in
his throat, that it weakened his oratory. Cock
ran was never guilty of this, though he had a ,
beautiful tinge of poetic thought and a gift of I
temperate poetic expression.
For years it has been the custom to compare
