States courts in Wisconsin and Minnesota against the General Paper Company, which had been proceeded against as a trust. The combination was, by the decision of the Supreme Court, finally dissolved. In 1906 the Supreme Court decided the celebrated Chicago street railway franchise case in favor of the city and against the traction trust. In 1899 a bill was filed in the circuit court, southern Ohio, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia, formed for the purpose of selling coal at not less than a given price, to be fixed by a committee. The trust was enjoined, and the combination was dissolved. In 1902 the circuit court, northern California, perpetually enjoined the Federal Salt Company (the salt trust) from suppressing competition west of the Rocky Mountains. In 1903 the salt trust was indicted in the same court, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. In 1905 the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company was convicted in Missouri, under the Elkins Act, of charging less than established freight rates, and was fined $15,000. Similar prosecutions in Kentucky resulted also in convictions and fines. In 1905, in Missouri, Thomas & Taggart were convicted of conspiracy to obtain rebates. Thomas was sentenced to jail for six months and fined $6,000, and Taggart was sentenced to jail for three months and fined $4,000. In 1905 Weil and others were convicted in Illinois of receiving rebates and were fined $25,000 each. In 1905 the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company and various of its officers were convicted in Illinois of granting rebates. The corporation was fined $40,000 and the officers $10,000 each. In 1906 proceedings were begun in the outhern district of New York against the tobacco trust. These resulted in several convictions, fines of $10,000 and $8,000 being inflicted upon two of the defendants. In 1906 Swift & Co., Armour & Co., Nelson Morris Company, and the Cudahy Company, of Chicago, were convicted in Missouri of receiving rebates and were fined $15,000 each. In 1906 the American Sugar Refining Company and others were convicted in New York of receiving rebates, and fines aggregating $88,000 were inflicted. In 1906 the New York Central and Hudson River Railway Company and others were convicted in New York of granting rebates, and fines aggregating $114,000 were assessed. In 1906 the Ann Arbor Railroad Company was convicted in Michigan of granting rebates and was fined $15,000. In 1907 John M. Faithorn ,of the Chicago and Alton Railway Company, was convicted in Illinois of granting rebates and was fined $25,000. In 1907 the Standard Oil Company, of Indiana, was convicted in Illinois on 1,462 counts of receiving rebates and was sentenced to pay a fine of $29,240,000. Bryan the Candidate of the Silver Trust. [New York World, February, 1908; printed in daily Congressional Record, May 29, 1908.] Your leadership of the Democratic party, Mr. Bryan, began with the national convention held in Chicago in 1896. It was an unfortunate year for a national campaign. The American people were paying the penalty of thirty years' of trifling with their currency and their monetary standard of value. Industry was half paralyzed, commerce semiprostrate. Crops had been poor, the price of farm products was low; the farms themselves were generally mortgaged. The National Government itself, with a demoralized Treasury, was borrowing money to pay its current expenses under the form of maintaining the gold reserve. Bond sales to favored syndicates had aroused the indignation of the people, without regard to party. Probably a million men in the cities were out of work. Soup houses had been opened during the two preceding winters, and in every large center of population police stations had been filled nightly by homeless wanderers. It Armies of tramps moved sullenly along the highways. A Democratic Administration was in power which seemingly had no friends except its own appointees and beneficiaries. Discontent was almost universal. was the hour of the agitator, and the Democratic national convention was his opportunity. When a temporary organization of the convention was effected the elements of repudiation and political revolution found that while they had a majority of the delegates, they did not have the two-thirds majority necessary, in accordance with Democratic precedent, to nominate a candidate for President. This embarrassment was short lived. The silver forces, by prearranged plan, had sent contesting delegations from many States, including Nebraska. Only a majority vote was necessary. to adopt the report of a committee. The committee on credentials therefore unseated enough conservative delegates to insure a radical two-thirds majority for nominating purposes, and the issue was no longer in doubt. You, Mr. Bryan, were at the head of the contesting delegates from Nebraska when they marched into the convention hall to take the seats of the sound-money delegates that had been evicted. The money plank in the platform, which the convention adopted by a vote of 626 to 303, was as follows: * * * "We demand the free and unlimited coinage of both silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender. equally with gold, for debts, public and private, and we favor such legislation as will prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal-tender money by private contract. * * The great silver mine owners of the world were in despair over the depreciation in price of their metal. Its use for money of redemption had been discontinued by the leading commercial nations. The India mints had been closed to its coinage. Congress had been forced to repeal the Sherman silver act, which had made the National Government a heavy purchaser of silver in the market. The business of the mining operators was in a bad way and ruin stared many of them in the face unless the