duty that the Republican candidate felt it necessary to add to his platform in several important particulars, thus rebuking the leaders of the party, upon whose co-operation he must rely for the enactment of remedial legislation.

As I shall, in separate speeches, discuss the leading questions at issue, I shall at this time confine myself to the paramount question, and to the far-reaching purpose of our party, as that purpose is set forth in the platform.

Shall the People Rule?

Our platform declares that the over-shadowing issue which manifests itself in all the questions now under discussion is "Shall the people rule?" No matter which way we turn, no matter to what subject we address ourselves, the same question confronts us: Shall the people control their own government, and use that government for the protection of their rights and for the promotion of their welfare? or shall the representatives of predatory wealth prey upon a defenseless public, while the offenders secure immunity from subservient officials whom they raise to power by unscrupulous methods? This is the issue raised by the "known abuses" to which Mr. Taft refers.

The President's Indictment Against the Party.

In a message sent to Congress last January, President Roosevelt said: "The attacks by these great corporations on the administration's actions have been given a wide circulation throughout the country, in the newspapers and otherwise, by those writers and speakers who, consciously or unconsciously, act as the representative of predatory wealth-of the wealth accumulated on a giant scale by all forms of iniquity, ranging from the oppression of the wage-earners to unfair and unwholesome methods of crushing out competition, and to defrauding the public by stock-jobbing and the manipulation of securities. Certain wealthy men of this stamp, whose conduct should be abhorrent to every man of ordinary decent conscience, and who commit the hideous wrong of teaching our young men that phenomenal business success must ordinarily be based on dishonesty, have, during the last few months, made it apparent that they have banded together to work for a reaction. Their endeavor is to overthrow and discredit all who honestly administer the law, to prevent any additional legislation which would check and restrain them, and to secure, if possible, a freedom from all restraint which will permit every unscrupulous wrongdoer to do what he wishes unchecked, provided he has enough money." What an arraignment of the predatory interests!

Is the President's indictment true? And, if true, against whom was the indictment directed? Not against the Democratic party.

Mr. Taft Indorses the Indictment.

Mr. Taft says that these evils have crept in during the last ten years. He declares that during this time some "prominent and influential members of the community, spurred by financial success and in their hurry for greater wealth, became unmindful of the common rules of business honesty and fidelity, and of the limitations imposed by law upon their actions;" and that "the revelations of the breaches of trusts, the disclosures as to rebates and discriminations by railroads, the accumulating evidence of the violation of the anti-trust laws by a number of corporations, and the over-issue of stocks and bonds of interstate railroads for the unlawful enriching of directors and for the purpose of concentrating the control of the railroads under one management" all these, he charges, "quickened the conscience of the people and brought on a moral awakening."

During all this time, I beg to remind you, Republican officials presided in the executive department, filled the cabinet, dominated the Senate, controlled the House of Representatives and occupied most of the Federal judgeships. Four years ago the Republican platform boastfully declared that since 1860-

with the exception of two years-the Republican party had been in control of part or of all the branches of the Federal Government; that for two years only was the Democratic party in a position to either enact or repeal a law. Having drawn the salaries, having enjoyed the honors, having secured the prestige, let the Republican party accept the responsibility!

Republican Party Responsible.

Why were these "known abuses" permitted to develop? Why have they not been corrected? If existing laws are sufficient, why have they not been enforced? All of the executive machinery of the Federal Government is in the hands of the Republican party. Are new laws necessary? Why have they not been enacted? With a Republican President to recommend, with a Republican Senate and House to carry out his recommendations, why does the Republican candidate plead for further time in which to do what should have been done long ago? Can Mr. Taft promise to be more strenuous in the prosecution of wrong-doers than the present executive? Can he ask for a larger majority in the Senate than his party now has? Does he need more Republicans in the House of Representatives, or a Speaker with more unlimited authority?

Why no Tariff Reform.

The President's close friends have been promising for several years that he would attack the iniquities of the tariff. We have had intimation that Mr. Taft was restive under the demands of the highly protected industries. And yet the influence of the manufacturers, who have for twenty-five years contributed to the Republican campaign fund and who in return have framed the tariff schedules, has been sufficient to prevent tariff reform.. As the present campaign approached, both the President and Mr. Taft declared in favor of tariff revision, but set the date of revision after the election. But the pressure brought to bear by the protected interests has been great enough to prevent any attempt at tariff reform before the election; and the reduction promised after the election is so hedged about with qualifying phrases that no one can estimate with accuracy the sum total of tariff reform to be expected in case of Republican success. If the past can be taken as a guide, the Republican party will be so obligated by campaign contributions from the beneficiaries of protection as to make that party powerless to bring to the country any material relief from the present tariff burdens.

