i viommoner
? Extracts From W.
Constitutional Libert j.
The worst feature of the supreme
court decision in the Downes case Is it
ttrikes a blow at constitutional liber
ty. In attempting to defend the po
sition taken by the majority of the
court. Justice Brown nsed arguments
which, if carried to their logical con
clusions, would deny the necessity for
a constitution anywhere. According
to the decision of the court, congress
can govern Porto Rico as a colony,
without constitutional limitations, so
far as the taxing power is concerned,
and enough is said in the majority
opinion to show that no political right
is absolutely secure.
The question naturally arises: If
the Porto Ricans do not need the pro
tection of a written constitution. wh3
do the people of the United States
need a written constitution? If we
concede that the Porto Ricans are safe
without a constitution we must also
admit that the Americans would be
safe without a constitution. Justice
Brown says: "Grave apprehensions of
danger are felt by many eminent men
a fear lest an unrestrained possession
of power on the part of congress may
lead to unjust and oppressive legisla
tion, in which the natural rights of
territories, or their inhabitants, may
be engmlfed in a centralized despotism.
These fears, however, find no justifica
tion in the action of congress, nor in
the conduct of the British parliament
toward its outlying1 possessions 6ince
the American revolution. There
are certain principles of natural justice
inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character
which need no expressions in constitu
tions or statutes to give them effect
or to secure dependencies against leg
islation manifestly hostile to their real
interests."
I shall at another time treat of his
reference to the benevolence of the
British parliament, but my purpose at
this time is to emphasize the fact that
he repudiates the arguments which
have always been given in support of a
written constitution. It was necessary
to do so in order to justify the Torto
Rican decision, and yet in doing so he
surrenders one of the most vital prin
ciples of government. Some of the re
publican papers have most violently
assailed me because I pointed out the
political heresy uttered by the court.
Will any republican paper quote the
language which I have quoted above,
and then answer two questions?
flbst: 13 a. constitution a good
thing fob the people of the uxited
States?
Secoxd: IF SO, IK) SOT the Poeto
filCANS ALSO NEED A CONSTITUTION?
A special invitation is extended to
the editor of Postmaster General
Smith's paper to answer the questions,
but any republican paper, great or
small, conspicuous or obscure, is at
liberty to try. The Porto Ricans do
not elect the congress; we do, and yet
we have the protection of a constitu
tion while the Porto Ricans have none.
We can retire the members of congress
if we don"t like their conduct, and yet
we have a constitution and the Porto
Ricans have none. The members of
congress are chosen from among us,
and they must live under the laws
which they make for us; the congress
men are not chosen from among the
Porto Ricans, and do not live under
the laws made for the Porto Ricans.
and yet we have a constitution and the
Porto Ricans have none. If '"there
are certain principles of natural justice
inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character
which need no expression in constitu
tions or statute to give them effect or
to secure dependencies against legisla
tion manifestly hostile to their real in
terests, why were the people of rev
olutionary days unwilling to rely upon
that '"natural justice?" If there
is no danger in "an unrestrained pos
session of power on the part of con
press" why were our forefathers so
careful to restrain the power? Has
human nature so changed as to make
unnecessary now the constitutional
limitations which were thought neces
sary a century ago?
Constitutional liberty has been at
tacked and the attack must be met at
once. The doctrine laid down by Jus
tice Brown is antagonistic to all that
the American people have been taught
to believe sacred. If we admit his ar
gument when applied to Porto Ricans,
upon what ground can we stand when
we claim for ourselves the protection
of the constitution or the bill of rights?
If the principle contended for by Justice
Brown is established for the govern
ment of colonies, it will by irresistible
logic become operative in the United
States. That the readers of The Com
moner may fortify their own views by
the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, the
following extracts are made from his
writings as collected in that invalua
ble volume "The Jeffersonian Cyclope
dia. In 1S02 he wrote: "Though written con
stitutions may be violated in moments
of passion or delusion, yet they furnish
a text to which those who are watch
ful may again rally and recall the peo
ple. They fix, too, for the people the
The Cuban convention has accepted
the Piatt amendment, but as the Cu
bans had to accept it or fight, the ac
tion of our nation has not increased
their love for our people. But the re
publicans think love is unnecessary as
long as we have a large army.
