DEMOCRACY VERSUS
FREE DELIVERY.
R«i«cte4 Beneficial Mmiret and
Enacted Disastrous L*|iilatiaa.
A Malty ol Beneficent Republican
Law Fm Homesteads—Ra
tional Irrigation—Fm
Delivery.
The democratic party baa cone on
record aa baring strenuously optwsed
establishment of rural free delivery
aeivlca. an the ground that it was ab
solutely Impracticable and too cxi>en
elra ta meet Democratic approbation.
Yet the only time this same Democratic
party baa held the reins of power dur
ing the punt forty-live year*. It in
creased tbs national debt at the rate of
half a Bullion dollars a day during its
entire term a € oflice. and each day we
t lost a half million dallara In foreign
trade. The value of farm products de
creased mere than five hundred million
dollar*.
Mautpsai D*Marr«tl« Mrtlae.
The business of this nation, in two
tnoothe after the enactment of the Wil
aou law decreased six i*er cent. Banks
dosed their door*, business houses as
* signed, the balance of trade was
against as. We had deserted mills,
smokeless factories, silent machinery
We had trani{>* and beggars and Indu*
trial armies and starving women aud
children. lu the midst of plenty, with
bountiful crofts rotting unharvested in
the Adda, at a million hearthstone* sat
famine, pitiless and cruel! It shut
the doer of Industry and clothed labor
In rags
It fouoht under the dishonored bai*
der of free silver. It subscribed to the
driveMng stupidity that a nation can
create values by law. that the govern
ment could stamp a lie upon firty cents
worth of silver and make it a dollar. It
opfsiaed keeping our flag in the Orient
a ltd advocated that it he lowered in re
treat and trailed in the dust of dis
honor. And yet this same party which
has not learned anything or forgotten
anything In fifty year*, oppooed the ex
tension ©P the rural free delivery serv
ice on the ground of expense.
rospls Csailsg lato Thole Own.
At least ou per cent of our people
are so situated as to he served success
fully by the rural delivery service.
They and their fathers have been the
pioneers of this country. In blazing
the traM of civilisation and In subju
gating the land for the bcueflt of all
the peeplr. They are the legitimate
helm to all the benefits this govern
meat caa legally and consistently be
stow opea them. They are the natural
bensfidartee of three of the greatest
places of Republican legislation known
to recast American history—that trln
tty of lawa looking toward the creation
' and development of botnee on the pub
lic dooMln for all who wish them—
the hem ret cad law. the national lrriga
tioa law. and the establishment of a
rural free delivery. Each and all of
fbaoe have been fought by the Demo
cratic party and In after year* two of
these measures have brm claimed by
that party aa Its offspring. It Is more
than probable that before the expira
tion of another fifty years, the Demo
cratlc party will claim the credit for
having established rural free delivery.
OsascWa “NlaS-Slghf.**
The party's remorse over It* related
fallores and Its attempt to deceive
the psspte sometimes come* to the sur
face and appears In a more or less piti
ful light. For Instance, at all modem
Democratic conventions the Democrats
dow their veneration for the memory
af Abraham Lincoln. Although while
ho yet lived, while to was doing the
deeds for which they now praise him.
the Pomoerstic party, north and ooutb.
exhausted the vocabulary of vitupera
tion In traducing and maligning and
revfltng him. They praised the great
McKinley only ofter hla death. The mo
tive In such casco mny be appreciated
while the morals of a political party
which seeks to have Its former opposi
tion to o public measure forgotten In
the loud clamor of Its present appro
bation. cannot bo approved.
nspslllf «• Pwiwt the Work.
The rural delivery service will be
rondourd under succeeding Republican
administrations until It will be fully
provided for the eirtlrtT-Unlted States.
It drives home the Impression upon our
people that this groat government care
fullyJeoks after their Individual Inter
ests and personal convenience aa far aa
poaslMe. Through this service the gov
ernment delivers at the doors of rural
etttsmm their mall aa promptly and
coneuelontly aa It delivers the same to
the residents of cities. The service Is
one of the greatest means for the dis
semination of knowledge end Informa
tion to the people of the country, they
ham over enjoyed. By It they are en
abled to keep In touch with the markets
of the country and with current events
In *■ part* of the world. It baa ripened
Into a permanent service which will
qnittano to Improve and eventually
roach the door of the humblest dtlaoa
ta Us growing beoeflts.
