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