There was but one Dred Scott, but
the famous decision in his case brought
about a revolution. The supreme
court of the United States has decided
that all Porto Ricans are Dred Scotts,
and the nation will not long suffer the
injustice to remain.
comment
J. Bryan's Paper. J
principles of their political creed.
At another time he described our
constitution as "the ark of our safety,
and grand palladium of our peace and
happiness."
It will be remembered that the feder
al constitution was opposed by some
because it did not contain a bill of
rights, and the first ten amendments
were immediately adopted to remedy
this defect and provide additional
guarantees to life, liberty and proper
ty. Jefferson was a firm believer in
the doctrine which led to the adoption
of the bill of rights. In a letter writ
ten in 1739 he said: "I disapproved
from the first moment the want of
a bill of rights (in the constitution) to
guard liberty against the legislative as
well as the executive branches of the
government; that is to say, to secure
freedom in religion, freedom of the
press, freedom from monopolies, free
dom from unlawful imprisonment,
freedom from a permanent military,
and a trial by jury in all cases determ
inable by the laws of the land.
In a letter written to James Madi
son, in 1737, Jefferson said: "A bill
of rights is what the people are entitl
ed to against every government on
earth, general or particular; and what
no just government should refuse, or
rest on inferences."
At another time he defined his posi
tion as follows: ''By a declaration of
rights I mean one which shall stipulate
freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, freedom of commerce against
monopolies, trial by juries in all cases,
no suspensions of the habeas corpus,
no standing armies. These are fetters
against doing evil which no honest
government should decline."
Jefferson was a believer in popular
government, but he also believed in
the inalienable rights of individuals
rights which the government does not
give and ought not to take away
rights which cannot be safely intrust
ed to the keeping of any legislative
body. Until recently, Jefferson's po
sition on this subject was unanimously
endorsed.
Every state has adopted a constitu
tion placing restrictions npon the leg
islative branch as well as upon the oth
er branches of the government. The
state of Ohio has a constitution and a
bill of rights; how can Senator Ilanna
and President McKinley favor a cons
titution and a bill of rights for Ohio
and then declare that the people of
Porto Rico need no such protection?
If the farmers, laborers, and business
men of Ohio are not willing to trust
the wisdom and justice of an unre
strained state legislature, by what
process of reasoning do they reach the
conclusion that the people of Porto
Rico can entrust their rights to the
protection of an unrestrained congress?
Justice Brown is a citizen of the
state of Michigan, and Michigan also
has a constitution and a bill of rights.
Is Justice Brown willing to go before
the people of his own state and tell
them that their legislature should be
vested with full and unrestrained pow
er to act on all questions affecting the
rights and property of the citizens?
If not. why not? Is a congress more
reliable than a .tate legislature? Is a
representative body more trustworty
as it gets farther away from the peo
ple? Is delegated authority more care
fully exercised in proportion as the
seat of government is farther removed
from the voters?
The position taken by Judge Brown
would be ludicrous if it -were not so
serious. It is strange that his lan
guage is not challenged by the repub
licans. Two republican judges out of
six dissented from this position; have
the republican newspapers less inde
pendence than the judges? Have the
rank and file of the republican party,
who are under noobligation to the party
less independence of thought and ac
tion than the justices who hold their
commissions from republican pres
dents? Unless the people are wholly
absorbed in money-making and entire
ly indifferent to that constitutional
liberty so highly prized and so dearly
lought by our ancestors there will be
so emphatic a protest against the im-perialistie-utterences
of the court that
no body of officials on the bench or
elsewhere will soon again disregard
the spirit of American institution.