Government of the United States created an unlimited market for their product by throwing open its mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver. Never was a political propaganda more vehemently and desperately advocated, and never were the selfish interests behind it more adroitly concealed. If the obvious self-interest of the silver miners in the 16 to 1 crusade carried on by. Democrats and Populi ts in 1896 had been as well understood as it should have been the names of these men would be as closely associated in the public mind with the silver trust as Rockefeller's is with oil or Armour's is with beef. The proposition which you advanced, Mr. Bryan, contemplated opening the mints of the United States to the free coinage on private account at the rate of less than 50-cents' worth of bullion to the dollar of whatever portion of this enormous stock of silver its owners or speculators might be moved to present. You asserted that free coinage and the fiat of Government would instantly raise every 50-cent token thus minted to parity with gold. If so, the wealth of all owners and producers of silver would have been doubled. Here is a list of some of the gentlemen who assisted in financing your theory that 50-cents' worth of silver bullion ought to be worth a dollar: Contributions to Mr. Bryan's Campaign Fund. Marcus A. Daly, Montana, principal owner of Anaconda mine. This sum of $159,000 represented Mr. Daly's own contribution and sums collected by him. David H. Moffat, First National Bank, Denver, Colo.. W. S. Stratton, Colorado, owner of Independence mine. Dennis Sheedy, Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo. D. M. Hyman, Denver, Colo.. Total contribtions of the silver-mine owners to your $159,000.00 18,000.00 12,000.00 45,000.00 7,500.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 6,000.00 18,372.00 288,000.00 These contributions, as you doubtless know, Mr. Bryan, were all recorded in the books of the Democratic national committee, although in your eloquent appeals for publicity of political contributions you have never referred to the fact that the silver interests financed your Presidential campaign. * * BRYAN FAVORS PERMANENT RETENTION OF PART OF THE PHILIPPINES. Proposes to Retain Choice Sections and Set Up the Area so Retained as an "Oriental Territory," of the United States swith a Delegate in Congress. Mr. William Jennings Bryan seems to have changed his views as to the justice of American control in the Philippines, and now favors the retention of Philippine territory for permanent ownership by the United States. At least this was his view in 1906, after a visit to those islands. In one of his syndicate letters (sold to American newspapers at so much per column), during his trip around the world, he put forth the proposition tha the United States Government should take permanent possession of such portion of the Philippine Islands and harbors as it might chose, and give the Filipinos independence and protection in only such of the area as might remain. Even this proposition of generously allowing them to retain such parts of the islands as we might not want for our own permanent occupancy and ownership is to be confined for the present to the northern part of the group, and full control retained indefinitely (with a shadowy promise of something sometime) in the southern islands, especially in the large and extremely fertile island of Mindanao (about the size of the State of Indiana), which, he naively remarks, "seems to be the most inviting place" for Americans. The following are extracts from the letter, as published in the Washington Post of April 29, 1906, and in many other newspapers of the United States and Europe, the letter being, it will be observed, "copyrighted in Great Britain." The letter was also published in full in Mr. Bryan's own paper the "Commoner" on May 4, 1906. By William Jennings Bryan. [Copyright, 1906, by Joseph B. Bowles. Copyright in Great Britain. All rights reserved.] SINGAPORE, Jan. 22, 1906. of In speaking of Philippine independence I have presented some the reasons given by Filipinos for desiring it, but there are arguments which ought to appeal especially to Americans. If it were our duty to maintain a colonial policy, 110 argument could be made against it, because duties are imperative and never conflict. If, on the other hand, the Filipinos desire independence and are capable of self-government, we cannot justify the retention of the islands unless we are prepared to put our own interests above theirs, and even then we must be satisfied that our interests will be advanced. If it is urged that we need the Philippine Islands as a base for the extension of our trade in the Orient, I answer that it is not necessary to deny the Filipino independence in order to hold a sufficient number of harbors and coaling stations to answer all requirements of trade. The Filipinos are not only anxious to have the advantage of our protection, but they recognize that to protect them we must have harbors and a naval base. In return for the services we have rendered them we have the right to ask, and they would gladly grant, such reservations as we might need. These reservations could be properly fortified and would furnish coaling stations both for our own navy and for our merchant marine. If our nation would at once declare its intention to treat the Filipinos living north of Mindanao as it treated the Cubans, and then proceed, first, to establish a stable government, patterned after our own; second, to convert that government into a native government by the substitution of Filipno officials as rapidly as possible; third, to grant independence to the Filipinos, reserving such harbors and naval stations as may be thought necessary; and fourth, to announce its purpose to protect the Filipinos from outside interferences while they work out their destiny-if our