March 21, I063
3
The Commoner.
ting her sovereignty recognized everywhere, we
can speculato upon the duration of the enforced
silence for which General Funston asks. No nation
ever welcomed a foreign master and no ono can
estimate how long It will take to subdue those
who love liberty better than life. Neither can any
ono tell how often the fight must bo renewed. If
criticism is not to be tolerated while the war is in
progress, is it to be tolerated when, though the
war is over, it is likely to stir up another insurrec
tion? General Funston is sensible enough to see
and frank enough to admit that free speech is in
consistent with the doctrine of empire. When
President Schurman made his recent speech in
Boston, General Wheaton at once announced that
the distinguished educator would not be permitted
to make such a speech in the Philippines, but
General Funston is even more radical. He says:
"There are many men in the United States who
did more with their mouths and minds to aid the
insurgents than did men with Krag-Jorgenson
rifles and I would rather see these men hanged
for treason than see one of our soldiers dead on
the field of battle." He not only attempts to shift
the blame for the death of our soldiers from those
who urge a war of conquest to those who oppose
such a war, but he, shows his contempt for free
speech and a free press. Some might think him
entitled to the first place on the ticket, but in view
of the fact that the senate is now the only delibera
tive part of the national congress it would be
especially fitting that Gen. Funston should (if his
views are indorsed by the people) be placed in
position to throttle discussion in the senate.
If imperialism is to be the issue, let it be made
as plain as possible, and nothing would contribute
more to this end than the selection of Beveridgo
and Funston or Funston and Beveridge as re
publican standard-bearers.
JJJ
That "Captains' Fight."
It will be remembered that in his opinion on
the Schley case, President Roosevelt said that the
Santiago battle was a captains' fight. Tho Chica
go Chronicle is moved to reply, "Why Is it that the
captains have not had the prize money?" Accord
ing to the Chronicle, the record discloses that tho
score of the various officers was something like
this:
Captains absent and not engaged
W. T. Sampson, acting rear admiral. .$25,797.44
F. B. Chadwlck of the New York 14,026.08
Captains present and engaged
W. S. Schley 3,334.00
F. A. Cook 2,190.32
It. Evans " 2,166.40
C. E. Clark 1,989.60
J. W. Philip .....,". 1,740.28
' H. C. Taylor 2,152.89
It will be seen, that the total amount distri
buted to officers was $53,397.01. Of this amount
Schley, Cook, Clark, Evans, Philip and Taylor,
who were present and engaged in the fight, re
ceived $13,573.49. Sampson and Chadwlck, who
were absent and therefore did not participate in
the fight, received $39,823.52. Thus it will be seen
that the two men who were not engaged in the
fight received $26,250.03 more than the entire
amount paid to the six officers who were engaged
in the fight. If it were indeed a captains' fight,
there is something radically wrong in our method
of distributing the honors.
JJJ
The Tariff on Wool.
A South Dakota subscriber asks why wool is
60 low under the present high tariff law. As in
the case of other things, the price of wool is prob
ably the resultant of several forces, no one alono
entirely controlling the situation. Some of the
wool growers have complained that an increased
tise of shoddy is responsible for the low price of
-wool, but this Increased use of shoddy may be,
.and probably is, the result of the high tariff on
wcolens. The customer not being able to pay for
.good goods is compelled to buy an inferior qual
ity. It is also probable that tho combination
formed among wool manufacturers whereby com
petition in tho purchase of wool Is lessened, has
had something to do with lowering tho price.
Then, too, as imported wool isofton mixed with
domestic wool in tho manufacture of woolens, an
increased price In the foreign wool may under
certain circumstances compel a reduction in tho
price of the domestic wool, in order to prevent too
great. an Increase In tho price of the joint prod
uct. In case we export the product, the tariff! on
tho imported wool is a direct Injury to the Ameri
can wool grower.
The wool situation shows how difficult It Is to
plan legislative aid to any ono class with tho as
surance that even that class will get tho benefit of
it. The editor of The Commoner has never be
lieved that the farmers who raise other products
should bo taxed on woolens to aid a small per
centage of the farmers who raiso sheep, and he
has never believed that a high tariff on wool
could in the long run bo beneficial to the country.
Many wool growers" have, however, favored a
high tariff! on wool regardless of its injustice to
other farmers, and its Injustice to the country gen
erally. The present wool market furnishes an argu
ment that may convince those who have besn
willing to advocate high tariff so long as they en
joyed a pecuniary benefit therefrom, but who will
abandon a high tariff if they see that there 13
nothing in it for themselves.
JJJ
A Foul Deed.