■s-r tMMtcml Results relieve,
tt has removed the nightmare of
looOUnem and of Isolation from the
eomdry and brought to It many of the
benedm of city life. It has allayed the
which drove many of the better dam
of youag people to the does. It has
appealed to the densely populated dtleo
whom noxious atmosphere he stone the
dread disease of tuhorculedo and la*
dnmd thorn to raise the cry of, “Beck
to the lead, hack to nature,** and mam
ant upon the extended plaint, peaceful
wdlopo and the Inviting plateaus of the
U |mC free ddlmty, the national
trvtpMtau net gad the government
tawocu the yoQmmlioef
“Doc” Bryan Seems Unfortunate in Both His Remedies and His
Appointees.
—From the Chicago Tribune.
LOST ONLY BIG CASE.
Bryan Mad* Poor Showing Before
Uni tod States Supreme Court.
In a letter to tlie New York World
a New York lawyer puncture* Mr. Bry
an's legal record as follows:
“Mr. Bryan's qualifications for high
executive office must he Inferred from
Ills record In the four lines of work in
which he has engaged—namely, those
of lecturer, journalist, lawyer and colo
nel.
“As « lecturer he is certainly at least
the equal of Mr. Boowwlt Aa a Jour
nalist he Is probably the equal of Mr.
Watterson or Mr. Hoarst In either
capacity he Is probably the superior of
Mr. Taft.
“Aa a lawyer he cun best be Judged
by his most famous case. This was the
Nebraska rate case. His State Impos
ed a tariff of maximum rates upon the
railroads and hired him to defend It
In the Supreme Court. The case was
brought by persons Interested In the
railroads agatust the officers of the
State to get an Injunction to present
the enforcement of the law. This rais
ed. of course, the question whether
such an action Is not an action against
the State and therefore forbidden by
the eleventh amendment to the United
States Constitution. It la the same
tiolnt which many of the Western and
Southern States have been endeavoring
to make during the past jfrar for the
purpose of preventing Injunctions
against their two-cent-fsre laws.
“The Attorney General of Nebraska
took the point In tills Nebraska rate
case, hut Mr. Bryan overlooked It when
be came to argue the case In the Su
preme Court. lie made no defense
against the Injunction on this ground,
lie was beaten In the case, and Its de
cision has been the basis for the devel
opment of the doctrine of interference
by the federal courts with rate legisla
tion. If Mr. Bryan were President
would he be likely to get the nation
Into difficulty by similar oversights?"
Tkt Choir* •( Agrala.
The Issue settles down to a choice of
agents, and here the Judicial temper,
the Industrious energy, the repose of
temperament, the unhurried and laaa
spectacular art of achieving results
commend Judge Taft as the safest laad
er. Not In all things docs The Repub
lican agree with him. but the measure
of hla merit Is large. He has done
things, while Mr. Bryan, the foremost
political orator of hla time, has been a
brilliant and magnetic propagandist.
Hla service to the country In this field
has been large but who will make the
better President? The one man would
he ea situated aa to Inspire and compel.
In aa far as a President can. congress
ta the forward march—the other might
ha Farhad and held beck by the senate
la a way to make the reactionaries
glad, Bprlugtsld Bapubl learn.
INSURES AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Big Wool Firm Fears Lose Should
Bryanism Prevail.
Sigmund Silherman of the Ann of
SUberman Bros., dealers in raw wool.
Chicago, have offered a premium of
SIO,OOO for a SIOO,OOO Insurance policy
against the election of Bryan.
The firm is one of the largest of Its
kind In the west and handles annually
25,000,000 pounds of wool. The stock
'being carried over election Is about 10,-
000,000 pounds.
“We could easily afford to pay the
large premium," said Mr. SUberman,
“for if Mr. Taft is elected we can af
ford it. and If Bryan is elected our
lorn probably will be SIOO,OOO. We
would lose at least 1 cent a pound of
w# sold Immediately after his election
or If we held It six months It would
cost us a cent a pound for storage and
care.”
Mr. SUberman Is a Republican and Is
confident of Taft's election, but aald
that his offer to pay a 10 per cent
premium on a policy maturing In less
than three weeks was entirely a busi
ness proposition unaffected by his po
litical views.—Chicago Trlbune.
A Dvaorntla ••Mala.**
Hark! what means that rumbling—
O'er the land.
Can It be h platform tumbling
O’er the land.
The “Mule" It looking awful thin.
The Bryaultes have lost their grin.
They feel their chauce Is mighty slim!
O'er the land.
They fed that "Mule" the best hay
O’er the land.
They felt sure he would make It pay
O'er the land.
They rod* him up against the wall,
Thera he bucked—and let them fall,
Ha naadad oats—not so much gall
O'ar tha land.
