. . > , . t .e "i
Conservative.
A recent deliver-
HOW ? WHY ? nuco of the popu
list presidential
ciinclidntc at Lincoln reads thus :
"It will 1)0 n great victory for popular
government when the selection of United
'
States senators' taken away from
legislatures and given into the custody
of the voters where it rightfully
belongs. "
How does it rightfully belong where
the constitution as signed by George
Washington , president of the conven
tion , on September 17th , 1787 , bestows
it not ? How did the presidential candi
date whose reputation is like that of a
quick-rising yeast powder or the little
early riser pills ascertain so definitely
that the men who made the constitution
were mistaken , and that Hamilton ,
Madison , Franklin , the Pinckuoys ,
Rufus King and Roger Sherman should
be sized up at the ratio of sixteen-to-
one against the Oroker-Tillman-Altgeld
standard of statesmanship in these brisk
days of Bryanarchy ?
And how can popular government win
a great victory over itself ? Popular
government , or self-government , elects
state legislators. Popular government
delegates to those legislators the power
to elect United States senators. But if
the people do not know enough as their
greatest and commonest commoner
intimates to send decent , able , honest
men to the state legislatures , how shall
the same voters be better qualified to
choose United States senators ? And
how , by what authority , shall the duty
of selecting United States senators bo
"taken away from legislatures ? " And
when "given into the custody of the
voters" why may not the voters become
amenable to the same charges , direct
and indirect , that were made against
masses of American voters during , and
subsequent to , the campaigns of 1896
and 1900 , as to their susceptibility to the
influences of bribery and intimidation
by corporate power ? May not the same
surprised and disappointed candidate for
the presidency make charges , as to the
plutocratic power electing United States
senators , cogently and vehemently as
he made them in 1896 and 1900 ? How
can he trust a mass of voters who were
so dishonest as to elect MoKinley over
Bryan and the second time , too , by a
largely increased majority ?
A butcher and
SHEEP SHEARING , wool merchant
formed a co-part
nership to run a sheep ranch. They
were very kindhearted. They did not
wish to shear or slaughter any of the
simple sheep which they owned and
managed. All the butcher and wool-
grower asked was food and rairnenl
from the bleating flocks. And this they
said , in orations delivered to the sheep
they could easily secure so delicately
that the metamorphosed carcasses and
fleeces would really experience beati
tudes of the most celestial character.
The butcher and the wool merchant
were candidates for high offices and the
sheep were populistic voters. The pro
prietors of the. ranch have failed in
jusiuess. The live sheep closely sheared
are scurrying over the country to find
lew folds wherein they may bo warmed
and cared for. Meantime the leading
lock-master of the old firm has invented
a forage-ration made out of wordsair and
assumption ; and has begun its manu
facture at Lincoln with the hope of
Inding unlimited market therefor
among the wandering lambs. The first
few bales of this new nutrient for sheep
was extruded from the press by wolf-
power , Uncle-Jake-Wolfe-power , and
some sheep see that shearing is again
near at hand , notwithstanding the clip
taken in November , 1900.
The legislature
REPEAL. of Nebraska , now
in session , can at
tract or it can repel capital from this
state. The immediate repeal of the so-
called anti-trust-law , under the unconsti
tutional provisions of which , Smyth ,
Bryan and Company assaulted the
starch industry and other enterprises
during the last campaign , ought to be
demanded. It has never benefited any
body except the lawyers. It has harmed
everybody. It has been invoked only
by politicians and place hunters. And
they have invoked it as a means of
appealing to the envy and malice of the
vagabond voters of the country , the
tramps and hoboes who regard all
property as robbery. No decent prop
erty-owning citizens of Nebraska ever
petitioned Smyth , Oldham and com
moner demagogues with whom they
fused , to bring an action to drive the
Standard Oil Company , the Cracker
Company , Argo , United or National
Starch Company out of this common
wealth. No sensible citizen ever desired
the vote-hunting aggregation , then hold
ing office , to exile from Nebraska all
these great corporations. No man
wished all the hundreds of employees of
those corporations thrown out of wages
by the action of Smyth , Oldham & Co.
And yet if the so-called anti-trust law
with all of its unconstitutional pro
visions can bo enforced in Nebraska
there will be not a single manufacturing
plant of any importance left within the
borders of this state. And this law
never did a citizen except an attorney
one cent's worth of good. It ought to
be repealed.
Is there in , the legislature enough
moral courage , combined with a clear
insight of the best , most essential and
vital interests of the state to repeal the
law in question and all the other laws
which repel manufacture and com
merce ?
Now that Sena-
CHANDLER. tor Chandler of
Now Hampshire is
about making a temporary exit from that
iionorable body and public life in general
many of the peculiarities which dis-
ringuish him are brought to mind. His
ability as a thinker , talker and writer is
unquestioned. Equally unchallenged is
his capacity for caustic criticism. His
power of vehement , irritating , lacerating
and exasperating denunciation of mei5'
and measures was so frequently brought
into use and exercised upon so many
individuals that the gentleman from
Now Hampshire was shunned or repelled
by a number of his fellow senators. A
few of these anti-Chandler statesmen
were one day drubbing him and his
manners and methods , in a cloak room
of the United States senate , and just as
a most vituperative reprobation of
Chandler was being concluded with the
statement :
"Nobody likes him ! " Senator Proctor
of Vermont joined the party , and , at
once , somebody said :
"Well there's Proctor who sits right
next to Chandler and I will < isk him :
"Proctor , 'Do you like Chandler ? ' "
And in a moment the deep bass voice of
the like-Uiicle-Sam Senator from Ver
mont responded :
"Wai yes , I guess I do ; but its an
acquired taste. "
Among the most
GOOD SPEECHES , erudite and com
plete of many great
speeches made at the John Marshall
festivities of February 4 , 1901 , that of
Mr. James M. Woolworth of Omaha
ranks very high for researchcandor and
elegance of style. Mr. Woolworth is an
ornament to the state , and the fact that
lie stood at the front of his profession in
1856 , and that he still maintains his
precedence in 1901 , although ten thous
and lawyers , and more , have become
members of the Nebraska bar since he
began his career , proves that he was
always a man of extraordinary intellec
tual powers , high resolves and tireless
industry.
Mr. Albert Watkins of Lincoln recenth
*
t
delivered , at the obsequies of Queen'
Victoria in that city , a most thoughtful ?
beautiful and logical address. It is a
classic in eulogy. It is a credit to its
author and reflects honor upon the
citizenship of this entire commonwealth.
There is no man in Nebraska who thinks
more philosophically , reasons more logi
cally and expresses himself with more
charming lucidity of diction. In the
discussion of the tariff and finance Mr.
Watkins is head and shoulders above
any other economic thought-toller in the
state. His only fault is that ho writes
too infrequently for publication. He is
a miser of ideas which he ought to put
into circulation.