Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 29, 1902)
The Gommoner WILLIATl J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR, .' A Vol. 3. No. 32. Lincoln, Nebraska, August 29, 1902. Whole No. 84. dalio Republicans It will now be in order for Secretary Shaw or gome other representative of the Roosevelt ad ministration to take the Idaho republicans to task because of their "treasonable" utterances in state convention assembled at Boise, August 21. On the tariff question the Idaho republicans declared: "That many of the industries of this country have outgrown their infancy and the American manufacturer has entered the mar kets of the world and is successfully compet ing with the manufacturers of all other coun- ' tries. Wo, therefore, favor a revision of the tariff, without unreasonable delay, which will jplace on the free list every article and product controlled by a monopoly." Now this is Indeed an affront to the republi can party. The democratic national platform adopted at Kansas City in 1900 declared: "Tariff laws should be amended by putting the products of trusts upon the free list to prevent monopoly under the plea of protection." The Idaho republicans declared: "We, there fore, favor a revision of the tariff-, .without un reasonable delay, which will place on the free list every article and product controlled by a monopoly." There is a striking similarity between these two planks. It will be remembered that Secretary Shaw In his Vermont speech in interpreting the Iowa platform said that every one would be in favor of preventing the tariff from becoming a shelter to monopoly, but he said that people would differ as to whether the tariff did provide shelter for monopoly. He intimated that the republicans of Iowa did not mean to assert the fact at this time. Ho will hardly be In a position to say that the Idaho republicans did not make this charge be cause they very clearly show that they believo that the present tariff does provide shelter to monopoly. Referring to the trust question the? Idaho re publican convention charged that the formation of enormous overcapitalized corporations com monly called trusts stifle competition and enable them to dictate the wages of labor and the prices of commodities to both the producer and the con-. Burner, in the interest of their own aggrandize ment They charged that it is "a great and grow ing evil" and they declared not only for the reg ulation, but for the "suppression" of all trusts. The republican fences in Idaho, as well as in jfowa, appear to be sadly in need of repair, JJJ Mr. Shaw and the Trusts. Secretary of the Treasury Shaw delivered an address at Morrisville, Vt., on August 19. Mr. Shaw referred a,t the outset to the now famous SVellman interview. He said: "I have been quoted as opposed to a re vision of the tariff. I have never opposed re adjustment of the tariff. Whenever congress is of the opinion that the friends of protec tion are strong enough to modify the tariff ' Ito meet conditions and conservatively to meet opposition to a revision of the entire tariff law, thus paralyzing- business. for a season, I am in favor of it I have expressed some doubt, however, about the wisdom of instruct ing by resolutions, or exacting pledges from candidates for congress, when the effect is liable to precipitate a protracted debate with very uncertain results." This is by no means a denial of the' interview printed in tho Chicago Record-Herald. It will be remembered that in that interview Mr. Shaw was representing as opposing agitation for tariff re vision more than the tariff revision itself, and in his statement at Morrisville, Mr. Shaw practically reiterates this important feature of the Wellman interview. He is not opposed to readjustment of the tariff "whenever congress is of tho opinion that the friends of protection are strong enough to modify the tariff to meet conditions and con servatively to meet opposition to a revision of the entire tariff law;" but Mr. Shaw is distinctly op posed to any discussion of this question. He does not think that conventions should adopt resolutions concerning tho tariff. He docs not believe that pledges should be exacted from candidates for congress. He Is averse to a debate on this important public question. In other words, Mr. Shaw would have the people vote for candi dates for congress simply because they are repub licans. He wants the people to trust tho republi can party to do the right thing. He wants the people to abandon all consideration of public questions and to place their interests inMthekeep ing of republican politicians. Mr. Shaw is "not opposed to revision of the tariff," but If Mr. Shaw and his associates have their way, they will see to it that there is no tariff revision; they will see to it that there is no in terference with the shelter provided monopolies in the republican tariff. It is worthy of note that in his Morrisville speech Mr. Shaw, although, evidently referring to the Wellman interview, did not deny the essential features of Mr. Wellman's statement JJJ BUT WAS IT A REBUKE? The New York World compliments President Roosevelt because of the Oliver Wendell Holmes appointment to the United States supreme bench, and says that if the president will appoint the same kind of a man to succeed Justice Shiras, who is about to retire, that appointment would "still more rebuke Mr. Bryan's demoralizing phil ippics against that august tribunal, and still more vindicate the consistent insistence of the World during the Bryan campaign of 1896 that Mr. Bry an's attack upon the supreme court was a moral crime." In the same editorial the World says that the appointment of Justice Holmes was "a wis step toward restoring the prestige of one branch of our national government, perhaps more Important than any other." If Justice Holmes' appointment was "a step toward restoring the prestige of the supreme court," how is it possible to interpret that "step" as a rebuke to Mr. Bryan? How is it possible to interpret that appointment as an indorsement of the World's claim that criticism of the supreme court was "a moral crime" in the presence of the World's present-day admission that the prestige of tho court was in need- of restoration! Financial Volcano In last week's Commoner attention was called to Mr. Wellman's report of an interview with a cabinet officer, now known to be Secretary Shaw. It Is putting it mildly to say that tho interview has created a profound Impression, but the impression is not exactly tho kind that was intendod. The evident purposo of the interview was to frighten tariff reform republicans by tho threat of a panic, but tho facts given havo startled tho country. Secretary Shaw shows that ovon- with an unex pected increase of five hundred million dollars In tho circulation the farmers' deposits have to be loaned over and over again to furnish a basis for tho boasted prosperity. According to Mr. Woll man, Secretary Shaw says: "Let mo give you some facts without com ment. You go out to the farmers and ask them how they are getting on. They will toll you that they were novor before, so pros porous. They are out of debt and have plenty of money. Ask them where tholr money is and they will tell you it is in the local banks. Call at the country banks and , inquire into their condition, and their offl ,cors willtell you they are all right Money plentiful" and reserves' above 40 per cerit, 'Where Is your money?' 'Oh, It is in the' banks of Omaha, Minneapolis, Kansas City, etc' "Next you go to tho bankers in Omaha, Kansas City and "Minneapolis, and they will tell you tho same thing. They are in good shape; reserves 35 per cent 'Where Is your money?' 'In Chicago.' Now go to Chicago. Same story. Banks all right Reserves 30 per cent. But tho money is' in New York. "finally, pursuing your Inquiries in Now York, you will find that both deposits and loans have been enormous. Tho money Is not In the banks. There are only six na tional banks in New York that havo not been below their legal reserves since January X. You want to know where this money is? Well, $450,000,000 is loaned by national banks on . the bonds of Industrial corporations. These corporations issued bonds instead of stocks because the national banks can take the for mer and can't take the latter. Intrinsically they are no bettor than stocks. In most of them there has been a lot of wator-curing. Here you see where $450,000,000 of the coun try's surplus stands against a lot qf undi gested, promotion-produced securities. The trust companies have put out millions more in the same way. "That is where wo stand. It is all right as long as it is all right But I don't want to see anything happen. I don't want to see these industrials begin to topple over, to fall against one another and come down in a " heap like children's play-blocks. And this is one reason why I am opposed to a tariff revision agitation that might start things go ing the wrong way." What will the depositors think of the pro pect? What will be the natural effect of the su gestion that any attempt to compel honest business methods will precipitate a panic and cause a failure of the banks? If the depositors begin to draw: their money oat of the local banks and the conn try banks begin to reduce their city reserves to a minimum, Secretary Shaw will be more to blame than any one else. If any democrat had reflected half as seriously upon the financial standing o the banks he would have "been denounced as am alarmist and accused o having a grudge against V - i