Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTIA N
3
uJlii> Atlantian
Published Monthly by E. WALTER TRIPP
Box 118, Atlanta, Georgia
THE ATLANTIAN will give free space to all Secret Societies and Labor Or
ganizations.
On the other hand, we put everybody on notice when THE ATLANTIAN makes
a statement which we believe to be true, and such statement goes uncontroverted, we
shall insist that it is true
c3§j§||j£5) Published Monthly by The Atlantian Publishing Co. <r
VOL. 4 JULY
No. 42
Our Motto: “Pull for Atlanta, or Pull
Out.”
H
Editorial Etchings
H
Some Fourth of July Thoughts
For one hundred and thirty-five years we have been celebrating
Fourth of July with a good deal of noise. It strikes us that an excel
lent way to celebrate the day would be to take an inventory each year,
and see what real headway has been made in Democratic government.
It must not be forgotten that the Declaration of Independence
was the foundation stone upon which has been built up the so-called
Democratic government of the United States.
In 1912 we find the Convention of that great political body
which has ruled the country for nearly fifty years so thoroughly
dominated by sinister influences and predatory wealth, that a former
president of the United States, followed by practically one-lialf of the
membership of the Convention, was compelled to secede with a view
to organizing a new party along real Democratic lines.
At the moment this is written the Convention of the other great
party is in session in the City of Baltimore, and present appearances
indicate that this party also is dominated by the same influences that
brought its great rival to its knees at Chicago.
It would be a startling revelation to Thomas Jefferson, the
founder of the Democratic party, if his spirit could be advised of the
fact that among the Virginia delegates to the present convention
looms up the sinister figure of Thomas F. Ryan, one of the most re
doubtable leaders of that band of piratical free-booters which has
controlled the United States for many years past.
Among the dominant figures in that Convention appear such men
as Roger Sullivan, of Illinois; Thomas Taggart, of Indiana, whose
wealth is said to have been gained from a gambling institution; Charles
Murphy, of New York, head-master of the Tammany Society, the
long career of which is one of the darkest stains upon our history;
James M. Guffey, of Pennsylvania, one of that group of oil million
aires whose record is known of all men—and these men are sitting
cheek by jowl with such men as Bryan, Gore, Henry and other men
who are real Democrats.
In that great Convention the State of Georgia is represented by
twenty-eight re-actionary delegates, whose vote can be counted upon
absolutely in favor of the sinister influences above referred to, and
against the welfare of the common people—and this is the Democratic
party in the year 1912, one-half Democrat and one-lialf Tory.
The same conditions exist in the Republican party, only that the
dominant Tory element of that party has ejected the real Democratic
element, and in so far clarified the atmosphere.
It begins to look as if the real Democrats in the Baltimore Con
vention will not have the courage to draw the line between the sheep
and the goats, and that the so-called Democratic party of today will
continue to do as it has done for many years past—what a reporter
aptly said a few days ago, “Yell for its heroes and vote for its
masters.”
After one hundred and thirty-five years of celebration, we find
the country absolutely controlled by predatory interests; we find
the burdens upon the common people almost unbearable, and we
find a few men in possession of such wealth as has never been dreamed
of in any former generation or in any country. Certainly the in
ventory does not show that we have made a brilliant success of
Democracy, and Mr. Carnegie’s book labeled “Triumphant Democ
racy,” becomes a fine piece of sarcasm.
What we need in this good year of 1912 is a renaissance of De
mocracy and a re-alignment of men along the line of conviction.
Every Democrat in the country, whatever he may have been called
heretofore, should get in line with real progressive Democracy; and
every re-actionary and stand-patter should go where he belongs—as
a follower of the fat and fatuous leader of the so-called regular Re
publicans. Until this is done there can be no hope of real reform in
our governmental institutions, and no hope of real Democratic gov
ernment.
As long as men continue to vote their prejudices and adhere
to dead names, rather than to principles, we may not expect amend
ment.
As an illustration of present conditions in the so-called Demo
cratic party—take Messrs. Clark Howell, of Georgia, and Woodrow
Wilson, of New Jersey. If Mr. Howell is a Democrat, Mr. Wilson is
is not. If Mr. Wilson is a Democrat, Mr. Howell is not. Mr. Wilson
represents an advanced type of progressive Democracy. Mr. Howell’s
life-record shows him to be a consistent re-actionary. If these two
men can foregather under the same blanket, one is absolutely forced
to the conclusion that they care more for the possession of the bed
than they do for the condition of the tenement in which the bed is
located.
It is time, and high time, for all thoughtful men to spend a few
hours of the Fourtli of July in meditation, and see if their civic duty
does not require a forward movement in order that this country may
be restored to a government of all the people—for the fundamental
and paramount issue of 1912 is not the tariff, however bad that may
be, nor the good or bad trusts, nor a mighty navy, nor any other
detail of government—but goes back of all this to the primary ques
tion: SHALL THE PEOPLE RULE?
Senator Hoke Smith and the Work
men’s Compensation Act
Senator Smith’s position on the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
now pending in the United States Congress, is so eminently sound that
it is entitled to high commendation. A summary of his views is ex
pressed in the following paragraphs:
“I am opposed to the bill in its present form, because it
would prove a serious loss to the men working for railroads.
“It would become their exclusive remedy for injuries,
thereby taking away from them their present rights.
“It would leave the employee where he must still fre
quently litigate. It would require the trial of his case before
a Federal special master called an adjuster, and prevent his
contracting for counsel.
“It would arbitrarily reduce his recovery to about one-
third what he is now entitled to; it would greatly reduce the
recovery of his family if he is killed, and allow payments only
by the month instead of in a bulk sum, except where a peti
tion is presented to a Federal court judge and he, for cause
shown, directs monthly payments commuted to a lump sum.”
This summary so entirely covers the situation that it is not neces
sary to enter into any enlarged argument. This is a summary of the
speech delivered by him on April 15,1912, in the Senate, in opposition
to the measure.
We would like for our readers to read this carefully, because it
is a matter of vast importance to the working men of the country—
or more particularly to the railroad employees of the country, who
number a million and a half of good citizens.
We cannot disabuse our minds, of the impression that this bill
must have been formulated by railroad attorneys. They were shrewd
enough to get into the confidence of, and secure-the adhesion of, Mr.
W. G. Lee, President of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. Mr.