That Democratic “Muls" Is great
O'er tha land.
Hla leaders make a great mistake
O'er the land.
They try to work him night and day!
That** what I hear the neighbor* say.
He hardly can get time to bray—
O'er the land.
That tool **Mule" works to bast the hand
O'ar the land.
He eeeme ta be In great demand
O'er the land.
The time will come, not far ahead
When he will wleh that he wee deed!
And will go home end go to bed.
O'er the lend. O'er the land.
Then that old elephant yon know—
With hla majestic step, eo alow;
Will give that trumpet blast and roar.
That will he heard from abort to shore!
And for the poor “Mule" ha may sigh
And walk away, with all the pin.
-4C.8. Bptelmaa la Topeka Capital.
The election of Taft will give aa Im
pulse to ell new enterprises; the elec
tion of Bryan would he m hold-up of
—injaile to Maw up to a huS
iMlf MbOhNßto
BONAPARTE GIVES DATA.
Replies to Daniels's Second Letter on
Trust Prosecution*.
Attorney General Bonaparte has re
plied to a second letter from Josephus
Daniels, chairman of the press bureau
of the Democratic national committee,
at Chicago, in which he complained
that in the attorney general's answer
to his first Inquiry as to trust prosecu
tions be had not differentiated between
the prosecutions under the Sherman
anti-trust law and those under other
lawa Answering the Inquiry specific
ally. the attorney general states that
under the Sherman anti-trust law pass
ed in 1880 there have been sixty-five
proceedings In all, fifty-six under Repub
lican and nine under Democratic ad
ministrations. forty-six since Mr. Roose
velt became President, in September.
1001. and nineteen during the preceding
elevqn years.
Among the prosecutions of the Deiuo
cratic administration the attorney gen
eral says la Included resistance to the
petition of Eugene V. Debs for a writ
of habeas corpus. It is also asserted
that five out of nine proceedings under
IVuiocratlc rule were directed again**,
labor organisations and their leaders,
and that under Republican rule then
have been In all three such proceedings
out of fifty-six.
Taft Pmcata tka Foots.
Those who have been reading Mr.
Taft's speeches during the present carn
palgn must have observed that the Re
publican Presidential candidate illus
trates hla argument continuously by the
citation of circumstantial evidence. He
is not given to a fauciful. glittering
generality sort of speochmaking- As
lie himself has expressed it, he does not
“float away Into the cerulean blue.”
He proves his statements with the cart*
of a lawyer arguing a case before a
critical and discriminating judge.
In the speeches which be has been
delivering in Ohio this week he has
taken up his own record while a judgv
of the United States district court upon
issues in which organized labor Is In
terested. He claims that his act In
grant lug an Injunction in what is
known as the Arthur case has been
not a hindrance to trade-unionism, but
has operated to the building up and
numerical Increase of labor organisa
tions. In hla speech at Zanesville he
sakl:
“I only expressed achat the law was
at that time, in an opinion which It
happened to me to formulate. Under
that opinion the trade-unions have
doubled ta this country; they never
were in each a prosperous state; the
American Federation of Labor has In
creased 100 per cent. The laker organ
izations have never reached the point
of ueefulneea before that they new
have. They have never exercised the
useful influence or the power in pro
tecting their own Interest* before aa
they have under the law aa I laid It
down mm ton or fifteen yean ago.**—
Baltimore Amortann
John Worth Menu toe Democratic caa-
BPYAN SIDESTEPPED.
Seven Pointed Queries Propounded
the Democratic Candidate.
Vailed to Answer Any of the
Questions.
Prior to his recent speech at Omaha
Mr. Bryan had pn*pounded to him the
following pertinent questions by the
Omaha Bee. Mr. Bryan did not see
tit to attempt to answer any of them.
Th« QaealioM.
1. You, Mr. Bryan, are making much
of Democratic friendship for labor.
Why Is It that practically no legislation
to protect labor has been enacted in
the southern States in which Demo
crats have absolute control? Why are
there no child labor laws in the south i
Why are there no laws to protect wom
en wage earners in the south? You
and your fusion friends had absolute
executive and legislative control of
Nebraska for several years. Why was
no legislation to protect labor passed
then? Why did the wage workers of
Nebraska have to wait for succeeding
Republican legislatures to remove the
£*,ooo death damage limit, to get an
equitable employer’s liability act and
to get a child labor law?