Why no Anti-Trust Legislation.

A few years ago the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives were coerced by puplic opinion into the support of an anti-trust law which had the indorsement of the President, but the Senate refused even to consider the measure, and since that time no effort has been made by the dominant party to secure remedial legislation upon this subject.

Why no Railroad Legislation?

For ten years the Interstate Commerce Commission has been asking for an enlargement of its powers, that it might prevent rebates and discriminations, but a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives were unmoved by its entreaties. In 1900 the Republican National Convention was urged to indorse the demand for railway legislation, but the platform was silent on the subject. Even in 1904 the convention gave no pledge to remedy these abuses. When the President finally asked for legislation he drew his inspiration from three Democratic National platforms and he received more cordial support from the Democrats than from the Republicans. The Republicans in the Senate deliberately defeated several amendments offered by Senator La Follette and supported by the Democrats amendments embodying legislation asked by the Interstate Commerce Commission. One of these amendments authorized the ascertainment of the value of railroads. This

amendment was not only defeated by the Senate, but it was overwhelmingly rejected by the recent Republican National Convention, and the Republican candidate has sought to rescue his party from the disastrous results of this act by expressing himself, in a qualified way, in favor of ascertaining the value of the railroads.

Overissues of Stocks and Bonds.

Mr. Taft complains of the overissue of stocks and bonds of railroads "for the unlawful enriching of, directors and for the purpose of concentrating the control of the railroads under one management," and the complaint is well founded. But with a President to point out the evil and a Republican Congress to correct it We find nothing done for the protection of the public. Why? My honorable opponent has, by his confession, relieved me of the necessity of furnishing proof: he admits the condition, and he cannot avoid the logical conclusion that must be drawn from the admission. There is no doubt whatever that a large majority of the voters of the Republican party recognize, the deplorable situation which Mr. Taft describes; they recognize that the masses have had but little influence upon legislation or upon the administration of the government, and they are beginning to understand the cause. For a generation the Republican party has drawn its campaign funds from the beneficiaries of special legislation. Privileges have been pledged and granted in return for money contributed to debauch elections. What can be expected when official authority is turned over to the representatives of those who first furnish the sinews of war and then reimburse themselves out of the pockets of the taxpayers?

Fasting in Wilderness Necessary.

Its

So long as the Republican party remains in power it is powerless to regenerate itself. It cannot attack wrongdoing in high places without disgracing many of its prominent members, and it, therefore, uses opiates instead of the surgeon's knife. malfactors construe each Republican victory as an endorsement of their conduct, and threaten the party with defeat if they are interfered with. Not until that party passes through a period of fasting in the wilderness will the Republican leaders learn to study public questions from the standpoint of the masses. Just as with individuals "the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the truth," so in politics, when party leaders serve far away from home and are not in constant contact with the voters, continued party success blinds their eyes to the needs of the people and makes them deaf to the ory of distress.

Publicity as to Campaign Contributions,

An effort has been made to secure legislation requiring publicity as to campaign contributions and expenditures, but the Republican leaders, even in the face of an indignant public, refused to consent to a law which would compel honesty in elections. When the matter was brought up in the recent Republican National Convention the plank was repudiated by a vote of 880 to 94. Here, too, Mr. Taft has been driven to apologize for his convention and to declare himself in favor of a publicity law, and yet, if you will read what he says upon this subject, you will find that his promise falls far short of the requirements of the situation. He says:

"If I am elected President I shall urge upon Congress, with every hope of success, that a law be passed requiring the filing, in a federal office, of a statement of the contributions received by committees and candidates in elections for members of Congress, and in such other elections as are constitutionally within the control of Congress."

I shall not embarrass him by asking him upon what he bases his hope of success; it is certainly not on any encouragement he has received from Republican leaders. It is sufficient to say that if his hopes were realized-if, in spite of the adverse action of his convention, he should succeed in securing the enactment of

the very law which he favors, it would give but partial relief. He has read the Democratic platform; not only his language, but his evident alarm, indicates that he has read it carefully. He even had before him the action of the Democratic National Committee in interpreting and applying that platform, and yet he fails to say that he favors the publication of the contributions before the election. Of course, it satisfies a natural curiosity to find out how an election has been purchased, even when the knowledge comes too late to be of service, but why should the people be kept in darkness until the election is past? Why should the locking of the door be delayed until the horse is gone?

An Election a Public Affair.

An election is a public affair. The people, exercising the right to select their officials and to decide upon the policies to be pursued, proceed to their several polling places on election day and register their will. What excuse can be given for secrecy as to the influences at work? If a man, pecuniarily interested in "concentrating the control of the railroads in one management," subscribes a large sum to aid in carrying the election, why should his part in the campaign be concealed until he has put the officials under obligation to him? If a trust magnate contributes $100,000 to elect political friends to office, with a view to preventing hostile legislation, why should that fact be concealed until his friends are securely seated in their official position?

