rr," t7
'jp hP ' T ;''"-'
itSi.-!-:
"W
"'-
JUNE 8, J190.
The Commoner.
$
'mjfr?wvzr$:''1,& ''-Trr
1
Not a "Tremendous Moral Revolution" But
Tremendous Disclosure of Terrible Facts
a
The Wall. Street Journal says: "A tremend:
ous mora revolution is talcing place. Man-practices
which, ten years ago, five years ago, one
year ago, and even six months ago, were in
favor, puhlic opinion having no condemnation
for them, are now held to be odious and even,
criminal. This is, perhaps, the most notable development-
of the day, namely, the creation of a
higher standard for the conduct of American
business." ,
Ten years ago! That was 109 years after
the American fathers agreed upon that great
cfns'citution which they declared was ordained to
"establish justice, insure domestic tranqulllt',
provide, for the commW defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of lib
erty to ourselves- and our posterity."
Ten years ago! TJiat was 120 years after
the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
"Ten years ago! That was nearly 2,000 years
after Christ walked the earth and taught those
moral principles which, in other lands than our,
are presumed to rule in the hearts of men!
Yet we Jearn from the Wall Street Journal
that ten years ago the American people had not
progressed far enough to know that it was wrong
to s'ceal and' wicked to kill.
Ten years ago! That, was in 1896. The
Wall Street Journal's "tremendous moral revol
ution" notwithstanding, there must have been .
even in 1896 some great moral principles at
work in the hearts of many Americans,
It was in 1896 that it was charged by the
representatives of the great democratic party in
convention assembled in the city of Chicago that
selfish Interests were" at work in the affairs of
our government, and that the purpose of these
selfish interests was to exploit this great nation
for the benefit of a coterie of men and at the
expense of the masses of thej?eople. Then it
was asserted that a tariff system which breeds
trusts and monopolies is dishonest. Then it was
Bald that an income tax whereby men pay for
the support of a common government in propor
' tion to the benefits they receive is in line with
justice. Then it was claimed that the burdens
of taxation should be equally and impartially
laid; that differences between wage payers and
wage earners should bo settled by the peaceful
method of arbitration; that railroads and other
great corporations should be required to do jus
tice to the. people by whose law they were cre
ated; that public officers should be economical
in handling the public money-; that courts should
not use arbitrary authority for the oppression of
the weak and the helpless; that government
should be administered for the greatest good to
the greatest number.
Yet wo are told by the Wall Street Journal
and this is but a fair sample of what we read
in many republican newspaper today that in 1896
the American people did not have the same con
science which prompts them to denounce the in
famies that have "been recently exposed.
There has been no moral revolution in the
sense meant by the Wall Street Journal. There
have" been exposures and fhe very large number
of people who -were misled by republican, news
papers and republican leaders now know that
the charges made by the democrats in 1896 were
true; that the special .interests were even then
preying upon the people and since then have
taken advantage of their great victory in that
year to impose upon the people as though- re
publican victory meant license for these men to
do their worst.
It is absurd for publications like the Wall
Street Journal to talk about "the creation of a
higher standard for the conduct of American
business" or that the things which wo now hold
to be "odious and oven criminal" wore a few
years ago really in public favor. Long before
the editor of the Wall Street Journal was born
men knew that theft wag theft. While 'the men
of our earlier, days had their faults, it is safe to
say that they would not have tolerated one-one-hundredth
of the Impositions to which the men
of today have submitted.
If one-tenth of the facts revealed during
the past six months had been known to the
American people in 1896 tho republican party
would have gone down1 to an ignominous defeat.
Did the republican party win because the
people were without morals? Did the republican
party win because the people wore indifferent
to the schemes of trust magnates? No. These
men who are now exposed as common rogues
posed then as defenders of national honor. And
republican editors the editor of the Wall Street
Journal among them stood sponsor for -the
rascals.
When George W. Perkins, Richard A. Mc
Curdy, James H. Hyde or another insurance mag
nage issued an interview in behalf of the repub
lican ticket, we were told that that was the
opinion of a successful man whose only concern
was that the "business interests of the country
be protected."
When the proprietors of the packing houses
issued interviews . in support of the republican
ticket, we were told that these men wore "cap
tains of industry" and entitled to lead good citi
zens. When Bigelow, the Milwaukee banker,
and Andrews', the Detroit banker, spoke in be
half of the republican ticket, they were pointed
out as disinterested patriots who would willingly
shed their blood for the public interests;
Every speech delivered by Chauncey M. De
pew, by Joseph R. Burton, or any of the other
republican senators or members of congress Was
pointed to as the utterance of a far-seeing states
man who would as quickly desert his own party
had his own party attacked the public interests
as the democratic party was then charged with
doing. And a considerable number of people
really believed that these men were defenders
of. national honor. They really believed that
they were men standing for the best course for
the whole people. Several million men went to
the polls and voted the republican ticket under
the impression that .that party was the "God
and morality" organization, rather than the party
of peculation and plunder as they now know it
to be.