Thf trustification. reDublicanization
and subsidization of the democratic
party is making progress only among
those who have been democrats when
there was neither campaign nor elec
tion on hand. Men who have been
democrats in wason and out of season
because the principles of democracy
were their principles, are not demand
ing any retreat from advanced posi
tions taken by the party.
By comparing the crookedness at
Manila with the embezzlements at
Havana we are able to formulate a rule
for carpetbag governments The steal
ing increases as the square of the dis
tance increases.
Mr. Perrj S. Heath can now revive
the ilanna presidential boom.
When a man who calls himself a
democrat finds himself supported by
men who thrive on anti-democratic
policies his democracy may well be
called into question.
As the country understands it, taxa
tion without representation is wrong
when we are the taxed, but quite prop
er when we are the taxers.
Will Grosvenor say that McKinley
an he said Washington did declined a
third nomination for fear of defeat?
GET AFTER CONGRESS.
PEOPLE MUST TAKE A HAND IN
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Oar Senators aad Representatives Mast
Be Informed As to the Kind of
"Kola We Vfnnt la the Philippine
aad la Porto Rleo.
As the decision of the supreme court
in the Porto Rican cases has decided
that congress alone Is the governing
power in our new territorial posses
sions. It is incumbent on 'the people to
Impress their senators and representa
tives before the next session with the
kind of government the people of these
territories are to have, and if the con
stitution is to be extended to them the
same as in Alaska and other posses
sions. Shall they have the right to ad
minister their own local government,
the right of trial by jury, and tax
themselves for school and other pur
poses as seems best to them? Speaking
of the decision the New York World
says. Here are four facts which ought
not to be overlooked:
First Five of the nine justices were
opposed to the oriental expansion de
lusionWhite, Fuller, Peckham, Har
lan and Brewer. If White had not
disagreed with the others as to the
constitutional method of avoiding the
expansion that contracts, the vote of
the court would have to be reversed. -
Second Eight of the nine Justices
dismissed the pet theory of the colo
nialiststhe "extra constitutional"
powers of the government whereunder
the colonists would have been the po
litical slaves of our officials, instead of.
as now, legally entitled to some of our
constitutional rights.
Third The court put the responsi
bility squarely upon congress, so that
congress will have to answer directly
to the people for whatever is done In
the colonies. There can be no play
ing of shuttlecock between the presi
dent, congress and the supreme court.
Fourth While the supreme court
has held that the constitution does not
forbid colonial expansion, it has not
held that the constitution enjoins colo
nial expansion.
From the great question all factors
are now eliminated, except the politi
cal. The fundamental questions. Does
it pay? 13 it sensible? Is it just? Is
it worthy of the beliefs and the aspira
tions of the people of the republic
can and must now be answered.
And if the people cannot answer
these questions sensibly and justly,
how long would a constitutional bar
have been effective to restrain them
from self-destruction? If the princi
ples of the republic have departed from
the people, if the only force or even if
the chief force of those high principles
had was in a supposed constitutional
restraint from injustice and folly, then
Indeed it is excusable to tremble for
the republic.
SHIP-SUBSIDY AND CORRUP
TION. It will not be long before congress
will meet again, and Hanna will again
be introducing his one hundred and
eighty million dollar ship subsidy
scheme. The only chance to defeat it
is to urge your senators and represen
tatives to vote against it and call on
your neighbors to do likewise and
mark every congressman for slaughter
that does not openly oppose it when
caucus and convention times comes
around.
There has never before been at
tempted a more barefaced scheme to
loot the United States treasury than Is
proposed in the bill fathered by Sena
tor Hanna and recommended by Presi
dent McKinley? The republican party
has in the past often forced subsidy
steals through congress and in nearly
every case great scandals were brought
to light of the corruption used in
passing them. This bill will lead to a
much greater corruption, as the mod
ern trust surpasses the old time com
mercial company, and will smirch the
characters of all who favor it.