nation would do this, it would save a large annual expense, protect its trade interests, gratify the just ambitions of the Filipinos for national existence, and repeat the moral victory won to Cuba. In return for protection from without, the Filipinos would agree, as the Cubans did, that in their dealings with other nations they would not embarrass us. The reservations retained could be converted into centers for the extension of American influence and American ideals, and our nation would increase its importance as a real world power. * ** * Our reservations ought to contain model schools, with a central college, experimental farms, and institutions in which the people could be trained in the arts and industries most suited to the natural resources of the country. At our reservations there would be religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of press, self-government, and public instruction for all, and every uplifting influence would have free play. If we believe right makes might and that truth has within itself propagating power, we cannot doubt the spread of American civilization from these American centers. a. While the Philippine Islands are under American authority, the government ought to be administered for the benefit of the Filipinos, in accordance with Secretary Taft's promise If they are to be subject to our tariff laws when they buy of other nations, they ought to have free trade with us, but the Philippine Islands are so far from us that it would be more just to allow the Philippine tariff to be made by the Philippine assembly soon to be established. The Filipinos belong to the Orient, and their dealings must be largely with the countries of the Orient; unless they are in a position to have their tariff laws conform to their geographical position, there must necessarily be friction and injustice. So important are geographical considerations that Americans who see fit to take up their residence upon such rescrvations as we retain for harbors, coaling stations. and a naval base ought to be freed from the fetters of our tariff laws and shipping laws. I even venture to suggest the creation of an Oriental territory, to be composed of such stations and reservations as we may now have or hereafter acquire in the Orient. This territory should have a delegate in Congress like other territories, but should be free by constitutional amendment Irom our tariff laws and permitted to legislate for itself upon this subject. It could thus establish free ports, if it chose, and give to its people the trade advantages enjoyed by those who live in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other open ports. * * ** * In what I have said about independence and self-government in the Philippines, I have been speaking of Luzon and the other islands north of Mindanao. As I have already pointed out, the conditions existing in Mindanao and Sulu archipelago are so different from those existing in the northern islands that the two groups must be dealt with separately. It would not be fair to deny independence to the Christian Filipinos living in the north merely because the Moros have never shown any desire to adopt a republican form of government. (They live under a sort of feudal system, with sultan and datto as the ruling lords.) But while the work of establishing a stable government among the Moros is a more difficult one and will proceed more slowly, the same principles should govern it. * * * While I do not believe that any large number of Americans could be induced to settle permanently in Mindanao (and Mindanao seems to be the most inviting place), there will be ample time to test this question while a government is being established among the Moros. So it appears that Mr. Bryan, after seeing the islands, has become an Imperialist in the full sense of the word, and calmly proposes that instead of governing them with the plan of ultimate independence for all their people and territory, we shall seize as much of the territory as we may desire, including, of course, its best harbors, and set it up as a Territory of the United States, without any question as to the wishes of the people there residing and owning homes. He has insisted that the Republican policy of depriving the Filipinos of self-government even temporarily is wrong; now he proposes to compel them to pay for independence in a part of their territory by giving up another part to become permanently a part of the United States. Nor does he indicate how large an area he would compel them to pass over to us, whether one-tenth, onefourth, or one-half of the islands would ultimately become the proposed “Oriental Territory," with a delegate in the United States Congress. If one visit to the islands convinces Mr. Bryan that we should retain a part of their area (the most valuable of course) and make it a Territory of the United States, with a delegate in Congress, would another visit convince him that we should retain them all and bring them in as States, with Senators and Representatives? Mr. Bryan has asserted that we were and are doing the Filipinos great injustice by depriving them of independence. Now he proposes that we compel them to buy that independence for a part of their people by giving us therefor a part of their area and population, and that we make that area a Territory of the United States. If it was wrong to even temporarily deprive the islands as a whole of independence, how would it be right to take a part of that territory (no matter how small) and make it forever subject to the United States, forcing the people to assent to this as the price of giving up the remainder? Does he propose that we must now be paid for doing what he says should have been freely done long ago? The national Democratic platform also supports the proposition in modified form, as follows: "We favor an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon