OCR Interpretation


The day book. (Chicago, Ill.) 1911-1917, August 29, 1914, LAST EDITION, Image 9

Image and text provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045487/1914-08-29/ed-1/seq-9/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

ONE MAN'S OPINIONS
BY N. D. COCHRAN
The Senatorial Scrap. I have the
following letter concerning, the Dem
ocratic scrap for U. S. senator:
"I see in your Comment that the
daily papers failed to print all of Car
ter Harrison's speech on Roger Sul
livan's record. What is the matter
with The Day Book? Has Roger got
The Day Book buffaloed as well as
the daily papers? If not, tell us some
thing about Roger. I think that the
majority of Day Book readers would
like to see something in The Day
Book about Roger's past record. If
you are not with him show us that
you are against him and why.-r-Day
Book Reader.
I am not bothering my head about
that senatorial scrap one way or an
other, and have no desire to influence
any reader of The Day Book as to
how he should vote.
It doesn't make the slightest dif
ference to me whom the Democrats
nominate.
I don't know much about the de
tails of Sullivan's record or of
Springer's. I have seen nothing to
indicate that either of them would
tear his shirt in a frenzy to serve
the people. Personally I would pre
fer Barratt O'Hara, by far, to either
of them.
I couldn't be a supporter of Roger
Sullivan because my impression of
him is that he is a representative of
Special Privilege rather than a rep
resentative of the people, a, political
boss rather than a leader. I don't
believe in the party system that Sul
livan stands for ,and haven't seen
anything in his public utterances to
indicate that he is really progressive.
I have no doubt he stands by his
friends, keeps his word and plays
the game on the level with his politi
cal pals. Every political boss has to
do that or go under.
I think Carter Harrison stands
more for real democracy, with the
small d, than Sullivan does. But he
also stands for Hearst and Andy
Lawrence; and I have more4faith in
Roger Sullivan's candidacy than in
that of Hearst and Lawrence; for
they pretend to stand for the rule of
the people, yet all the time play the
game of plutocracy. They are hypo
crites and Sullivan isn't. As I under
stand it, Sullivan is quite frank in his
bossism. If I had to have a boss I
would prefer Sullivan to either Hearst
or Lawrence. But I don't have to
have a boss; so I am for none of
them.
Before Mayor Harrison got hitched
up with Lawrence, he was the strong
est man in town with the, people.
They had faith in him. But Hearst
is too big a load for any man to car
ry in Chicago. And I can't quite
reconcile Hearst's alliance with
Dunne, Harrison and Lewis .with his
vicious hostility toward President
Wilson and Secretary Bryan.
If I were a party Democrat and an
I earnest supporter of Wilson I would
ery of Chicago over to Hearst, be
cause I think Hearst will be found
fighting Wilson in 1916. I regard
Judge Owens as more of a Hearst
Lawrence man than a Harrison man.
If I were a Democrat I would vote
for Dan Cruice for the nomination
for county judge, not only because of
his record as an advocate of popular
government, but also because if he
should be nominated and elected he
would be under no obligation to any
party boss and could serve the pub
lic. But as to the senatorial scrap, I
don't want to be tied up to either of
the party factions. I can't see much
in it for the people no matter who
wins in the primaries, and it doesn't
make a particle of difference to me
how any voter votes. It is none of
my business.
I am merely sitting in the bleachers
watching the game. And I begin to
have doubts as to whether Springer
J is really opposing Sullivan, Tb 5

xml | txt