proportion to the benefits which he receives under the protection of the Government. We believe that a revenue tariff, approached gradually, according to the plan laid down in our platform, will equalize the burdens of taxation, and that the addition of an income tax will make taxation still more equitable. If the Republican party is to have the support of those who find a pecuniary profit in the exercise of the taxing power, as a private asset in their business, we ought to have the support of that large majority of the people who produce the nation's wealth in time of peace, protect the nation's flag in time of war, and ask for nothing from the Government but even-handed justice.

X

THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN

NEBRASKA

Delivered at the Democratic State Convention in Grand Island, Nebraska, July 26th, 1910, in support of the minority report presented by him as a member of the Resolutions Committee.

I

SHALL read the substitute which I offer for

the majority report on this subject: "We favor county option as the best method of dealing with the liquor question." I appreciate the spirit of fairness that has characterized the democrats who, if we can judge by what has occurred, are in a majority in this convention, and I assure you that it is with very great regret that I find myself compelled to differ from those with whom I have been associated so intimately and so pleasantly for so many years. In view of the fact that many democrats think me responsible for the introduction of this question, and accuse me of disturbing the harmony of the party at this time; in view of the fact that many feel that I have forfeited my right to your confidence, I think I am entitled to present my defense.

Demosthenes defined the duty of a statesman by saying that he should "foresee and foretell." Possibly after three nominations for the presidency it would not be presumptuous to count myself an humble member of the group called statesmen; but if there is objections to that I am sure you will

allow me to call myself one of the leaders of the democratic party in Nebraska. And I think it is only fair to apply to the leader the definition of statesmanship given by Demosthenes. It is the duty of the leader to "foresee and foretell,' and I shall not ask you to deal leniently with me if I have fallen below this standard. If I have not foreseen coming evils and told you of them, spare me not; if I have advocated that which is not good for this State, let me feel your wrath. While I am not willing to accept that definition of party loyalty that puts consideration for the party good above consideration for the State's welfare, yet, for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept that definition of party loyalty, and have you measure me by it. If you find that I have done anything that is not for the benefit of the democratic party, I ask no mercy at your hands.

Do not accuse me of indifference to the harmony of the democratic party. Who among you has more reason to desire harmony than I? For sixteen years we have never had a dissenting vote on our platform in Nebraska; for sixteen years we have been in full and hearty agreement in regard to platforms. For sixteen years you have trusted me and I have trusted you. Who could desire, less than I, to disturb the harmony of the party? You must make a strong case against me if you would overcome the presumption in my favor.

Not only that, but who will suffer more than I if I find myself justly repudiated by my own people? My work is in national politics; I travel from State to State, and I am aware that a repudiation by you

will be heralded throughout the land and used against me. Do I not know that the paragraphers are already saying that I am to be turned down in my own State? Is that a matter of no consequence to me? Can you believe that anything less than an imperative sense of duty would lead me to differ from you? Never in my life have I performed a duty that I less desired to perform; and never have I felt more sure that I was performing a duty.

It has been said by some that I am fighting on this subject now because I am not a candidate. That is unkind, my friends. No one who knows my record will accuse me of fighting under conditions under which I would have kept still if I was a candidate. Go back to '92 when I was a candidate-a candidate for Congress without opposition. I went into the State convention, with only three men encouraging me and began a fight. They refused to put me on the committee on resolutions from my own county, and I was put on by act of the convention. I brought in a minority report signed by myself alone and made my fight when friends told me it would defeat me for Congress. In '93 I was a member of Congress, and yet I came back to a State convention at Lincoln-a convention controlled by candidates for federal offices-and there again I made a fight, although I knew that my resolution was sure to be defeated. Did I show cowardice? Was I afraid to jeopardize my own chances by taking a position?

And the year afterwards I made a fight for a policy against the national administration of my

party, against the committee then in charge and I was then a candidate for the United States Senate. Some who now tell me that I must not disturb the harmony of the party were with me then, fighting for principle and not asking what the effect was going to be on the party. I remember that in '94 the distinguished democrat, Judge Oldham, who has just addressed you, was with us, and we made him our permanent chairman at a time when the money question was so acute that there was a bolt from our convention. If you will look back over the last eighteen years you will not accuse me of being in this fight because I am not a candidate. I am interested because it is an issue, and because individuals and parties must meet issues as they arise.

I have been called a dictator because I expressed my opinion on this subject. Have not others expressed their opinions? Have not the candidates for Governor told you what they thought ought to go into the platform and what ought to be left out? Have not the candidates for Senator expressed their opinion? Have not many individuals expressed an opinion? By what law am I compelled to suppress an opinion upon a question which affects my State's welfare and my party's interest? Is it because I have been your candidate for president? I would not accept an office or a nomination if there were attached to it a pledge that I would see wrong done and not raise my voice in protest.

And some have said that I am actuated by a spirit of resentment; that I am mad because the liquor interests were against me last fall. Well, my friends, it is true that the liquor democrats and