2. You, Mr. Bryan, are trying to
make your paramount issue. “Shall the
]>eople rule?” The most advanced
step toward popular rule has been
through the direct primary. Why is
it. Mr. Bryan, that your fusion friends
when iu complete control did not give
Nebraska a direct primary law? Why
Is It that the Republicans of Nebraska
had to secure the direct primary law
over the opposition of the Democrats?
Why is it that the progressive Repub
lican States have enacted direct pri
mary laws to bring the filling of offices
closer to the people, while the Demo
cratic States of the south direct pri
mary laws have been enacted avowedly
to disfranchise the people?
3. You, Mr. Bryan, are bidding for
office on your anti-trust remedies.
Why is it that all the effective legisla
tion against illegal combinations have
l*een enacted by Republican congresses
and for the most part by Republican
State legislatures, while the Democratic
States baTe no effective anti-trust leg
islation?
4. You. Mr. Bryan, are bidding for
labor votes by promising to abolish
the writ of injunction in labor dis
putes. Do you not know that injunc
tion abuses have been chargeable as
much to State courts as to federal
courts? Can you name a single Demo
cratic State which has passed a lew
to prevent the abuse of injunction by
State courts? Why was no such law
passed in Nebraska when your fusion
friends were in complete control?
5. You. Mr. Bryan, are bidding for
votes on your scheme of bank deposit
guaranty. Oklahoma is the only State
that has put such a law on its statute
i-ooks. Why have none of the other
1 democratic States enacted deposit guar
anty laws? You. especially, intro
duced such a bill into congress in the
early 90’s. Why did you not get your
fusiou friends to enact the bill as a
state law when they were in complete
•'ontrol of Nebraska? A deposit guar
anty bill, which you endorsed, was
offered in congress last winter as a
substitute for the V reel and bill, but
only a handful of the Democratic con
gressmen voted for it. the remaining
others voting against it or refusing to
vote. The only Democratic congress
man from Nebraska was one of those
who refused to vote. If your endorse
ment of that bill was unable to make
These Democratic congressmen vote for
It last winter, bow will you be able
to make them vote for It next winter?
6. You. Mr. Bryan, are trying to
make much of the popular election of
I'nited States senators. We have the
statement of Mr. Tibbies, made three
rears ago, that a large sum of money,
said to be $15,000 or $20,000, was con
tributed by “Ryan. Belmout A Co.” In
1004. through your brother-in-law to
ward your campaign for United States
senator in Nebraska. la Mr. Tibbies
mistaken In his assertions? If so, why
did you not correct them long ago? If
not. why did you not put your name
nu the ballot as a candidate for senator
and ask a vote of popular preference
under the Nebraska law which gives
von that right? Why did the Demo
crats refuse to submit candidates for
United States senator to popular vote
in Nebraska In 1898. in 1900 and 1904?
7. You, Mr. Bryan, are making
much of publicity of campaign contri
butions. Nebraska has a campaign pub
licity law. but It was eoucted. as you
know, by a Republican legislature after
• our fusion state administration bad
failed to pass such a law. Why la It.
Mr. Bryan, that your brother-in-law
iud Democratic campaign managers
have persistently and wilfully violated
the Nebraska campaign publicity law?
Why, If you are so devoted to campaign
fund publicity, were you so insistent
hat the $50,000 contribution to your
campaign made by the Bennett will
"liould be kept secret?
a Finally, Mr. Bryan, will you
obwse tell us why you keep up the dl*-
'looest fusion masquerade In Nebraska?
Why do you permit your Democratic
residential electors to be misbranded
m the official ballot as populists? Are
•hey not trying to get votea by false
pretenses? la It not for the purpose
of fooling populists Into vottag for you.
who would otherwise vote for tbs pop
ulist candidate for president? If this
fusion trick ns played In Nebraska Is
lefended by you ns legitimate, why do
vou not try to play It on other otatse?
Tba Democratic party Is absolutely
leceossry to restore prosperity." 4s
•larsd Mr. Bryan In bis speech at Max
well. lows. Tbs Inst time tbs D—o
•relic partywsa
rry bed bed sssss prosperity sines then.
A
BRYAN IN LEAGUE
WITH LIQUOR DEATERS
Gov. Hoeh Has Some Interesting
Correspondence on the Subject.
Just as the temperance people off
Kansas were beginning to believe that
Wm. J. Bryan, the Democratic candi
date for President, would make a pretty
good standard bearer. Governor Hech
comes along with some correspondence
that is calculated to put Bryan out of
the running as a temperance candidate.
Governor Hoch got into an argument
with a Democratic politician at Marion
and made some statements he could not
back up with proof on a moment’s no
tice. However, he sent to Nebraska
for it and got everything he wanted.