The advocates of subsidies for ocean
shipping still harp on the old subject
of reviving American commerce, says
the Chicago Chronicle. They describe
the infrequent appearance of the Am
erican flag in foreign ports and say
that It must be restored to Its former
popularity on the high seas. American
shipping has been driven from the
ocean because the tariff has raised the
cost of every article used in the con
struction of American vessels. Having
made the cost of vessel construction bo
high as to drive our commerce from
the -ocean, the subsidyists now want
the taxpayers to make up the differ
ence In cost between building ships in
England and building them In the
United States. They tax the people to
the extent of robbery for the purpose
of making shipbuilding costly and then
would tax the people to pay the ship
builders for the extra cost of building
ships. That is subsidy and tariff
statesmanship.
BOSS PLATT'S RUFFIANS.
The amazing amount of smuggling
that is carried on by the rich on their
return from abroad led congress to
limit the personal belongings purchas
ed in other countries to $100 and the
customs authorities made regulations
to enforce the law, the nabobs have
greatly resented this attempt to collect
revenue from them, they seem to be
filled with the Idea that it is an in
fringement on their personal rights
and that protection is all very well
when applied to the common people,
but should be free trade for million
aires. As this law and regulations are of
Republican origin, it is surprising to
see that the Philadelphia Presi, an
ultra-administration organ, edited by
one of the cabinet of President Mc
Kinley, and a rampant protectionist,
should so far forget the "living issue"
as to indulge in the following tirade J
against carrying oat the law. Here It
what the Press says:
"Persons spending some weeks
abroad must purchase articles of ordi
nary wear. They are permitted under
the law to expend 1 100 on personal ef
fects. If they take oath to the fact
that they have not made purchases
subject to duty that oath ought to be
sufficient. Every one of them la
obliged to sign a paper while the ves
sel is coming up the harbor. What is
the sense, then, in making these pas
sengers open their trunks for some ruf
fian and under the present regula
tions the average Inspector feels it in
cumbent upon himself to act like a ruf
flan to paw over and scatter the con
tents upon the dirty flooring? The
regulations under which the New York
custom house is run are something
abominable."
Now these ruffians are Republicans
selected by Boss Piatt and approved by
the officers whom President McKinley
has appointed. Yet it does seem a
shame that when the Postmaster Gen
eral returns from a trip abroad, after
having hobnobbed with the crowned
heads and nobility of England and Eu
rope, with probably a dozen pairs of
kid gloves, some suits of genuine
Scotch tweed all wool and a yard
wide, unlike the Philadelphia imita
tion and perhaps a piece of silk vel
vet that may hereafter adorn the wife
of the secretary, to have a "ruffian"
paw over all this finery, even after he
has declared nothing subject to duty
and worst of all, scatter these beauti
ful importations on the dirty floor is a
sin and a shame. But what can the
secretary do about it, the law is no
respecter of persons, no matter how
high and august they may b3, and the
penalty for smuggling covers all
classes.
The only redress that appears avail
able i3 to repeal the law and return to
the good old American custom of
tariff for revenue only, and as even
then baggage would be examined, to
replace the "ruffians" with some hon
est Populists who have clean hands
and not such beasts with paws, as
Secretary Smith describes so graphi
cally. HOW TO TAX MONOPOLIES.
The monopoly in the iron and steel
industry is now as complete as in the
coal idustry and in the oil industry,
says the Modern Culture Magazine. It
is noteworthy that these three great
monopolies are all of mineral produc
tions upon the use and enjoyment of
which the Industrial life of the nation
depends. They are controlled by a
small group of allied capitalists, some
of whom hold shares in all of them.
