The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1904-05-05
BRYAN ON RIGHTS OF PROPERTY"

William Jennings Bryan is pretty
nearly right in his recent scornful de-
nunciation of the Parker platform in
New,York. 1t is about rs vapid a piece
of work as a political party waH ever
guilty Of Mr. Bryan's speech, had 1t
stuck to the platform would have been
thoroughly commendable. But Bryan
like. the Nebraska colonel must needs
90 woolgathering over his favorite pas
tnre, the trusts, and must incidentally
take crack at the Supreme Cour, mi
nority opinion in the knight, or sugar
trust case. Justice White wrote this
dissenting opinion in which Justices
Fuller. Peckham and Holmes concur.
He said.
The principle that the ownership Of
property is embraced within the powers
of Congress TO regulate commerce,
whenever that body deems that par
ticular character Of ownership, If allow
ed to continue may restrain commerce
between the states or create a monopoly
thereof, il in my opinion, IN conflict
with the most elementary conceptions
Of rights Of property.
Mr.. Bryan in his remarks on this opin
ion said
Rights of property are, according to
the dissenting judges, supreme, and
when Congress tries TO prevent a mon.
opoly il is interfering with the most
elementary conceptions of the rights OF
property"
The issue presented to day in the trust
question and in all the other questions
with which we have to deal, Is the qnes
ton Of human rights and so-caIled
property rights or. more properly
speaking, between ordinary people and
.he great corporations.
Those who believe that property
rights are supreme take the side OF the
trusts.
If we have u President who Is in sym
pathy with the theory it means that the
Dollar will be given consideration be
fore the Man
Such idiotic assertions as the above
are what have given Mr. Bryan his re-
putation ~ II demagogue n political
tonguetwi4ter, with those OF his party
and the nation who use their brains
Mr.. Bryan on the Constitution would
doubtless be interesting if not particu
larry instructive IIs distinction be
tween human rights and property
rights il hardly definition Of either
Why he should intimate that ordinary
people have human rights but no prop
erty rights we fail to gee except that
he was seeking for some catchincss OF
phrase which. however false, might
serve to throw little cheap ridicule on
those members Of our highest ludicia
body who didn't happen to agree will
him ON the beat method Of dealing with
the trust evil He knows and every
body else who has read the Constitution
Of the United States and the Declaration
Of Independence knows that the rlgh
to property j. one of the dearest prero
gatiyes of the common people that it II
one with the right TO life, liberty an'
the pursuit of happiness that 1t Is ~
forcible in the case of he workingman
who has invested his few dollars in ,
little homestead or share of DIVIDEND
paving stock, ~ it il in the case of the
multmlliuuairc or even of the trust
Nor il there any real difference between
Il human right and n property right
~ ,,,,1 4,
principle Of justice or equity which
tends t. conserve the one consorves the
other
A. 10 Justice Whites opinion that
Congress ha. no right to regulate tn,
ownership Of property all we can say Is
that from the point Of view Of the lay
manit -irik"- u- as hojug not only sound
law but sound common sense