OCR Text |
Show dead in this state, and, as particles of extraneous matter encysted in a living body, tliey remain harmless. This particular par-ticular one met the fate of others, because be-cause its atlii'ination was in no way necessary to anybody's rights; because it was bunched with a lot of other proposed pro-posed amendn.ents which the people, impatient with this mania for amending amend-ing tile constitution, wished to chock it This prohibition of the negro, being inoperative, may as well stand as an historical relics even though it be called up at times to remind Mr. Bryan's party of its past. It is not unusual, un-usual, after the animal is killed, to keep the skin with the claws on, for curiosity or wonder. In dismissing tins subject, the question ques-tion may be asked. What is to be thought of a man who will resort to such methods? Every reader will form his own conclusion. So far as The Statesman is concerned, it can say thai it has hesitated to accept the adverse estimate that many others have formed of the governing traits of Mr. Bryan's character, but it has observed so much of this shifty, crafty disposition in his attitude ,'n this campaign that it feels forced to the conclusion that he is altogether al-together unreliable and dangerous. IdaLo B.;iict.inan. I BRYAN'S DODGES. ONE OF THEM TAKEN UP AND THOROUGHLY EXPOSED. . The Constitution of Oregon and the Constitution of North' Carolint One of the Favorite . Evasions of the Democratic Candidate to Avoid Answering An-swering a Plain Question. In his speech at Marion, Indiana, Mr. Bryan indulged in one of those shallow tricks of argument that have become so common with him. One of his audience audi-ence asked him about the anti-negro laws of some of the southern states. He responded in this manner: My friend, I am glad that you asked me that; I am prepared for you. Now I am going to assume that the Republican Republi-can who asked the question is an honest hon-est man. 1 am going to ask him about the constitution of the republican state of Oregon. I will read a provision of that constitution. It says: Section 35. No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state, hold any real estate or make my contract con-tract or maintain any such therein, and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public pub-lic officers all such negroes of mu-lattoes, mu-lattoes, or for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state or employ or harbor them. That amendment was adopted before the civil war; it makes it unlawful for a free negro to go into the state, and it authorizes the officers to put him out. But you say that it is old. Let me remind you that last June an effort was made to repeal that portion of the constitution, and the effort to repeal was defeated, although the state went Republican. Mr. Bryan has a habit of answering hard questions by taking up some other matter that has no bearing on the real point at issue. When asked a difficult diffi-cult one he smiles, expresses satisfaction satisfac-tion then asks the inquirer about something some-thing else. It is a clever way to avoid making a reply, but it is dangerous to the man who dodges, for it always shows that he can not answer candidly or is afraid to venture on the subject.' If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that Oregon is doing what is being done in the south, it would not aid Mr. Bryan in this matter, for it is a well-known rule that two wrongs can not make one right. Mr. Bryan sought to leave his audience under the impression impres-sion that Oregon is in exactly the same category as North Carolina; that was his intention. It was his purpose to convey the idea that a Republican state had done as bad a thing with respect to the negro as has been done by any southern state, and that, therefore, he, as the leader, of the Democracy, should not be asked to express an opinion that one party had done the same as the other and that the fact removed the matter om the field of controversy. contro-versy. He intended to mislead the people peo-ple at the meeting respecting the attitude atti-tude of Oregon and by that means escape es-cape from tiie point of the question addressed ad-dressed to him. It was a purpose unworthy un-worthy of any man who aspires to such a high position as tiie presidency; but as lie sought to make the people believe, be-lieve, it would not stand as justification of the attitude of any oilier state; and no one knows that any better than Mr. Bryan. That provision was inserted in the Oregon constitution before the war, but is has been and is a dead letter. It is like the blue laws of some New England Eng-land states. There is no state in the Union where the negro is treated more fairly than in Oregon. The people of Oregon have no desire to deny to the negro a single right or privilege he enjoys. en-joys. While the provision stands in the constitution. Let us for a moment consider the point raised by the inquirer at Marion. It was this: Mr. Bryan and the Demo-tratic Demo-tratic party are opposing the policy of the administration in the Philippines on the ground that the people there and everywhere else have an inherent and inalienable right to govern themselves them-selves as they see fit and that their rights are being invaded and trampled under foot by the United States government. gov-ernment. This attitude of the Democratic Demo-cratic party in this campaign is based on the principle termed consent of the governed, it being contended by Mr. Bryan and his party that, under our flag, no people can be governed without with-out their consent. While the party and its candidates stand for the strictest possible application of that principle, the Democrats of the south have taken from the negroes the right which they previously enjoyed of having a voice in the government. The Democracy in the sonth, which gives the national Democracy its main support, follows a policy which is in direct opposition to the constitution that all people, no i matter what their capacity or training have a right to determine what their government shall be. Not only does the policy of the southern Democracy thus belie the professions of the national na-tional Democracy, but the latter dares not attempt to explain the incongruity. Mr. Bryan dares not attempt to offer an explanation, and when he is asked a question bearing on the matter he refers his questioner to this provision of the Oregon constirtrtinn-kfrt tn.s been a dead letter during all this generation gen-eration and that is to-day as dead as Julius Caesar. Mr. Bryan knows there is not a man in Oregon who would ask for enforcement enforce-ment of that provision, and yet he seeks to make an Indiana audience believe be-lieve that the case is similar to the cases in the south in which the n,jo is now in this year 1900 denied the rights which lie formerly enjoyed, the denial being based on t lie claim that he is not fit for participation iu the government. gov-ernment. Mr. Bryan knew perfectly well that there was no similarity between the southern cases and the case of Oregon. He resorted to a paltry subterfuge to escape from the query propounded to him. The Oregonian, in discussing this matter, calls attention to the fact that the provision of the Oregon constitution was inserted by the old pro-slavery party, from which Mr. Bryan sprang and from which he has drawn his political poli-tical inspiration and his political methods. It adds: "We need not remove these blemishes from the constitution of Oregon; for they belong to a past that is utterly |