The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-13
Attacks Arguments of
 Gov. Hughes.
REFORMS OF TEE WEST
Discusses Propriety of Roosevelt
 Supporting Taft.
During His Speech Mir. Bryan Took q Vote of the Students on the Qpestion of Campaign
 Contributions.


 ternoon, w. J. Bryan attacked the arguments of Governor Hughes. of New York. in defense of the Republi- can platform, dwelling on the difer- ences between the two platforms re- iating to publicity of campaign con- tributions and discussed the propriety of President Roosevelt supporting Mir. Taft.
 Delivered forcibly and in Mir. Rry. ans best style. his speech was re- peatediy cheered by the University students. In attacking the position of the Republicans on the tariff situa- ton. he delivered epigrams which kept the students cheering for several min- utes. During the speech he took a vote of the students who were for and against publicity of campaign funds and those who were for and against eIecting Senators by a direct vote.
 The principal part of the speech of the candidate was occupied by an an- swer to the arguments of MT Hughes, who spoke to the University students short time ago.
 Hughes as Champion.
 "Governor Hughes of New York has been put forward as the champion or the Republican Party to attack the Democratic remedy for the tWasts. and the President seems to prefer the ar gtnent advanced by Mir. Hughes than the argument advanced by Mir. Taft. I can fairly assume. therefore, that the argument presented by Mir. Hughes fla not only the strongest argument that has been presented, but the HtrouSeak argument that can be presented be- cause Mr. Roosevelt would not ptt nm against our platform if he were not tha strongest opponent. He has been sent through the West to strengthen ltha Republican lines. desire to re" mind you in the first place, that BIT. Hughes represents the Eastern Ee- nublicans, not the Western Repunii- cans He was one of the canaloatss | \ srainSt MT. Taft when Mr. Tat was hssng urged as the representative ct inc administratioG. Mr Hugnss | ,dw7 fr,Ined wftft tSe Friends o1 MT | cannon. MT f<noai anal Mr. FairpanNs Aa in the effort to preversS the no1iaaAalae9' s, ' | of MT raft. It IS only Tar te ss 1 s,,rae therefore. that MT. Husnes ls {,
 Sa4 X reforner in the sense in wnicn ma. Ina term Is used by the Republicans or sne an evidence that MT. Hughes is nof in sympathy with Western sorus vou will recall that ne Vetoeas s,'s two-cent passenger rate ana fe...,,s.- tbis in spite of the fact that fNsPuos ...''s ,insn Tspislature of New York passso .hs hiiI' The Governors In the western states signed this bill and we are now enioving the benefits or the tWo-eee Sare' New York Is more thlckty sel- tied than the Western states ana " hc gave the benefit of the doupt
 tha railroads in their contest with tns a,.nns e.s will not say that he did this hAcause of the contributions mauS to his campaign fund by Morgan De- new the Vanderbilts and one or tns coulds It is not necessary 10 assuiis tbat these contributions had any erect on his action. It is enough 70 know that he did not act on this suoJeeI as RanuhIican Governors in the West stod care not what explanation his Sriends may make. If they say thaS he decided In favor of the railroads yvIthout any reference to the contriou- tIons made by the railroads it simply shows that he looks at questions rom the standpoint of the railroaa rather than from the stanopolns Inf inc patrons. If he had sign ed the bill the railroads could have protected themselves by recourse to inc courts. but when he vetoed the | bill. the people had no recourse. His Natural DispOsition- .Tt is not strange that he should op- nose the Democratic remedy on tne | trust question, for he has never snown | an interest in the correction Of the avIls that the trusts have brought on the country. I will not say that this partiality for the trusts is due to the contributions made to his campaign l fund by Carnegie, Schwab, Gates, Hav- | emeyer. Duke and others. It is not necessary to assume that these con- | tributions influenced him at all. 1t may be his natural disposition to take the side of the trust as against the | people. His speech presents all the | evidence necessary to convict him of lack of sympathy with the general | public.
 ''Does he manifest any concern about | the wrong done to the people by the trusts? Not the least. Has he any l remedy? None whatever. With him 1t l is a subject of amusement 1t Is real- ly too funny for anything to think | that anybody should try to do any, | thing. If you will read his speech on | this subject you will agree with me when iiken the situation to the case of a sick man who Is about to try a remedy proposed by a physician. pr. | Hughes comes In and says:
 What. Are you going to take that remedy? What, That Is ridiculous. that Is absurd and then retires from the room laughing and leaving the | patient without a remedy and without | a suggestion. Now If the patient Is
 not really sick that might be excus- able; but what do you think about it? Is the patient sick or not? If the trusts are doing no harm then Of | course no remedy Is needed If the trusts are doing harm, then why does | not Mir. Hughes propose somethingG" BALLOON COLLAPSEs.