Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1900-10-19
HANNA'S CHANCE.

lie pepuDliCdu CduuludIc ioT picoi-
dent, Mr.. Hanna. processes great anx-
iety for joint debate with Mr.. Bryan,
the Democratic nominee. In order
that his wish should receive any con-
sideration whatsoever, Mr.. Hanna
should prove himself sincere in his
declarations; unless Mr.. Hanna en-
tered into the controversy earnestly, it
would be without value for the Amer
Mr.. Hanna has shown a disposition
to avoid, rather than discuss political
questions. There is, however, a chance
for Mr.. Hanna to prove himself in
earnest in regards to politics and pave
the way for greater consideration at
the hands Of his political foes than he
has hitherto enjoyed. Vice-Chair-
man Edmisten of the national commit
tee of the Populists, issued an open
letter to Mr. Hanna in which he pro-
pounds to that doughty controver-
salist a few questions. 1t SO happens
that the American people would be
particularly interested in a straight
forward answer from Mr.. Hanna to
the questions submitted. Here is a
chance for the Republican boss to lay
eside all equivocation and make di-
rect statement to the American peo-
pie, regarding the issues involved in
this campaign. Owing to his position,
Mr.. Edmisten has right to ask these
questions, and Mr. Hanna should feel
bound to answer them. They are re-
specially submitted as follows:
1. Do you believe that all men are
created politically free and equal?
2. Do you hold with the trainers
of the Declaration of Independence
that liberty is a right conferred by the
Creator on all men, or do you hold
with the trainers of the Philadelphia
Republican platform that it is q right
conferred upon some man by the adj
ministrative powers of human gov
eminent?
3. Are the rights to life, liberty and
the pursuit Of happiness natural or &C.
quired rights?
A. Do you believe that the spirit of
the Golden Rule prevails in the deal
ings of the present administration
with the Filipinos and the Porto Ri
cans?
5. Do you believe that forcible an
nexation is criminal aggression?
6. Do you believe in taxation with
out representation?
T. If so, what was the justification of
the Revolutionary war and the course
of our forefathers against George ILL.,?
8. If you do not, why did you sup
port the Porto Rico tariff bill?
g. Did you do it simply to please
the president?
10. Do you regard the treaty, which
the president, through General Bates
negotiated with the sultan Of Sulu, just
and American in it's spirit? If so, do
you believe in refusing congressional
seat to an occidental polygamist, and
paying a salary out of the American
treasury to an oriental polygamist to
keep up his harem?
IL. Is 1t not fact that under the
terms of The aforementioned treaty, a
slave can buy his freedom for the
market value, now about $40?
II. How long do you think 1t will
take a man, working for nothing to
save up 500 to buy his freedom?
10. Why did you vote to deny to
the commissioner of Porto Rico the
same privilege on the floor of congress
that a delegate from q territory has
there to plead the cause OF his people?
IA. Did not the Porto Ricans, I'M
der Spanish rule, have twenty repre-
sentatives in the Spanish courts or
congress?
Is. Are they not, under American
rule, denied all representation in the
American congress?
16. AS far as a voice in legislative
matters is concerned are the Porto
Ricans better off now than under
Spanish rule?
II. When you helped vote a tariff
on the Porto Ricans without them
having voice or recourse In the matter,
did you think you were comforting
the blessings Of liberty on them?"
IS. Did not the president say in
his last annual message it was Our
plain duty" to establish free trade be-
tween this country and Porto Rico?
10. Do you agree with the presi-
dent?
20. Does not the law deny to the
Porto Ricans the control of their own
tax levy?
81. Does 1t not deny them control
over the expenditure of their own
treasury?
o. Does it not deny them the con-
troll of their public work?
20. Does it not deny to them the
control of their own educational mat
ters?
"a. Does it not place the appoint
mont of the Judiciary. and hence its
control, absolutely in the hands of the
and the appointment of the
president? Is not this despotic power?