Newspaper Page Text
EDITORIAL PAGE
The Democratic Platform and the Opinion of the Nation
Mr. WILSON is being advised
to reject part of the Demo
cratic platform. He might
well be advised to reject practically
all of it. The Democratic house
ha.s ignored or repudiated the most
commendable planks of the plat
form, and there is no reason why
Wilson should be burdened in the
coming campaign by the ram
shackle remaining planks. The
Democratic platform declared that
‘‘our pledges are made to be kept.”
The Democratic house, the one
branch of the national government
which the Democrats control, has
already proved that the best pro
vision in the platform was made
only to be broken.
With the navy plank and one or
two other Democratic and undesir
able planks eliminated, the plat
form is left undemocratic, unpro
gressive and unsound. It is absurd
ly extreme in one point and scan
dalously inadequate in nearly
every other point. It is absolutely
without constructive policy or com
prehensive understanding of the
urgent needs of the people and the
irresistible tendencies of the times.
The platform, though made by
Bryan, was made for Wilson. The
usual procedure at conventions was
reversed, and the platform was
made after the nomination of the
candidate. It was Mr. Bryan’s idea,
and a characteristic one, that the
principles of the Democratic party
should be modified to suit the can
didate rather than the candidate se
lected to fit the principles of the
Democratic party. Yet this plat
form can not suit the candidate, for
there is hardly a word in it that
conforms to I>r. Wilson’s recent ut -
terances since he ceased to be a re
actionary and became a militant
progressive. The cobntry demand
ed a progressive candidate and a
progressive program.
The Democracy has given the
country as its candidate a convert
to progressive principles, yet there
are but a few' planks in the plat
form which echo his progressive
sentiments or express the progres
sive spirit of this progressive age.
The country’ expected, and had a
right to expect, from a conscien
tious and courageous Democrat a
constructive platform: yet there is
hardly a paragraph in the platform
which is constructive.
There is hardly a partigraph
which offers a satisfactory solution
of the conditions it criticises, or
proposes a practicable remedy for
the evils of which the citizens so
justly complain.
The platform is Bryan’s, and is a
characteristic combination of Bry
an’s ignorance and egotism. He has
sacrificed the real issues of pro
gressive Democracy to substitute
his own visionary views and fan
tastic fancies. It is more than Dr.
Wilson’s privilege to reject a plat
form which misrepresents the Dem
ocracy iand embarrasses himself—
It is his duty both to himself and
to the citizens.
Dr. Wilson is In a peculiar and a
delicate position before the country.
There are many devoted Democrats
still in doubt as to his actual at
titude and his permanent position
upon the leading issues of the day.
A platform, therefore, which does
not express accurately and aggres
sively Wilson’s actual views must
prove embarrassing to him and to
the Democracy as well, since those
skeptical citizens who doubt the
genuineness of Dr. Wilson’s conver
sion to progressive principles will
have their doubts confirmed by a
platform which contains few posi
tive or progressive utterances oth
er than the unsound and extreme
plank on the tariff.
The tariff plank reflects Bryan’s
free trade views and recalls Bryan’s
attitude as a congressman. At that
time he called the manufacturers
"robbers” and the working men
"beggars,” when they came before
the way’s and means committee to
present their arguments in favor of
the principle of protection
Evidently Bry'an’s views have not
changed. Always violent and al
ways visionary, he is more ready to
destroy than resourceful to con
struct.
The most positive plank in the
platform is the tariff plank. That
plank declares that the Federal gov
ernment has no right or power to
collect tariff duties except for the
purposes of revenue.
That plank repudiates the whole
protective theory and concludes
with an appeal to the American
people “to support us in our de
mands fur a tariff for revenue
only.”
There is some modification of
this declaration in the text of the
plank, but as a whole the tariff
plank boldly brings into question
the whole theory of protection and
makes the Democratic fight a fight
on the basis of a tariff for revenue
only, against the Republican idea
of a tariff for protection and de
velopment of American industries.
The Democratic plank declares
that protection does not tend to
increase the wages of American
workmen, but that those wages are
determined by the competitive sys
tem.
