The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-09-13

politics unless our experience with them differed from the experience we have had with franchiSe-holding cor porations.
 "This statement of my views has been assailed by some as an attempt to force these views upon the Demo- cratic party and by some as an an- nouncemeRt of an intention to insist upon the incorporation of these views in the next Democratic national plat form.
 Let me answer these two charges. I have tried to make 1t clear that I expressed my own opinion, and hfSve never sought to compel the acceptance of my own opinion by any one else. Reservtng the right to do my own thinking, I respect the right Of every one else to do his thinking. have too much respect for the rights of oth- CTS to ask them to accept any views that I may entertain unless those views commend themselves to others, and I have too much confidence in the 1 independent thought ih my own party i to expect that any considerable num- ber of Democrats would acknowledge my right to do their thinking for them even If I were undemocratic enough to assert such g right.
 1 "As to platforms, I have contended always that they should be made by the voters. I have in my speeches and through my paper insisted that the platform should be the expression of the wishes of the voters of the party and not be the arbitrary production of one man or a few leaders.
 "If you ask me whether the quest tion of government ownership will be an issue in the campaign of 1905. answer. I do not know.
 Wait Until Voters Say.
 If you ask me whether 1t ought to be in the platform, I reply, l cannot tell until l know what the Democratic voters think on the subject. If the Democrats believe that the next plat. form should contain a plank in favor of government ownership. then that plank ought to be included.
 'If the Democrats think 1t ought not to contain such plank, then such a plank ought not to be included. Il rests with the party to make the plat form and individuals can only advise . I have spoken for myself and for my self only, and I did not know how the suggestion would be received. am now prepared to confess to you that it has been received more favorably than I expected.
 Tt has not been treated as harshly dS IuOuBAl POS6AbAg II De treated. That 1t would be denounced bitterly by some I fully expected, that 1t would be gravely discussed by oth- CTS I hoped There fs this, however that I do expect, namely, that those Democrats who oppose government ownership will accompany their decla- ration against 1t with the assertion that they will favor government ownership whenever they are con- vihced that the country must choose between government ownership of the railroad and railroad ownership of, the government
 T cannot conceive how a Democrat can announce himself as opposing government ownership no matter tc what extent the railroads carry theii interference with politics and theil corruption of officials. I think may also reasonably expect that Democrats who oppose government ownership will say that If government ownership must come, they prefer a system whereby the State may be preserved and the eentralizing influence be reduced tc a minimum
 Wants Calm Consideration.
 such a plan I have proposed and have proposed 1t because l want the people to consider 1t and not be driver to the federal ownership of all rail roads as the only alternative to pri- vata ownership. The dual NDlan of fed