Fort Mill times. [volume] (Fort Mill, S.C.) 1892-current, 1908-03-26
BRYAN WRITES
And Thanks The State For Fight
Against Misrepresentation.
WANTS A FREE PRESS

Rule or Ruin Newspapers. Shows
Up the New York World and IL.
Editorials.
Lincoln. Neb.. March 13, 1908.
MIR. VIM. f. Gonzales. Columbia, s. c.
My Dear Mr.. Gonzales. Il appre.
ciate the fight which you are making
against the Misrepresentation in
dulged in by the New York World
and those who echo lneir editorials.
III Is not for me to discuss the Ques-
ton of availability OF candidates. l
have never stated that I was the
most available candidate or that /
could poll the most votes That is
not question upon which my Judge
ment ought to be ventured or ac-
cepted. l have simply stated that 1t
Is a question for the voters of the
party to determine.
AS Democrat l have resented the
claim that few editors should de-
eide this question for the people. l
am a believer in free press and !
recognize the right of any editor.
whether his circulation he large or
small, to state his opinion and his
reason for 1t, but those who read his
opinion have a right to give IL such
weight as they think il deserves.
have insisted that the readers ought
to know what pecuniary interest the
editor has in the questions under
discussion.
For instance, I asked The World
to state editorially what financial in
terests its owner, Mr.. Pulitzer has
in the stocks or bonds OF railroads
and in the stocks and bonds OF cor
porations commonly known as trusts.
The World has not seen flt to an
swer the question. He Is reputed to
be interested in a number OF cor
porations which are affected by leg
islation, and his readers are entitled
to know what his interests are. If
he has interests adverse to the in
terest OF the public, he is not dis
interested Judge as to candidates or
platform.
II he has interests that would be
injuriously affected by Legislation
needed by the people. then his opin-
ions are worth no more than the opin-
ons of Mr.. Hartman or Mr.. Rookie
feller | do not deny the right OF
Hartman. or Morgan, or Rockefel-
Ter. Of Pulitzer, to own a paper and
present their views to the public. but
l do contend .hat in the interest or
honesty and fair dealing, the owner
of the paper should be known and
the inter st of the owner in the ques-
tions frankly stated.
The Worlds unfairness is evidenc-
ed in every editorial In the first
place 1t ignores entirely the election
of 1894. when the Democratic party
was overwhelmingly defeated. This
election occurred before I had any
influence in national politics. 1t oc-
Cured when the party was being con
Quoted along the lines laid down by
The World. 1t is deliberately unfair
In ignoring this election and charg
ing the defeats of 1896 and 1900 to
me, just as 1t is unfair in ignoring
the still worse defeat OF 1904, when
it was again the party's adviser.
1t is simply prophesying when it
says that / can not carry any States
that l lost before. and that some
other Democrat can. How does II
know? What gift of phophecy has
1t? 1t thought in 1904 that Judge
Parker would prove a popular cenii
date 1t demanded his nominal atiou
and II advised him each day as T.
what he should say and do. Wha'
evidence can it furnish that ii has
more intelligence today than it had
then, or that It's prophecies rest on
a firmer foundation?
There are several papers in your
State which were against me in 1895
and have been against me ever since.
j do not know whether IL is because
of q difference OF opinion as to what
ought to be done, or whether they
are connected with interests that are
hostile to the things which | have
been advocating. There are several
papers In the United States which
are known TO be owned, In whole or
In part. by the corporate interests,
which they defend. but I would not
make such a charge against the pap
ers of your State, becuase I have no
huOWitukt dS W luC wv vi dS
to the corporate interests with which
the owners may be connected, and
prefer to assume that the differences
are honest differences unless l have
evidence to the contrary.
However, it is only fair to say
that these unfriendly editors. howev-
er honest they may be. are only SO
many individuals, and according to
the Democratic theory, they are en-
titled to such influence only rs their
fellow-citizens may voluntarily give
to their opinions. If the voters differ
from these editors 1t must be remem-
bered that they have a right to diff
fer. and If 1t should prove that the
voters are mistaken in Judgment
they can console themselves with the
reflection that the editors unfriendly
to me have also been mistaken in
judgment, as is shown by the defeat
of 1904.