If, however, the tariff tends to
develop new industries and in that
way to give employment to a great
er number of men, it will be diffi
cult for the Democrats to argue
that the tariff does not increase the
demand for labor, and. therefore,
tend to increase the price of labor.
If the reduction of the tariff to
the point of the basis of revenue
onl| would tend to eliminate any
It is more than Dr. Wilson’s privilege to reject a platform which misrepresents the
Democracy and embarrasses himself—it is his duty both to himself and to the citizens
considerable number of American
industries, it w'ould be difficult for
the Democrats to argue that the
men employed in those industries
thrown out of work and thrown
iu)on the labor market would not
tend to reduce the price of labor,
which is wages, through the very
competitive system which the Dem
ocrats allude to.
True enough, the greater the de
mand for labor the higher the price
of labor.
But the demand for labor is
made through the number and ex
tent of the industries requiring la
bor and employing labor. And
when that demand is lessened
through the elimination of any con
siderable number of those indus
tries, then the competition for em
ployment is increased and the price
of labor is reduced.
For the Democrats, therefore, to
make their proposition sound, they’
must prove that the protective tar
iff does not tend to increase the
number of industries in this coun
try and the employment of labor
by’ those industries.
The plank contains, however,
proper criticism of President Taft
for his veto of the farmers' free
list, the woolen schedule and other
reasonable and legitimate and mod
erate plans of tariff reduction pro
posed by the Democratic house of
representatives under the leader
ship of Champ Clark.
The second plank in the Demo
cratic platform relates to the high
cost of living and says that the
high cost of living is due to the
high tariff Jaws enacted and main
tained by the Republican party and
to the trusts and commercial cop
spiracies fostered and encouraged
by such laws.
The high cost of living is not
confined to the United States, and.
therefore, can not be wholly due to
any strictly American institution,
not even to the Republican party.
The high cost of living is com
plained of in England and has
brought about many strikes and
much discontent In that country.
The high cost of living is com
plained of in France and has
brought about riots in that coun
try.
The high cost of living is com
plained of in Germany' and has
brought about discontent and dis
turbance in that country.
The Republican party of the
United States does not exercise
much influence in England or
France or Germany.
Neither do our tariff conditions
nor any other tariff conditions, be
cause England is a free-trade coun
try and Germany' is a protection
country.
The high cost of living must,
therefore, be due to other and
broader propositions than those
discovered by the Democrats such
as assembled at Baltimore.
It must be due to universal con
ditions, for in every country of the
world the cost of living has in
creased enormously.
What are those universal condi
tions? First, the greater cheapness
of money, the enormous production
of gold and the general extension of
credits. These conditions have
made the medium of exchange so
much cheaper that a dollar today’
does not buy what 50 cents or even
25 cents would have bought a few'
years ago.
The dollars themselves, on ac
count of the quantity of them, being
less valuable, it takes many more
of those dollars to buy the same
tiling than it took a few years ago.
That is one of the main reasons
for the increased cost of living.
Another Important and universal
reason for the Increased cost of
living is the better compensation
given in these days to the produc
ing classes for their work and for
their products.
The greater intelligence and the
greater efficiency of the working
men and the farmer and other pro
ducers have enabled them to get a
more rightful reward for their ef
fort, a higher reward for labor, a
greater payment for their product.
All intelligent citizens want the
farmers to be well-to-do. yet they
<an not be well-to-do unless they’
are paid high prices for their prod
ucts, and they can not be paid high
prices for their ] roducts without
compelling a high cost of living to
the consuming public.
All intelligent citizens want the
working man to receive high wages,
but the working m in can not re
ceive high wages without increas
ing the cost of production of the
articles on which he labors, and the
cost of production of those articles
can not be increased without in
creasing the high cost of living.
The cost of living will never be
reduced in these particulars. Money
will remain cheap, and, in all prob
ability, become cheaper. Farmers
will continue to be well paid for
their work, and will become even
better paid.
Laborers will continue to secure
higher wages, and should continue
to secure higher wages.