Does any one, believe that the things com
plained of in the Depews and the Burtong would
not have been condemned by Americans ten,
twenty, fifty, or a hundred years. ago? Would
the American people of the long ago knowingly
have given their approval to conspiracies in re
straint of trade, to monopolies in1 the necessaries
of life? Would Americans of the long ago have
looked with approval upon an Aldrich did they
know that he stood in the senate as the tool of
special interests rather than as the representa
tive of the people? Has there been a period in
American history when men would not have
THE IOWA LUBRICANT
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat declares that
Senator Allison is one of the most useful men in
public life because "he is always ready with a
can of oil to lubricate the turbulent waters ot
legislation." That is very good. The spectacle
of Senator Allison pesticating around with an
oil ean in his hand, squirting oil on the troubled
waters of legislation, 'is worth preserving in
photographic form. The honorable representa
tive of the allied oil and' steel trusts angrily de
clares, that the honorable representative of the
allied coal and railroad trusts is not toting fair.
Immediately there -is a comniotion of thesena
torial waters and the public imagines for. a brief
moment that perhaps it will profit by this falling
out of the representatives of selfish interests.
But it is all a well-rehearsed farce. Just before
the honorable representatives come to blows, Mr.
Allison appears with the oil of compromise, the
honorable representatives subside, and the people
are again let in the lurch. And every once in a
while some senator who is old-fashioned enough
to think that he represents the people introduces
a bill in tho interests of his constituents. Im
mediately the senatorial waters are troubled.
Violent commotion rages for a time, and then
Mr. Allison dawns upon the view with the ever
present can of compromise oil in his hand. In a
short time the commotion subsides and again the
people get the worst of it. The Globe-Democrat
is eminently correct in its statement that Mr.
Allison is one of the most useful men in public
life. We note with regret, however, that our
esteemed. Missouri contemporary fails to specify.
It fails to tell us that Mr. Allison's usefulness
is all along the line of helping the corporation
known that tho orabozzlomcnt of depositors mon
ey by tho BlgeIow8 and tho Andrews was wrong?
Has thoro ever boon a time when Amcricaus
would not see tho evil whon United States sen
ators accepted from private interests fees for
thoir services In public affairs? During what
particular period did Americans so far forgot
tho simple rules of common honesty that they
would havo failed' to, recognize as stealing- tho
appropriation of policyholders' money for tho use
and benofit of tho republican party? During
what poriod would thoy fall to detect iniquity hi
the bribes given by coal barons to railroad em
ployes and officials in ordor that the coal trust
might secure undue advantages? Whon did they
ever look upon rebates as anything but unfair
and dishonest both to tho railroad stockholder
and to tho general public? Would tho sight ot
a Rockefeller dodging officers of tho law inspire
greater admiration among the Americans of tho
long ago than It does among tho Americans of
today? Are tho Americans of today so much
brighter than their predecessors that thoy can
more quickly detect wrong in tho action of Walsh,
who, as owner of tho Chicago Chronicle advocated
the election of the republican ticket, protending
his efforts "to be in defense of national honor
when, as wo havo reason to believe, they wore
in order that he might be bettor ablo to feather
his own nest by the violation of tho laws of tho
land and ttio rules of common honesty? There
has never been a time when men did not know
that wife abandonment, as Indulged in by tho
head of the steel trust and other "defenders ot
national honor" is not "odious and criminal." There
has never been a time in tho history of the
American government when men would not havo
known that it is a crime to deal out embalmod
beef to the soldiers and tho sailors, and a crime
to feed the men, women and children of this land
upon diseased meat. Would tho men of tho
long ago have looked more lightly upon the im
munity bath to which our trust magnates are
treated than do tho people of the present?
Don't be deceived, Mr. Editor of tho Wall
Street Journal. There has been no "tremendous
moral revolution" as you employ the term. There
havo been tremendous disclosures of terrible facts.
Tho hearts of the people aro right today as thoy
were right in 1896. They were fooled then as
they were fooled before and as thoj' have been
fooled since. But once let the real awakening
come; let them know that they are called upon
to take their stand on the side of truth or on
falsehood's side, and it will be very readily seen
that by an overwhelming majority thoy will take
their stand in line with those good old moral
principles which they learned at the mother's
knee.
If the newspapers would only tell the peo
ple the truth with respect to these public ques
tions tho popular verdict would be more nearly
correct. Even now there aro many honest re
publicans who really imagine that tho foreigner
pays the tax, and because of that false notion thoy
aro holding up the hands of the "standpatters."
When the rank and file of the republican party
learn the truth with respect to a republican tariff
they will hold that policy to be "odious and even
criminal."
Let the Wall Street Journal undeceive itself.,
Tho practices which tho people vigorously con
demn today they would havo condemned in 1896
had they not been systematically deceived.
interests. Pie is', indeed, a useful man to tho
corporations.
WHY?
In order to avoid tho impositions due to the
greed of the trust barons, the government has
purchased abroad some of the materials to be
used in tho Panama canal work. In response
to a hint from the executive department the sen
ate committee on finance has reported a resolu
tion directing that all Panama canal supplies
be purchased in this country "unless the presi
dent shall in any case deem tho bids or the ten
ders therefor to be extortionate or unreasonable.'
Why not give the American people tho same
privilege which the government demands for it
self? Why not protect tho individual consumer
from the greed of the tariff barons, even as the
government seeks to- protect itself? Why not
refuse to let -bad enough alone? Why not revise J
the tariff?
II
-i
i
tjwg&iAffft
'K&iMH&ii -.iKik;ij'.Jf,fiJ
J-,
XXw-'irM.i'fM
ItefcsJR fikmtMtL,.
