Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 23, 1903)
"!fR'3" , '!V "r,wv uprmfwyw -TWv-irijr'r' '-v-.- .-r v'Y" BWP" Vt ' w '"ipf & Commoner : WILLIAfl J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR, ig.w.wara-T' lne W & w Vol. 3. No, i. Lincoln, Nebraska, Jan. 23, 1903. Whole No. 105. FRAUD OF ULTRA-PROTECTIONISTS. Tlio revolt among the rank and file of the republican party against ultra-protection found expression in tlie speech, delivered in the senate -by Mr. Dolliver of Iowa on January 13. The spirited retort made by Mr. Aldrich, who is recognized more as the representative of the tariff barons than as a senator from Rhode Island, indicates that, however weary the republicans may have become of bearing the burden of special in terests, the men whom Mr. Aldrich represents do not intend to yield any of the privileges that they now enjoy. Mr. Dolliver indorsed the statement that had been previously made and fairly established by democratic senators to the effect that the tariff schedules in the Dingley law were purposely placed high so a3 to provide a margin in order that they might be reduced as a basis for reci procity treaties. Mr. Dolliver said that he stood for the pplicies of Jaines G. Blaine arid for the policies advocated by William McKinley in his last speech. He said: "I do not intend to sit quiet in this chamber while it is said to be infamy that anybody should. have the notion tnat tariff sched ules once framed could not be honorabV" modified by sensible trade negotiations with the world." And he added: "I for one have made up my mind that the time has come when somebody whoso convictions do not lie along the path of silence and quietude and ease in our political sci ence, should declare here that the whole future of the protective system in the United States depends upon the wisdom with which the congress of the United States fulfills the aspirations which found an expression so lofty in the- last public utterance of William McKinley." Some .idea of the disposition of the ultra-protectionists may be obtained by those who are yet strangely ignorant as to that disposition from a statement made by Mr. Aldrich in reply to Mr. Carmack. Mr. Aldrich said: "I imagine that tne senator from Tennessee and myself would never agree as to whether the protective duties in any bill were placed too high." In other words, per haps, if the tariff rates were even higher than they are in the present exorbitant tariff schedules, Mr. Aldrich would not bo willing to agree with Mr. Carmack that the rates were excessive. Newspapers generally are complimenting Mr. Dolliver upon his speech and are referring to the "fine courage" displayed by the senator from Iowa. Does it not seem strange that when a senator from the big state of Iowa rises in his place to cross words with the senator from the little state of Rhode Island, giving expression to views which ho believes are entertained by the people of Iowa, this should necessarily be referred to as a dis play of "fine courage?" Senator Dolliver is an orator and a man of more than ordinary ability. If he possesses any traits of cowardice his intimate friends have so far failed to discover it; and yet there is justifi cation for the statement that Mr. Dolliver dis played "fine courage. The justification is found in the fact that the thing he pleaded- for was jus tice for the people at the handsVoithe powerful interests that control our federal government, and that are represented in the senate by Mr. Aldrich and his associates. It was not a display of fine courage, for Dolli yer to cross swords with Aldrich the man, because Dolliver in debate is Aldrich's superior. But the interests which Aldrich represents dominate the party to which Dolliver belongs, control the sen ate of which Dolliver is a member, and have a firm graBp upon all the machinery of the federal gov ernment These Interests, so we have been told ' and' if we mistake not Mr. Dolliver has on sev eral occasions been our informant, are the "busi ness interests" of the country; they represent the "intelligence and patriotism" of the land; -their wisdom snould control the judgment of the peoplo and their choice for public officials should be the people's choice. Even though Dolliver merely pleaded for the fulfillment of an explicit pledge made by the republican party, although ho did not ask the representatives of his party to go so far as a real tariff reformer would desire, he knew that he was placing himself in the attitude of defy ing the decree of men who having provided the re publican party with its campaign funds expect at the hands of that party and its leaders prompt and complete submission in return for those favors. Mr. Dolliver's speech is simply an index to th, growing sentiment among the rank and file 'of republicans in opposition to ultra-protection.' Mr. Dolliver's argument" shows that the high protec tionists practice fraud upon republicans 'as well ?fLE8p? the PePle generally; they secure a higher iWJhan.they;ev r?duclon through reciprocity trTafief? "and after securing these exorbitant