This means that the cost of liv
ing will not be materially reduced
except in certain forced and unnat
ural eases of combinations to se
cure unjust and unreasonable prices.
if. then, the cost of living is not
to be reduced, the remedy is to
increase the income of the individ
ual to enable him to meet the in
creased cost of living.
The evil of extortion of high
prices might be overcome by Fed
eral incorporation to supervise ami
to regulate all trusts and cunibinu-
The Atlanta Georgian
tions and by empowering the gov
ernment to fix the prices of the
products of such trusts and combi
nations.
This phase of the situation the
Democratic platform does not go
into, and the other phases of the
high cost of living, <|ue to the great
er cheapness of money and to the
greater reward to the producing
classes, the Democratic platform
does not seem to comprehend.
To lay to the Republican party
the blame for th© conditions which
exist all over the world is an ab
surdity.
And to fall to have a constructive
plank on one of the most impor
tant issues before this country and
all other countries is an evidence of
Ignorance and incapacity.
A further evidence of ignorance
and incapacity is exhibited in the
anti-trust plank, the third plank of
the Democratic platform. The pol
icy of the Democratic party is ap
parently Mr. Taft's policy of en
forced competition, the policy
which proved so disastrous to busi
ness and so absolutely valueless
to the consuming public when
pressed to its ultimate conclusion
under the Taft administration.
The dissolution of the Oil trust
and the Tobacco trust resulted in
no benefit to the consumer what
ever.
It resulted only in an apparent
advantage to these companies and
an enormous increase in the value
of their securities.
Competition has not been re
stored because competition can not
be compelled.
Prices have not been reduced,
but. on the contrary, have been in
creased.
1 he only advantage to business,
or to the community, has come
through a certain security and sta
bility to those business interests
affected, and a certain confidence
due to the conviction that they are
now conducting their combination
along legal lines.
Nothing, however, has been ac
complished for the consuming pub
lic, and nothing will be accom
plished until the government is em
powered to supervise and regulate
the formation of combinations and
further empowered to fix prices.
The fundamental importance of
this fact is not recognized or un
derstood by the Democrats who
wrote the platform at Baltimore,
and Die platform has no practical
constructive policy in this third im
portant issue before our country.
The fourth plank in the Demo
cratic platform discusses states’
rights.
There has been considerable Dem
ocratic outcry about the invasion
of states' rights and very little to
justify the outcry. The rights of
the states and the Federal govern
ment are very clearly defined by the
constitution.
The Federal influence can only
proceed to a certain point.
In many cases it ought, for the
benefit of the whole community, to
be able to proceed further.
But it will not be able to proceed
further on account of the very defi
nite restrictions of the constitution.
To take a concrete example, there
can be state incorporation acts and
Federal incorporation acts for the
regulation and supervision of
trusts. But the state incoporation
acts qpn be made to apply only to
combinations existing and operat
ing within the state, while the Fed
eral incorporation act can only ap
ply to trusts and combinations en
gaged in interstate commerce.
i's course, all trusts and combi
nations engaged in interstate com
merce should be eompelh d to go
under the Federal corporation act
for the sake of uniformity and to
prevent them from taking advan
tage of the lax laws of certain
states to the injury of the commu
nity.
Still, with all the advantages of
Federal incorporation, trusts and
combinations operating merely
within the state can not be com
pelled to come under such an act.
Therefore, obviously enough, the
field and the power of Federal and
states’ rights are clearly and suffi
ciently <i< lined.
The objection of the Democrats
to the legitimate exercise of Fed
eral powers, where they exist and
are guaranteed by the constitution,
is a baseless one.
As a matter of fact, in the con
duct of the business of this great
country the Federal government
should often have greater powers
than it has and can have under the
constitution. Ami in order to se
cure a uniformity of laws in the
different states as the best possi
ble substitute for Federal laws,
where Federal laws are not possi
ble, the co-operation of all the
states should be encouraged and
such expedients as the congress of
governors begun under Mr. Roose
velt’s administration should be con
tinued with a view to securing that
end.
It is unfortunate that the Dem
ocratic platform did not make some
such recommendations as these.
The Democratic platform next
approves of the income tax and
popular election of senators by the
people, and applauds those who
have acted toward putting these
measures in effect.