The Omaha editor to whom Governor
Hoch wrote not only confirmed every
statement made by the governor but
be sent copies of letters written by Mr.
Bryan himself In regard to the pro
hibitory amendment when It was up for
adoption by the people of Nebraska
in 1890.
In this letter Mr. Bryan says in other
words that he is opposed to prohibition
but that he wanted the Nebraska Dem
ocrats to make no declaration on the
subject. This occurred in the campaign
in which Bryan was elected to Con
gress. The Democratic platform de
clared against prohibition and Bryan
stumped the State on the anti-prohibi
tion platform. All this is shown in the
correspondence In the hands of Gov
ernor Hoch and it Is brought out by the
criticism made by Democrats of Taft
because in a speech in Topeka three or
four years ago he made the statement
that “it is hard to legislate morals into
people."
The Bryan letter written to a Demo
cratic friend prior to the Democratic
convention in Omaha in 1890 reads as
follows:
“Your favor just received. I expect
to attend the convention at Omaha and
am glad you are going. I will try and
leave here at once, so that we can
get together and talk over the platform
!>efore the convention. I have no doubt
we will agree on tariff opinions, but
1 have been In much trouble over the
temperance plank. I, like yon and the
great bulk of the party, am opposed to
prohibition, but thought as the Repub
licans took no stand on prohibition we
bad better content ourselves with a dec
laration against sumptuary legislation
such as we usually have.
“We have a number of men who will
vote for the prohibitory amendment.
They do not ask us to declare in favor
of prohibition, but simply to do as the
Republicans have done —leave It to each
individual to vote as he likes. By de
claring against prohibition we will lose
a good many votes, while we will not
gain Republican votes. We tried that
last fall In this county; declared In so
many words against prohibition, and
the saloons went solid against us.
“I wish I could see you before the
convention. Can’t you come up her*
Tuesday morning and go from here to
Omaha, and we can discuss all planks?
Will draw up the plank yon suggest.
Yours truly,
“W. J. BRYAN ”
DEPOSIT GUARANTEE AT WORK.
Growth of Books to Oklokooo Aro
Booatef hr Promoter*.
The purpose of the deposit guarantee
plan is to secure greater safety for de
posits. But the business world wants
sound banks as well as safe deposits.
The failure of the deposit guarantee to
meet the need of the business world,
and its contrary tendency to encourago
unsound banking. Is evidenced in Okla
homa. where, since the guarantee law
went into effect, out of seventy-seven
hanks organized, forty-two started busi
ness with but SIO,OOO capital. One pro
moter is said to have planned the or
ganization of twelve more. No guaran
tee of deposits oan offset the danger of
unsound banks. Even if insurance of
deposits were all that is needed to per
fect the banking system, it must ba
recognized that no wise scheme of In
surance perpetrates the folly of encour
aging or permitting s continued In
crease of the hazard. —Boston Herald.
The Tw Srym.
To attract votes, silent votes, Mr.
Bryan is circulating two political docu
ments of a strictly personal nature. Ona
Is the “Prince of Peace" sermon, which
is mailed to members of all denomina
tions. It Is expected to do efficient
work among the religious and benevo
lent, to whom it is a bid to support Mr.
Bryan as a truly virtuous man of lofty
ideals and altruistic purposes—the good
man who could do no wrong.
The other document is an account of
Mr. Bryan's visit to the Vatican, in
which he gives an appreciative and
pleasing picture of Pius X. This is sent
only to Catholic voters.
There Is no reason why any ona
should resent Mr. Bryan’s unctuous so
licitations to vote for him for reasons
of religion. They will react upon him.
for the American people* hate a hum
bug.—New York Sun (lod.).
A*»tkrr VMuwtr*4
Hon. W. J. Bryan—As a laboring
man. a supporter of a family. dej>endant
upon my day’s work. 1 am interest ad
in this campaign. The all-important
question to me is work flrst, wages sec
ond.
Will you kindly In your next address
state definitely your answer to the fol
lowing questions:
What particular peUcy will you pur
sue if elected, that will Insure more
men work and better wages than they
now have? JOHN G. SHUSTBR.
Cw«alUMat off Worn.
"When ha (Bryan) talks about «wths
tag product km be may think be la ntaa
kag at big corporations, but what be Is
really aiming at. whether mmacwmm of It
or net. is the workingmen, for cwvtatt
sat of output amass curtail aeaat off
work and discharge ef workingman^
(ration of hustnms Industry. Oa foa
aaß3j*sCssrs.g.-s
uff lEwaalk