rates they refuse to lower the duties even for the purpose of ob taining reciprocity. This, too, in face of the fact that Mr. Roosevelt referred to reciprocity as "the handmaiden of protection" and the republican na tional convention of 1896 said: "Protection and reciprocity are -twin measures of republican policy and go hand in hand." The Commoner Cartoon. The Commoner cartoon for this week pro vides a hint of the "power for evil in private ???p,iLy in pubilc necessIties." The experience which the coal consumers of this country are to day undergoing with respect to the impositions of the coal trust is sinlply the experience they must undergo with respect, to the impositions of all trusts whose managers seek to control the peo - pie's necessities. The Kansas City pjatform gave to the people a timely warning on this subject In that plat form it was said: "Private monopolies are inde fensible and intolerable. They destroy competi tion, control the price of all material, and of tho finished product, thus robbing both producer and consumer. Thoy lessen the employment of labor and arbitrarily fix the terms and conditions thereof, and deprive Individual energy and small capital of their opportunity for betterment They are the most efficient means yet devised for ap propriating the fruits of industry to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and unless their insatiate greed is checked all wealth will be aggregated in a few hands and tho republic de stroyed." In that platform the republican party was ar raigned for Its "dishonest paltering with the trust evil." Those who did not then believe that that arraignment was deserved have no reason in this day, to, be ignorant rf tho fact that, as it was stated in the, Kansas City platform'trusts are a legitimate product of republican, policies; they are fostered by republican laws and they are pro tected by the republican administration in return for campaign subscriptions and political support" OKLAHOilA AND STATEHOOD (w JMy recent visit to Oklahoma convinced me, first, that the interests of Oklahoma imperatively demand immediate statehood, and, second, that the people of. the territory feariat admittance to statehood may be provented by the differences of opinion which exist as to tho propriety of in corporating tho Indian territory. Tho situation may bo summed up as follows: The arguments in favor of single statehood for the two territories are, first, that either territory alone would bo Bmall in area, compared with other western states, and small In population, compared with most of the states of the union; second, that tho two ter ritories supplement each other in products and re sources; third, that there is no natural boundary line between the two territories, while tho two to gether are compact and shapely. Arguments in favor of separate statehood aro, first, that Okla homa, having organized counties, a large area of well improved land, and an admirable school system in operation, is better prepared for state hood than the Indian territory. Second, that tho school fund of Oklahoma would have to be di vided with tho Indian territory, and, third, that ysitoSif criminal Jawinhq Ihdiah 'territory 'would be a burden to tho people of Oklahoma. J Besides thcBe arguments there .are arguments of a political nature and others of a local char acter." For instance, some republicans favor sin gle statehood because they prefer to have two democratic senators from one large state- rather than four democratic senators from two small states admitting that both territories are demo cratic; while other republicans favor double state hood with the hope-J of saving Oklahoma to the republicans. Some democrats, too, favor doublo statehood with tne belief that it would give tho patyfour senators, while others think that it is necessaiy;tcr includetheIndian territory 'in-order to make Oklahoma surely democratic. ' The" loca tlon of the capital also affects opinonaJo'8omo extent, some towns hoping for thejcspltaT under single statehood while others expect It under doublo statehood. So numerous are the conflicting Interests and opinions that It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the wish of tho majbrity of the people. In the late election the republican candidate for congressional delegate ran on a platform declaring for the immediate admission of Oklahoma, leav ing for future decision the question of adding the 'Indian territory, while the democratic cahdidato was committed to single statehood for both ter ritories, but the result was not decisive becau3 many on both sides placed their political prefer ences above their opinions on statehood and, be sides, there is a contest over the seat The re publican received the certificate, but the demo crat demands the counting of several thousand ballots which were thrown out because marked twice. ' fjn view of the impossibility of deciding cer tainly as to the desire of the majority and in View of the furtfierfact that each side claims a majority in support of its position it would n it t i ! ' c .rr ft,.... .,.:;;;. .. :--v.