These measures, inaugurated by
the Populists, incorporated then
into three successive Democratic
platforms and finally indorsed and
enforced by the Republican admin-
THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1912.
istration, are matters of universal
congratulation.
The Democrats have done their
share toward advancing these
measures to fulfillment, and 'can
properly take a good part of the
credit for their success.
It is fortunate, however, that in
this so-called progressive platform
the only measures distinctly and
definitely recommended are the
measures which are already, for
the most part, achieved.
The next plank in the Demo
cratic platform declares for presi
dential primaries in the election of
delegates to the national conven
tion.
This plank is inadequate and un
progressive. It is worse than worth
less, since it merely pretends to
offer a solution. Its suggestion is
not a solution.
It proposes a remedy which w ill
not remedy the conditions that the
people object to; yet offers the
stone of pretense instead of the
bread of performance.
The uselessness of presidential
primaries followed by a convention
in which the delegates may defy
the expressed will of the people
has been shown by the convention
at Baltimore.
A vast majority’ of delegates
elected by’ presidential primaries to
that convention were elected to
vote for Champ Clark and instruct
ed to vote for Champ Clark.
But Mr. Bryan, like many other
delegates in that convention, re
pudiated his instructions, denied
the right of the people to express
their choice through presidential
primaries, assumed a superior right
for himself and not only refused to
vote for Champ Clark, but did his
worst to defeat Champ Clark, the
choice of the people of his state
and his district.
There will be other delegates to
other conventions as discreditable
as Mr. Bryan, with as little moral
ity’ and as little sense of right and
decency as Mr. Bryan.
Other delegates elected by presi
dential primaries, perhaps follow
ing Mr. Bryan’s leadership and cit
ing Mr. Bryan's example, will re
fuse to accept the instructions of
their constituents, will refuse to
vote according to the expressed will
of the people in presidential pri
maries and will take it upon them
selves to defeat the will of the peo
ple and to vote according to the
will of the corporations expressed
in a more material form.
For a presidential primary to be
effective there must be no conven
tion, no delegates with so much
power and so little, character as to
fail to carry out the popular will.
The next president must be nom
inated by direct primaries without
any convention and without any
delegated power to unscrupulous
and unreliable representatives.
The next president must be nom
inated by direct primaries, and the
man who gets the greatest number
of votes according to the electoral
vote of the state must be the nomi
nee of the pairty.
When the Democratic convention
failed to declare in favor of such a
just and genuine direct primary’ it
failed conspicuously’ to be progres
sive or ev'en to be Democratic.
The next plank of the Demo
cratic platform relates to campaign
contributions. The plank pledges
the Democratic party to the enact
ment of a law prohibiting any cor
porations from contributing to a
campaign fund. The only objec
tion to such laws is their inad
equacy.
As a matter of fact, neither this
proposition nor the following one,
where any individual is prohibited
from contributing an amount above
a reasonable maximum, is of any’
particular value.
If an individual desires to con
tribute a large sum he can always
do it through various other indi
viduals. and the beneficiaries of
special legislation can always man
age to return courtesies by liberal
campaign contributions, in spite of
restrictions of this kind.
The only method of preventing
corruption in elections is not to try
to limit contributions, but actually
to limit expenditures.
What is needed is a law which
will allow expenditures for litera
ture. speeches and other means of
informing the people, yvhieh will
allow expenditures for any legiti
mate appeal to the intelligence and
conscience of the public, but which
will not allow any other expendi
ture whatsoever, and which will
define any other expenditure as
bribery’ and punish it as such.
When we have a law of that kind
we shall have clean elections.
There will be no objection to
spending money if it is spent mere
ly for the information of the voters,
but there will be no need for any
great expenditure of money on such
a basis.
If any other expenditure of
money is made, the individual so
expending it or causing it to be ex
pended can be arrested and im
prisoned as a briber and deprived
of his seat if elected to office.
Serious nations like England,
who really desire to prevent the
use of money corruptly’ in polities,
have such laws and have destroyed
corruption in polities through them.
The proposition in the Demo
cratic platform is ridiculously in
adequate and apparently insincere.