They employ the cheapest, as well as
some of the better paid, grades of la
bor in extra hazardous occupations,
and the relations between employer
and employed in the past have been
extremely unsatisfactory. The con
trast between the lot of the ill-paid
miner taking his life in his hands to
toll and grub In the dark. Ill-ventilated
tunnels In the bowels of the earth for
the bare pittance that will keep soul
and body together and his family from
the poorhouse, and that of the presi
dent of the corporation which employs
him, whose every clock-tick counts a
miner's daily wage added to his sal
ary, is the most startling of all the in
equalities of fortune the world ha3 yet
seen.
It will hardly be contended that the
fathers of the republic contemplated
such a superstructure when they laid
the foundations of American liberty on
the common law with its exaggerated
regard for the "sacred rights" of prop
erty. It is to the common law that
we owe the definition of land titles
which makes them include the miner
als beneath the soil and the sunlight
and atmosphere above it. Yet it is an
absurdity of reasoning which makes
the ownership of each square foot of
surface extend from the center of the
earth to the limits of space, and it is
within the power of congress and the
state legislatures to correct this ab
surdity whenever it is made clear to
the public conscience that a monstrous
injustice is worked by it. The power
of the steel trust, the coal trust, the
oil trust, and of every other great
monopoly is "based In the last Instance
upon some monoply of unused land."
The ability to control the available
supply of some commodity and to with
hold from use the surplus product, is
the essential feature of every trust. If
the state would exercise its undoubted
right and power to tax oil and mineral
lands for their full rental value so
long as a monopoly existed in any
mineral product It would at once be
come unprofitable for any corporation
or Individual to hold such lands idle.
They must be worked to their full ca
capacity or they would revert to the
state for taxes. In either case the
"corner," or destructive monopoly,
would cease. The average royalty
paid to owners of bituminous coal
lands is ten cents per ton of coal
mined. The average royalty paid to
owners of iron lands Is thirty cents
per ton of ore mined. A tax of like
amount levied on the full productive
capacity of mineral lands owned, leas
ed, or operated by trusts would put a
handicap on the efforts of great cor
porations to gain absolute control of
the earth and all its productions; and
some portion of the revenues so se
cured might be wisely employed In al
leviating the toll and wretchedness of
the lives of miners.
Mr. Justice Brown is the most florid
judicial flopper of the age. He is said
to have flopped not long before the de
cision in the Porto Rican cases was
delivered, and he certainly flopped :
from one side of the question in the
first decision to the other side in the
latter one.
According to the New York Herald
there are 3,828 millionaires who own
sixteen thousand millions of the na
tion's wealth. Nearly all this has been
created in the last fifty years, and has
taken a vast amount of labor of other
people than those same millionaires.
WILL IT FOLLOW?
CONSTITUTION MAY NOT PRO
TECT TERRITORY.
Coder Republican Admlnlttra tlona
Varied Opinions on Recent Supreme
Court DecUloe President Cannot Be
Lecnllr Tested with Authority to
"Role" Filipino.
The more decision of the Supreme
Court is analyzed by the ablest law
yers, the less it seems that the future
is settled. One says: "Justice White
one of the majority judges, in one
case in delivering his opinion did so
by saying "the court would decide that
a tax on goods going from Porto Rico
to the United States was legal; he took
great pains not to allude to traffic go
ing both ways. Perhaps this was due
to the limitation of "today" in his as
sertion, but, in any event, the defer
ring of an opinion on that point is
significant.
"If it should decide that the 15 per
cent duty was valid on good3 coming
this way, but invalid on goods going
the other, it would be very embarras
sing for Congress to legislate for the
colonies. Free trade one way and pro
tection the other would not accord
with the spirit of fair play of the
American people. Four of the justices
are ranged against the tariff, even on
colonial imports, but the only one of
the remaining five needs to scruple on
exports to turn an administration vic
tory into a practical defeat."
