Omaha daily bee., 1910-02-27

SILVER CREEK. Neb., Feb. 25.-To the
Editor of The Bee: II Mr.. Bryan has not
forfeited the confidence and, to a large ex-
tent, the esteem of the democrats Of Ne
braska, 1t is not his fault. For how could
they have very much confidence in him IN
view Of the fact, for instance. that while
denouncing officials of the trusts for viola
lions OF the Sherman act and demanding
their condign punishment, he, himself, was
At the same time guilty of instigatinR the
Nebraska legislature to enact into law the
Oregon plan of electing United States sena-
tors In plain violation of the constitution Of
the United States? And how could they
longer very much esteem him when, after
long years of silence on the liquor question
while as a candidate, or a prospective can
didate, silence would seem to serve his per-
sonal ambitions, he now announces his
adhesion to county option and prepares to
fight the democrats OF Nebraska, who,
while loyalty supporting him for the presl-
dency IL 1905, elected a majority of the
members Of the legislature on the ground
OF their opposition to county option7
Perhaps Mr.. Bryan thinks thai In now
espousing the cause of county option he is
still serving his own personal ambitions.
That may be true. 1t is certain that his
present next season on chautauqua plat
forms will be more In demand than ever,
and when the preachers and the churches,
with his assistance, shall have realized
their ambition to gain political control. of
the country, what thing more natural than
that they should make him president of the
United States. One thing, however, Is now
certain If never before, namely, that Mr..
Bryan will never be a democratic president
OF the United States. To my mind it is
quite clear that to a majority of the demo-
Gratis of the nation Women's Christian Tenn
perance union logic in the Women's Chris
tian Temperance union vernacular land
that is a proper characterization Of Mr..
Bryan's pronouncement on county option
will not appeal, even from the eloquent
mouth Of Mr.. Bryan.
In Mr.. Bryan's dellverance, referred to
above, he says:
ITO favor county option it is not neces-
sary that one shall favor prohibition In his
own or any other county"
And then he proceeds on the
that county option is simply giving the
people of a county the right to say whether
they will or will not. have saloons--a right
to govern themselves. But that is a gross
Misrepresentation OF fact. Even county
op~tionists will not now deny that county
option permits the people Of a county to
govern themselves only to the extent of
saying that they will not have saloons and
does not permit them to say that they will
have saloons. County, option means county
prohibition and nothing else. Mr.. Bryan Is
either misinformed or is ~willfully attempt
ing to mislead. Any honest scheme of
county option would provide that a ma
jority might force saloons into a town that
did not want them as we'll as 70 provide
that a ma fOritU pniUht kaap aoIaoa. o.A -
a town that did want them. True, one who
was opposed to county prohibition might
favor county option. But none but a
natural born idiot would do SO and thus
concede the right of his opponents to gov
ern, being In a majority, and at the same
time surrender the right of his own side to
govern II it should happen to be in the
majority.
Mr.. Bryan says: The record of the
Qast) legislature has but ore blot on 1t, and
that blot was put there by the liquor in
terests. They controlled enough of the
senators to prevent the submission of the
initiative and referendum" II the defeat
Of that proposed measure was a blot on
the record of the legislature, is 1t not true
that the adoption of another measure,
namely, the Oregon plan Of electlng United
States senator's, which was. and which was
intended to be, a notification OF a plain
provision of the constitution Of the United
States, was also a blot, a much deeper
stain on the record of that legislature?
The liquor interests are charged with de-
feating an embryo act of the legislature of
a state. Mr.. Bryan is undeniably guilty of
beguiling the legislature of a state into
committing a rape on the constitution of
his country People who live. in glass
houses should not throw stones" But is
II true that the liquor interests controlled
senator's? 1t might with equal reason be
said thai a majority OF the voters of Ne
braska were controlled by the liquor inter
ests, which Is absurd. A majority OF the
members of the legislature and Of the SEN
ate were elected chiefly because OF their
avowed opposition to county option. They
were elected to the legislature with the full
understanding that they would defeat any
thing and everything that had shy prohibit
ton in II. That initiative and referendum
measure had prohibit n IN l.; 1t was pus Ell
to the front for that very reason; III did
not stand on its own bottom; 1t was sailing
under false colors and ought to have been
defeated. Except for preacher lobbyists
and well-meaning and misguided women
who influenced some weak kneed and sus-
ceptlble members to betray their constitu-
ents, 1t would have been defeated by a
much larger majority, and the 5 o'clock
closing law would also have beer defeated.
Let not Mr.. Bryan think he can lead the
democrats of Nebraska and of the country
into the prohibition camp. They have fol-
lowed him Loyalty, but not blindly, and now
he and they are at the parting Of the ways.
He has put his hand TO the prohibition pillow
and cannot turn back. They will not go
with him, and to them his word is no
longer law. CHARLES WOOSTER.
A Trademark for Omaha.