The next plank relates to the
term of president, and favors a
slx-year term in accordance with
the expressed desire of every trust
and every criminal corporation in
the United States.
A president elected one term
without hope of re-election need
have no consideration for the peo-
ple whatever. He can not be pun
ished by the people, he can not be
rewarded by the people.
There is no better Democrat than
Thomas Jefferson, the founder of
the Democratic party, and in dis
cussing this question he said:
"My opinion originally’ was that
the president of the United States
should have been elected for seven
years, and be forever ineligible aft
erward. I have since become sen
sible that seven years is too long
to be irremovable, and that there
should be a peacable way of with
drawing a man in midway who is
doing wrong."
It is obvious that Jefferson con
sidered the four-year term in the
nature of a recall. It gave the
people in the midst of a presidential
term an opportunity to approve or
disapprove of the president’s per
formances up to that time. It made
him subject to the will of the peo
ple and continually mindful of the
wishes of the people.
This plank in the Democratic
platform is worse than undemo
cratic, worse than reactionary. It
removes the president from the con- '
trol of the people, and makes him
more than ever in the control of
the privileged interests. It is an
absolute contradiction of the pro
gressive plan to place the govern
ment more directly in the hands of
the people.
It is contrary to the expressed
declaration of the founder of the
Democratic party. It is a conces
sion to the desires of the special
interests. It brings into strong con
trast the Democratic policies of
Jefferson and the unsound and in
sincere policies of William Jennings
Bryan.
Jefferson was a man of practical
experience and sound common
sense, genuinely devoted to the
people.
Bryan is an unsound theorist,
without definte policy and without
genuine concern for anything but
his own advancement, trimming
and trading and compromising and
evading to make a momentary
point at the expense of a perma
nent policy and a recognized right.
The paragraph referring to the
navy, and pledging the Democratic
party to a navy adequate to the
needs of the nation and to the sup
port of the principle of the Monroe
doctrine, is exceedingly important,
not only as a profession of Demo
cratic faith, but as an evidence of
Democratic sincerity.
The question of an adequate navy
has already come before the Demo
cratic house of representatives.
This Democratic platform at its
conclusion says: "Our pledges arc
made to be kept when in office, as
well as relied upon during the cam
paign.”
The Democratic party, wholly in
power in the house of representa
tives. failed utterly to carry out its
pledge in regard to an adequate
navy. It has, therefore, absolutely
destroyed the confidence of the
country in any of the few positive
promises and progressive utter
ances of its platform.
The senate reported a bill which
provided for an adequate navy. A
good part of the Democrats in the
senate voted for that bill.
But the Democratic party is not
in control of the senate. It is, how
ever. in full control of the house of
representatives and will surely be
held to account for the irresponsi
ble and unpatriotic action of its
majority in the house of represen
tatives, when the platform of the
Democratic party declared for an
adequate navy and when the plat
form definitely stated “our pledges
are made to be kept.”
M hen. in the face of these posi
tive utterances, the promise of an
adequate navy is not kept, how can
the intelligent citizens of this coun
try believe that any plank or prom
ise of the Democratic platform will
be kept?
The Democrats themselves digged
the pit into which they have fallen.
They created the opportunity to
prove their sincerity or their utter
insincerity. Their action in prompt
ly repudiating the most meritorious
plank of their platform is discred
ited both from party professions
and from patriotism.
'Die paragraph relating to rail
roads, express companies, telegraph
and telepnone lines is not a pro
gressive utterance in any particu
lar.
There is nothing of any impor
tance advocated in that paragraph
that is not already in operation,
and nothing demanded that is not a
dodge or a straddle or an evasion of
the actual issue.
This paragraph, like so many
other paragraphs of the platform,
is meaningless and worthless;
where the opportunity occurs for a
statement of progressive princi
ples, the platform dodges it in a
cowardly manner
This is another evidence of Mr.
Bryan's unsoundness and insincer
ity. At one time he goes to tlie ex
treme length in ond direction of
government ownership of every
thing. and now he swings to tiie
discreditable length in the other di
rection of abandoning even the
proper, practicable proposition of
the government ownership of tele
graphs.