as the stable government can be established, such independence to be guaranteed by us as we guarantee the independence of Cuba, until the neutralization of the islands can be secured by treaty with other powers. In recognizing the independence of the Philippines our government should retain such land as may be necessary for coaling stations and naval bases." Bryan Yearns over Filipinos, but will not Imperil his Political Chances to Demand Justice for the American Negro. [New York Evening Post, Democratic.] Mr. Bryan made his great bid for Southern delegates last night, and we do not doubt that he will get them. In answer to a question after his address on "Universal Brotherhood" at Cooper Union, he stood up openly for negro disfranchisement in the South. Of course, he had to put in the usual assertion that if Northern Republicans had lived in the South they would have done the same as Southern Democrats, but what has that to do with a question of morals and of law, which Mr. Bryan was professing to discuss without any personal or party interest? He yearns over the oppressed Filipino; his heart bleeds for the poor and down trodden everywhere; yet when it comes to equal treatment for the black men of his own country, all he has to say is that "the white men of the South are determined that the negro shall be disfranchised everywhere it is necessary to prevent the recurrence of the horrors of carpet-bag rule." This will be telegraphed all over the South to-day, and will doubtless kill off the opposition to Bryan there, but it leaves his "Universal Brotherhood" looking like the cheapest kind of cant. The wronged negro asks: "Am I not a man and a brother," but Mr. Bryan's reply is: "Not if you live in the South, and if saying a word for your rights would imperil my political fortunes." Bryan says he is More Radical than in 1898. LONDON, July 12, 1906. William J. Bryan, having read the American newspapers, consented to-day to discuss questions raised since he again became prominent as a Presidential possibility. He said: one "I notice that I am now described by some as a conservative. In sense I always have been a conservative. The Democratic polices are conservative in that they embody old principles applied to new conditions. "If, however, by the word conservative they mean that I have changed my positions on any public question or moderated my opposition to corporate aggrandizement they have a surprise waiting for them. am more radical than Ι was in 1896 and have nothing to withdraw on economic questions which have been under discussion. I "The only question we discussed in 1896 upon which there has been any apparent change is the silver question, and that has not been a change in the advocates of bimetallism, but in conditions. I believe in bimetallism, and I believe that the restoration of silver would bring still further prosperity, besides restoring par in exchange between gold and suver using countries; but I recognize, as do all other bimetallists whom I have met abroad, that the unexpected and unprecedented increase in gold production has for the present removed the silver question as an issue." At the Fourth of July meeting of the American Society in London Mr. Bryan said with reference to the silver question: "I wish to say that when I see the progress my country has made walking on one leg, I wonder what it would have done walking on two legs." Bryan's Nomination Means Taft's. Election. [New York World, June 19, 1908.] With Mr. Bryan as Mr. Taft's opponent the campaign can end only in a Republican victory. Mr. Bryan has been leader of the Democratic party virtually for twelve years, and the state of the party bears eloquent testimony to the quality of his leadership. Of forty-six States the Democrats control only thirteen and the Republicans thirty-three. There are only thirty-one Democrats in the United States Senate to sixty-one Republicans, and another Republican Senator, elected in Kentucky to succeed a Democrat, will take his seat March 4. There are only two antiRepublican Senators north of the line of the Missouri Compromise. Outside of New York city there are only thirty-seven Democrats in both houses of Congress from the entire East, North, and West. Mr. Bryan's own State has gone Republican in every election for seven years, although he arranged a fusion ticket and framed a platform for every campaign. New Jersey, the only Northern State which failed to give its electoral votes to Lincoln in 1860 and which went Democratic in every national election but one for forty years gave a Republican majority of 87,000 against Mr. Bryan in 1896 and has been Republican ever since. The story of New York is not greatly unlike the story of New Jersey. Thanks to Bryanism, New York ceased to be a debatable State in Presidential elections. The Republican plurality in 1896 was 268.000; in 1900 it was 143.000; in 1904 it was 175,000. In most of the counties of this State the Democratic party has all but gone out of existence. A parallel to the disastrous consequences of Bryan leadership can be found only in the civil war. Every idea, principle, or issue represented by Mr. Bryan or presented against him by the Republicans has been submitted to the verdict of the voters in the Congressional elections during the last twelve years no less than in the Presidential elections, and in every House of Representatives chosen the Republicans have had a majority. It is evident that only new conditions, new issues, and new candidates can produce any decided change from the results of these preceding elections. With an beaten candidate on an unbeaten platform the Democrats would have a fighting chance in the campaign, despite the long demoralization of their party: but what can a thrice-beaten party do with a twice-beaten candidate whose policies have already overwhelmed the Democratic organization in wreck and ruin? un |