A London cablegram to the Chicago Tribune,
under date of March 11, quotes a British soldier
who formed one of the hollow squares, enclosed in
which Commandant Scheepers met his doom. Tho
Tribune's story is as follows:
Commandant Scheepers was shot at 3
o'clock. They brought him from town in an
ambulance van with a band playing and the
firing party following behind. When they got
him to his grave he begged to be allowed to
stand up and face death, but they tied him
down in a chair and blindfolded him. Then
fifteen of the Coldstream Guards stood ten
paces from him and fired. The volley almost
blew one side of him away, and it was a sick
ening sight. He must have been a brave man;
he did not flinch or turn pale. They buried
him as he was and broke up the chair upon
which he had sat, throwing the pieces on top
of him.
When it is further added that the tune
played by the band that convoyed Scheepers
to death was a rollicking one and that the
victim at the time was suffering from severe
wounds the rage and horror excited among
the Boers by the execution may be imagined.
This is indeed a strange story, and, if true, it
has placed a foul blot on civilization. Every friend
of the Boers will echo the wish that no represen
tative of the republics of South Africa will ever
be guilty of so foul a deed as that said to have
been perpetrated with relation to the execution of
this brave Boer commandant.
JJJ
A Tremendous Cost.
A London cable to the Chicago Record-Herald,
states that the Britons are beginning to count the
cost of the struggle in South Africa. The war
office has issued a statement covering tho entire
period of the war up to the end of last Decem
ber. According to this statement there have been
nearly 19,000 deaths in the Transvaal and over
64,000 officers and men have been sent home as
invalids. This Is a fearful showing when it is
remembered that there are only about 250,000
Boers, of whom not more than 50,000 can bo
counted as of fighting age. To have killed one
third as many of the enemy as they have adult
men and mado invalids of more than their total
number is a record scarcely if ever paralleled by
patriots, and look at the cost in money! Republi
cans boast that our people are worth 'thousand
dollars per capita (not very equitably distributed,
however). England has spent enough on tho war
in South Africa to piirchaso tho Boors, men, women
and children, at moro than two thousand dollars
per capita or at moro than ten thousand dollars
for each fighting man. When tho English soldiors
burned Do Wet's homo and drove his wife and chil
dren into a reconcentration camp ho sent word to
them that his home had not cost him over seven
Intndred pounds, but that tho burning of It would
cost tho English government moro than seven
million pounds. He seems to have underestimated
England's expenses. What a lesson this is in Im
perialism! Verily, tho Boers have shown that 'it
does not pay to attempt tho overthrow of a re
public Below are the statistics furnished by the Eng
lish war office:
Officers. Men.
Killed In action 469 4,762
Died of wounds 161 1,635
Died in captivity 5 97
Accidental deaths 20 542
Died of disease 276 10,997
Total deaths In South Africa.. 931 18,033
Missing and prisoners (excluding
those who have been recovered
or have died in captivity)... 7 ' 435
Sent homo as invalids 2,664 61,666
Total 3,602 80,134
Total reduction of the military forces through
war in South Africa:
Officers. Men.
Deaths In South Africa 931 18,033
Missing and prisoners 7 . 435
Invalids sent home who have
died 1 . 449
Invalids sent homo who have left
tho service as unfit 4,437
Total 945 23,354
. JJJ
Can They be Trusted?
Commenting upon the fact that the house of
representatives has for tho fourth time voted to
submit to the states an amendment to the consti
tution providing for the election of senators by
popular vote, the Chicago Tribune, republican,
says:
Tho senate presumably will not concur in
the joint resolution for the submission of this
amendment. Its members favor tho present
method of electing senators. They are famil
iar with It. It has put them whoro they are
They are Inclined to believe that their pros
pects for re-election are better under the pres
ent system than they would be under that of
popular election. This is undoubtedly true
except an to a man of commanding ability
and considerable popularity. In Henry Clay's
case it would have mado no difference whether
the legislature or the people elected the sena
tor. It is true that in this statement the Tribuno
reflects the popular notion concerning the indis
position of some senators to concur- in the house
lesolutipn. But a reader of The Commoner sug
gests that "after all perhaps the senators who op
pose the popular election plan may not be act
uated by selfish motives." This reader says that in
on address delivered before the students of the
Baptist College at Kalamazoo, Mich., in Septem
ber, 1894, Senator Burrows said: "I once thought
I was in favor of electing United States senators
by direct vote of the people; but I could not vote
for that now, because the people cannot be
tiusted." This reader adds that "perhaps other
senators than Mr. Burrows have come to the con
elusion that the people cannot be trusted. Afrer
they have really reached that conclusion, are they
not playing a patriotic part when they refuse to
give the people the authority to directly select
their senators?"
This is an interesting view, to be sure. Per
haps those senators who object to the popular elec
tion plan intend that the people shall have all the
privileges they are "capable of enjoying." This,
cnc3 described by a distinguished republican aj
"tho argument of kings," has como to be very
popular now in republican circles.