The next plank in the platform
deals with banking legislation, and
here the Democratic party is abso
lutely without plan or policy or
program.
It opposes the Aldrich bill, prob-
THE HOME PAPER
ably without actually knowing
what the Aldrich bill provides in its
amended form.
But assuming that its opposition
to the Aldrich bill is genuine and
sound, what plan is substituted for
the Aldrich bill? What proposi
tion has the Democratic party to
make to improve the financial con
ditions which are universally con
ceded to need improvement?
The last panic demonstrated the
absolute necessity of new banking
legislation, and yet the Democratic
party, with all its knowledge of
past history and with all its recent
experience, has nothing to offer in
the way of a plan, has nothing to
say except to condemn a plan
which has been offered by the op
position party.
The Democratic party can not
expect the people of tins country
to have confidence in it or respect
for it unless it gives some evidence
of thought and intelligence and of
careful consideration and genuine
intention on this and other impor
tant matters before the country
and demanding solution.
The plank in the platform in re
gard to rural credit is proper
enough, although not a very posi
tive or definite statement of a
policy.
The best plank in the platform
is the next one, which relates to
the waterways. This can be com
mended throughout.
The plank regarding the post
roads is an excellent one and might
have been made more vigorous and
effective in its statement.
When a Democratic member of
congress I introduced a bill to this
effect, which did not at that time
secure the support of the Demo
cratic minority.
The Democratic plank on the
rights of labor is a good plank,
and if the nominees for president
and vice president will adhere
strictly to this plank they will do
much to overcome the weakness of
their personal labor records.
The Democratic plank on con
servation is another discouraging
evidence of the lack of true pro
gressive principle and true Demo
cratic principle of many planks in
the platform.
This plank is composed of more
or less meaningless generalities.
It does not declare in favor of
government ownership or control of
the water powers, which is one of
the main issues in the progressive
conservation program of this time.
It is astonishing that this coun
try and that a pretended progres
sive party of this country should
lag behind all parties of other
countries in such important and
essential progressive matters.
In Canada, the necessity for the
government controlling the water
powers has already been recog
nized and acknowledged. Neither
party in Canada would fail to ad
mit and to state this necessity, and
as a matter of actual fact the Ca
nadian government will no longer
grant water powers to private in
dividuals in outright ownership,
but will only lease them or sell
the power developed from them.
It is obvious that electric power
developed by water power is to be
the motive power of the future,
and the immediate future, and a
pretended progressive platform
which does not deal with this vital
question is not progressive, not
worthy of consideration by genuine
progressives.
Again, in these conservation
planks no attack is made upon the
timber thieves and the plunder of
the public domain by the railroads
who exchanged thousands of
worthless sections of desert land
for the most valuable timber land
in the United States.
This section of the platform ex
hibits the same cowardice which
disgraces so many other sections,
and which prevents the platform
from being considered in any way
an honest progressive document.
The plank in regard to agricul
ture is harmless enough and mean
ingless enough, for that matter.
Such recommendations as it makes
should properly be made, and many
others that it does not make should
properly be made.
The plank in regard to the mer
chant marine shows an utter lack
of constructive policy or construc
tive ability.
It declares in favor of a merchant
marine without giving the slight
est evidence of how it is to be de
veloped or encouraged.
It opposes the granting of sub
sidies without substituting any
other plan.
It does not even declare for the
old Democratic policy of preferen
tial duties.
After a few harmless and mean
ingless declarations about the civil
service and law reform, the Demo
cratic platform takes up the ques
tion of the Philippines, and, influ
enced by the small Americanism of
William J. Bryan, suggests that the
Philippines be abandoned.
Here again we have a contrast
between the practical Democracy
of Thomas Jefferson, who added
the whole of the Louisiana terri
tory to the area of the United
States, more than doubling that
area, and the visionary ideas and
narrow views of William Jennings
Bryan, who desires to abandon
what the country already possesses
and to limit the nation's growth to
the petty boundaries of his own
prejudices.
A party with a policy of contrac-
tion abroad and reaction at home
can not hope for the support of
either progressive or patriotic citi
zens.