This is not a new question; it is a question which has been agitated a question which the Republican leaders fully understand- -a question which the Republican candidate has studied, and yet he refuses to declare himself in favor of the legislation absolutely necessary, namely, legislation requiring publication before the election.

Democratic Party Promises Publicity.

How can the people hope to rule if they are not able to learn until after the election what the predatory interests are doing? The Democratic party meets the issue honestly and courageously. It says:

cam

"We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a paign fund, and any individual from contributing an amount above a reasonable maximum, and providing for the publication, before election, of all such contributions above a reasonable minimum."

The Democratic National Committee immediately proceeded to interpret and apply this plank, announcing that no contributions would be received from corporations, that no individual would be allowed to contribute more than $10,000, and that all contributions above $100 would be made public before the election-those received before October 15 to be made public on or before that day, those received afterward to be made public on the day when received, and no such contributions to be accepted within three days of the election. The expenditures are to be published after the election. Here is a plan which is complete and effective.

Popular Election of Senators.

Next to the corrupt use of money, the present method of electing United States Senators is most responsible for the obstruction of reforms. For one hundred years after the adoption of the Constitution the demand for the popular election of senators, while finding increased expression, did not become a dominant sentiment. A constitutional amendment had from time to time been suggested and the matter had been more or less discussed in a few of the States, but the movement had not reached a point where it manifested itself through congressional action. In the Fifty-second Congress, however, a resolution was reported from a House committee proposing the necessary constitutional amendment, and this resolution passed the House of Representatives by a vote which was practically unanimous. In the Fifty-third Congress a similar resolution

was reported to and adopted by the House of Representatives. Both the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses were Democratic. The Republicans gained control of the House as a result of the election of 1894 and in the Fifty-fourth Congress the proposition died in committee. As time went on, however, the sentiment grew among the people until it forced a Republican Congress to follow the example set by the Democrats, and then another and another Republican Congress acted favorably. State after State has indorsed this reform, until nearly two-thirds of the States have recorded themselves in its favor. The United States Senate, however, inpudently and arrogantly obstructs the passage of the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the voters of the United States, by an overwhelming majority, demand it. And this refusal is the more significant when it is remembered that a number of senators owe their election to great corporate interests. Three Democratic National platforms -the platforms of 1900, 1904 and 1908-specifically call for a change in the Constitution which will put the election of senators in the hands of the voters, and the proposition has been indorsed by a number of the smaller parties, but no Republican National Convention has been willing to champion the cause of the people on this subject. The subject was ignored by the Republican National Convention in 1900; it was ignored in 1904, and the proposition was explicitly repudiated in 1908, for the recent Republican National Convention by a vote of 866 to 144 rejected the plank indorsing the popular election of senators-and this was done in the convention which nominated Mr. Taft, few delegates from his own State voting for the plank.

Personal Inclination not Sufficient.

In his notification speech the Republican candidate, speaking of the election of senators by the people says: "Personally, am inclined to favor it, but it is hardly a party question." What is necessary to make this a party question? When the Democratic convention indorses a proposition by a unanimous vote, and the Republican convention rejects the proposition by a vote of seven to one, does it not become an issue between the parties? Mr. Taft cannot remove the question from the arena of politics by expressing a personal inclination toward the Democratic position. For several years he has been connected with the administration. What has he ever said or done to bring this question before the public? What enthusiasm has he shown in the reformation of the Senate? What influence could he exert in behalf of a reform which his party has openly and notoriously condemned in its convention and to which he is attached only by a belated expression of personal inclination?

The Gateway to other Feforms.

"Shall the people rule?" Every remedial measure of a national character must run the gantiet of the Senate. The President may personally incline toward a reform; the House may consent to it, but as long as the Senate obstructs the reform the people must wait. The President may heed a popular demand; the House may yield to public opinion, but as long as the Senate is defiant the rule of the people is defeated. The Democratic platform very properly describes the popular election of senators as "the gateway to other national reforms." Shall we open the gate, or shall we allow the exploiting interests to bar the way by the control of this branch of the federal legislature? Through a Democratic victory and through a Democratic victory only, can the people secure the popular election of senators. The smaller parties are unable to secure this reform; the Republican party, under its present leadership, is resolutely opposed to it; the Democratic party stands for it and has boldly demanded it. If I am elected to the Presidency, those who are elected upon the ticket with me will be, like myself, pledged to this reform, and I shall convene Congress in extraordinary session immediately after inauguration and ask, among other things, for the fulfillment of this platform pledge.