And regarding the Philippines some
of the ablest lawyers In Washington
say without hesitation that Congress
cannot invest the President with auth
ority to make revenue laws and that
the Supreme Court is bound to declare
all collections of duties under present
conditions without authority. This
leads to the opinion that when another
case comes before the court or if a re
hearing is granted on one of tne cases
already decided the court may reverse
its decision and the edict will go forth
that the constitution does follow the
flag and this result is the more likely,
for Justice White said In effect at
least, many able lawyers who listened
Intently to his words as they were ut
tered, so interpret them that his sole
reason for sustaining the act was be
cause its revenue provisions expire by
limitation in a few months. This frank
statement raises the question in the
mind3 of lawyers "Will Justice White
vote to sustain a similar act if Con
gress should decide hereafter to con
tinue the Porto Rico tariff?
The answer to this by many of the
distinguished persons who were pres
ent at the proceedings is negative.
Senator Mason, who sat throughout
the reading of the opinion, said to
night that he felt quite sure Justice
White had made it clear that his only
reason for sustaining the Foraker tar
iff was because it does not run indef
initely. POLITICAL CORRUPTION.
Since the discovery of the Cuban
postal frauds for which Rathbone and
Neely have not yet been brought to
trial and the corruption in the Phil
ippines, it is necessary that the civil
service should be filled by men whose
antecedents assure a faithful and hon
est performance of their duties. This
is especially necessary in the appoint
ments for the positions in the new ter
ritories or colonies, but the adminis
tration does not take this view of the
case. It has used no diligence in ascer
taining if those recommended have
these requirements, but merely if par
tizan purposes were to be favored and
its most obnoxious henchmen reward
ed. So great has this evil become and
so notorious have been most of the
appointments, that even those news
papers, that otherwise have supported
the policy of the president, are now
strongly rebuking him.
We think that President McKinley,
says the New York Times, ought to put
a stop to this sort of thing. There is
no doubt of his power to do it. There
Is no doubt that he is in a perfectly
6afe position to do it. He wouia not
endaneer the success of his party, and
he has no personal ambitions to serve.
The backward drift of his party from
the standard of merit In appointments
that was set his predecessor is dis
creditable to him and dangerous to tne
hest interests of the party. It tends
directly to the guidance of the party
action bv the least wortny ana me
most ignorant, and that in the long
run must be disastrous. Especially it
tends to bring Into positions or activity
and control in the party men of cor
rupt purposes and men who can be
bou eh t In the near future tne e-
publlcan party will have need of all
Its virtues and firmness to resist the
renal forces seeking to use it. The
president should see that his indul
gence to the spoilsmen is weakening It.
TRADE BALANCE A "MYTH."
There is no doubt that there is a
screw loose somewhere in the figures
given out by the Treasury Department
on what is known as "the balance of
trade." The political economists have
for some time claimed that the figures
are unreliable as we have evidently
received pay for only a part of their
enormous balance on paper in our
favor. Prodded by public opin
ion Secretary Gage has prom
ised to investigate the matter.
but his experts evidently have
been unable to furnish the Informa
tion, unless a very lame statement
given out by the bureau of statistics
is claimed as an explanation.
The claim of the Democrats that the
figures given were misleading and had
probably been padded for politcal ef
fect to show the enormous prosperity
attained under the protective tariff and
the beneficent rule of the trusts, is be
ing proven. The matter has caused so j
much attention that the financiers
have been making Investigation on
their own account for the Chicago
Chronicle says:
Certain New York bankers are quot
ed as saying that the enormous bal
ance apparently due the United States
on account of foreign trade is a myth.
One of them points out that since
about the 1st of April large amounts
of sixty and ninety day bills of ex
change have been drawn by American
banking houses. These are not drawn
against balances abroad, but are essen
tially loan bills. If balances existed
abroad there would be demand bills.
He expresses the opinion that the rich
Americans residing abroad spend a very
large amount In the aggregate which
tiny draw from the United States and
a large part of the balance appar
ently due us is absorbed in thie way.