Arizona and New Mexico are
welcomed by the Democracy into
the United States, and while these
states were admitted under a Re
publican administration, their ad
mission was largely due to the tac
tivity of the Democrats in congress
in their behalf.
The plank in the Democratic
platform in regard to Alaska is an
excellent one and every’ effort
should be made to make its pro
visions speedily operative.
The plank in regard to the Rus
sian treaty should in common jus
tice and generosity include a com
pliment to President Taft for his
splendid work in abrogating that
treaty.
The question involved is a ques
tion which affected every Ameri
can citizen and affected the dignity
and honor of the nation as a whole.
The Jews might have been more
intimately affected than any other
class of our citizenship, but every
citizen was affronted by the failure
of Russia to recognize the passport
issued by our government to any
citizen.
Mr. Taft may have earned the
special gratitude of our Jewish cit
izens, but he has also earned to a
high degree the approval and ap
plause of every’ patriotic American
citizen who feels that the dignity of
our country should be upheld’ and
the honor of our government sus
tained throughout the world.
In the plank on the parcels post
and rural delivery the Democrats
might again in justice and gener
osity have praised President Taft,
under whose administration the
rural delivery and parcels post are
being developed.
And in the plank on the Panama
canal exposition the Democrats
could properly have arisen above
party lines and paid some compli
ment to the Taft administration
which did so much for the Panama
exposition and to the Roosevelt ad
ministration which made the Pan
ama canal possible.
The platform concludes with an
empty plank ami hollow utterance
relating to "the rule of the people,”
which could have emanated only
from William Jennings Bryan, and
which it would be an insult to
attribute to any other member of
the platform committee.
The whole progressive program
is based upon a genuine and sin
cere policy of restoring the power
of government to the hands of the
people. Without this power of
government reposed in the hands of
the people, it is impossible for the
people to accomplish any of the re
forms which this platform or more
genuine platforms may declare for.
The failure, therefore, to restore
the power of government to the
people, or to indicate means by
which the power of government can
be restored to the people, is high
treason to the progressive cause.
No trading, trimming traitor ever
evolved a more treasonable plank
than the one which concludes the
Democratic platform.
As far back as five years ago
William Jennings Bryan declared
in a speech in Brooklyn that the
fundamental principles of progres
sive Democracy were the initia
tive, the referendum, the recall and
direct primaries, and no Democrat
could be recognized as a. Democrat
who did not believe in these prin
ciples.
And yet Mr. Bryan puts forth
this professed progressive Demo
cratic platform without one refer
ence to the initiative, the referen
dum, the recall or even direct pri
maries.
This is either contemptible cow
ardice or disgraceful treachery and
should be branded as such.
It must be, and may be meant to
be particularly embarrassing to
Dr. Wilson, who but lately became
a convert to the cause of progres
sive Democracy and to the prin
ciples of the initative, the referen
dum, the recall and direct prima
ries.
Dr. Wilson has, however, advo
cated these principles with the ar
dor of a new convert and has con
vinced many of his sincerity.
How will Dr. Wilson stand on
this plank in this platform? Will
he be compelled to return to his
former reactionary views, or will
he repudiate Bryan and Bryan’s
treasonable plank and declare bold
ly and bravely for direct primaries
and direct legislation, the essential
principles of the progressive cause?
This platform as a whole is no
platform for a progressive to stand
on. It is a compromise from be
ginning to end. It is a cowardly
evasion in nearly every plank. It
lacks courage and it lacks con
structive policy.
Its policy throughout is a pblicy
of opposition, without the substi
tution of a practicable plan to any
policy it opposes.
Whether this is due to ignorance
or insincerity is immaterial. It
deprives the progressives of all
hope in the Democratic party. It
deprives the citizens of the country
of all confidence in the Democratic
party.
A party without a popular policy
will be a party without popular
support.
It is Dr. Wilson’s opportunity
and Dr. Wilson’s duty to write a
platform which will do justice to
himself and to the Democratic par
ty, which will arouse the enthusi
asm of all genuine Democrats and
invite the support of all genuine
progressives.
WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST.