At the time when the drawing of these
long bills began the merchandise bal
ance In our favor for the preceding
nine months was over $540,000,000. Add
to this a net export of $21,000,000 in
silver and deduct a net import of less
than $20,000,000 in gold and we still
have $535,000,000 apparently due us
on nine months trade, or at the rate of
$715,000,000 for entire fiscal year. This
is an enormous sum to be consumed in
payment of freights to foreign Bhlp
owners. In expenditures of Americans
touring and residing abroad and In
payment for securities sent home. Dur
ing the last three fiscal years and the
first three-quarters of this year the
apparent balance due us on account of
merchandise, gold and silver, was $2.
144,000,000. round figures. The mer
chandise balance was $2,230,000,000. in
settlement of which the net import of
gold and silver was only $86,000,000.
If all the apparent balance remaining
is a myth our treasury statistics are
very far from exhibiting the true state
of our foreign trade.
THE WOOL TARIFF.
The low price of wool and the light
demand for woolen goods of American
manufacture under the almost prohibi
tive duties of the Dingley tariff shows
the utter absurdity of ultra protection.
It kills the goose that lays the golden
eggs by too high and pampered feeding.
The farmers were led to believe that
their small flocks would be so remu
nerative when the Dingley tariff was
enacted and that the exactions that the
tariff demanded on the other necessi
ties of life would be more than com
pensated for and they would grow rich.
They have now found out their mis
take and the wool growers and the
woolen manufacturers are about ready
to return to the tariff for revenue, un
der which they were more prosperous
than they are today.
If it was not for the mutton sheep,
the raising of which has done away
with the dislike for mutton which was
distasteful to many American palates,
the decrease of our flocks would be
greater than it has been. The further
reason for the decline in the price of
wool and the demand for woolen good 3
Is told by the Courier-Journal, which
says:
The present high duty on raw wool
is producing the effect which has often
been pointed out by free traders. The
high duties on imported woolens ex
cludes them as elements of competition
except by the payment of greatly ad
vanced prices. But there is no way to
force people to buy woolens if they are
unwilling to pay the price. Higher
prices, other things being equal, mean
reduced consumption. In the case of
woolens, the manufacturers are com
pelled to meet the demand for goods at
a moderate price, and they can only do
so by a deterioration of the products.
Hence the increased rise of cotton and
shoddy in the manufacture of so-called
woolens.
SLAVERY UNDER "THE FLAG."
When once men have been enslaved
how difficult it is to reinstill them with
love of freedom. The English foreign
office reports concerning the working
of the decrees freeing the slaves of
Zanzibar and Pemba. Fewer slaves
appeared for freedom in 1900 than in
1899, because the British commissioner
avers, most of the slaves know they are
not likely to gain much present advan
tage, seeing that those who were
thrown on their own resources have
a difficult time to make a living.
The masters have been kinder since
the slave legislation was enacted, and
seek to make their services more at
tractive. Perhaps this is the reason that
President McKinley has not taken
steps to free the slaves in our Islands
of the sea, but then our flag floats over
Republican institutions or has until
the new Imperial policy was Inaugu
rated and Britain Is an empire. Sure
ly we should not be behind the Eng
lish in at least attempting to free our
slaves, especially as the constitution
commands it. '
THE GROWTH OF TRUSTS.
The present year will be a record
breaker in the organization of trusts if
the rate continues as it has since Janu
ary 1. New consolidations of capital
have been made since that date aggre
gating considerably over $2,000,000,000.
Here is a short list of the most import
ant of them and their capitalization:
The steel trust $1,100,000,000
Accident insurance trust. 50,000,000
Trust companies consoli
dation 50.000,000
Tin can trust 80,009.000
General machinery trust. 50,000,000
Ship-building companies
combine 85,000.000
Locomotive trust 50,000,000
Cotton duck combine 50,000,000
All present indications make it prob
able that the record of 1901 will far
surpass that of 1900 in the formation
of these huge industrial combines. Ne
gotiations are now preparing the way
for another large batch. Including f.
combine of the great farming machine
Sims and another of the leadltn;
watch-making works with capital
stocks of $75,OO0,0t each.
