wpvpr
ittt" ""
I w
FEBRUARY 22, 1907
HERO OR LAWBREAKER?
5
Because Jolin D. Rockefeller gave thirty-two
lltnlld in ie ".nlicm nf ,-.!...... ! .... . - fj
P.llf. 'Who OVW flnnhfofl Afr Tfr.rl.-.-ff..ioi.'ci ,1r.
termination to ,)ut aside all thought of self? Some
may even, think It an insult to intelligence that the
Tribune deems it necessary to remind its renders
of Mr. Rockefeller's disposition to forget himself
in his anxiety to provide for the welfare of his,
fellows.
But the Tribune throws some light on Mr.
Rockefeller's latest contribution when it says:
"We doubt very much whether the Gallic
war or the Russian campaign was conducted
with one-half, the thoroughness that marks
the operations which Mr. Rockefeller carries
on through the general education board.
Many persons may feel that the strategies of
the boavd, some of which will presumably
force weak and ill placed schools to the wall,
are cruel, but no -wise educator will share that
feeling. The country is overrun with petty,
inefficient colleges granting worthless degrees
and deluding their sti.aonts into thinking
,,r.niKnlvos cultured. There i& fHiri.trni wn,-
of money and effort due to lack oc intelligent
vl.t.-. itn.Aitv ti.a4-?4tl4l.ri,C3 T?rt
eo-opeuiuuu untune luoiuuuuuo. jjlvo very
long even the bereaved friends of the cxv.v,u.
inn toi pnllncroN will reioice that a great iu
dustrial captain was willing to spend a for-
tune in bringing order out ol cnaos.
So, then, Mr. Rockefeller is to apply to educa
tional institutions the same system he has applied
to business institutions, a system described by
John D. Rockefeller, jr., in his more or less fa
mous "American bqauty" illustration. According
to John D. jr. in order to produce one beautiful
rose it is necessary to pinch off all the. smaller
roses. And now according to the New York Tri
bune Mr. Rockefeller, intends through his millions
contributed to the general education board, to
eradicate the smaller colleges and to confine the
pursuits of higher education to those larger insti
tutions that are to be strengthened with the Rocke
feller millions. And right here it is important to
remember that one of the conditions of the Rocke
feller gift is that John i. Rockefeller, sr., and
John D. Rockefeller,- jr., are to control in the dis
tribution of the Jtockefeller funds.
Does any one imagine that any institution will
share in this hind If the members -of its faculty
make bold to criticize the system whereby Rocke
feller's accumulations were made possible? Is it
not reasonable -to believe that the teachers in the
colleges which are aided through this Rockefeller
fund will refrain from criticizing the Rockefeller
methods? Is it not reasonable to believe that the
young men and young women who attend, these
colleges and hear the name of Rockefeller lauded
because of his keen anxiety for -the "cause of edu
cation," his "great love for his fellow's" and his
"determination to seek the greatest good to the
greatest number" will conclude that John D.
Rockefeller is a good citizen and that his life was
devoted to, the service of society?
Yet only a few months ago this mighty patron
of education was skulking through the highways
and the byways of unknown regions hiding from
officers of the law who were anxious, to serve
upon Tilm .writs commanding him to appear in a
court of justice and tell the truth!
The sum of thirty-two million dollars must be
enormous; indeed it is so "great that the minds of
men cannot comprehend it. But with all of its
immensity, it ought not be large enough to cover
the multitude of sins for which the man who gives
it to the "cause of education" is responsible, and
ivith all of its power it ought not be strong enoug'j
to Soy the living fact that civilization will
have failed Whenever vice can be transformed Into
virtue by the contribution of money and the
habitual law breaker is lost sight of in the lionized
hero because he has poured into the laps of edu
cators part of the enormous sums of gold he has
taken from a people whose laws he has brazen y
defied and whose- substance he has systematically
plundered.
oooo
NO TARIFF REVISION
The fact that it seems to be generally agreed
that there will be no tariff revision ,at this session
of congress should provide food for those repub-
(rllcans who, having no ax to grind are chiefly
'concerned n the public welfare. Why are ve
' not to have tariff revision? Is It because public
interests or public sentiment does not demand it?
There is abundant testimony, even for one who
does not take the democratic view of the tariff
question, to show that public interests demand
tariff revision, while the very earnest and renewed
appeals made by republicans all over the country
. , in favor of revision of the tariff ought to convince
ft- .
anUi JXiobi iX Mlam conven-
their platforms plank"' "Y,1111" oiieu
of the tariff scheduVdu""11 a,,- ,mm-
i nrcvnnt llmlr'fifl'nrfliiiir W1 mnv ,)0 re"
to motion-
The Commoner.
oven those who are usually non-observing that
such revision would be clearly in line with present
day public sentiment.
The republican party must certainly bo a well
disciplined organization else the stand-patters of
this period would not advance a proposition widen,
we make bold to say, is controverted not only by
the opinion of the rank and file of republicans but
lias been publicly repudiated by some of the most
distinguished republican statesmen and editors.
In this day the trusts find in the tariff larger
shelter than they ever before enjoyed, and the
American public feels more keenly than at anv
other time in history the impositions due to uii
enormously high protective tariff. Even the men
who framed (lie present tariff law had no Idea that
the American people would long tamely submit
to those rates, and we have it on the authority of
benator Dolllver of Iowa that Mr. Dlnglev ex
plained that many of the rates in his tariff bill
were purposely placed high in order that thev
in ght be used in bringing about reciprocity wit'h
other countries. But now republican leaders re
fuse to make any serious moves In behalf of re
ciprocity, and at the same time they Insist upon
maintaining the exorbitant rates.
In 1888 John Sherman, then a member of the
United States senate, said: "Whenever this free
competition is evaded or avoided by combination
of individuals or corporations the duty should lie
reduced and foreign competition promptly invited."
In 1891 Seuator Plumb of Kansas objected to
the McKinlev tariff bill Iiopmuhp. n mp umm
"There are dozens of lines of manufactures cov-
7;.eu oy tne terms of this bill, which are con-
Hii7U)y tr,,ste" ind Senator Plumb added that:
ovnpfinnVu-v "to start out trying to reduce The
ho s,, i wiS.ilrusts" wa t( "ct down the shelter
'ists are created."
tion
in
ification
niih'Pfl t(
nlf M lil ri ! iy. . i-4-t .. 4' at iinttillil
Ul.V. 1KUU 111 vjuiiuv.-ui.hjul U It'WUUIlt
tion Held several years ago ueciareu -ir-";"
schedule import duties are found that have lmy
notoriously perverted from their true purpose IV'
the inordinate enrichment of corporations, monop
olistic in fact or in tendency, we look 4o a repub
lican congress to apply In its wisdom the needed
corrective without impairing the principle of pro
tection." . The late Governor Mount of Indiana In a pub
lic speech delivered in 1899 expressed similar
views. Former Seuator, Washburn gave .out hi
1899 a number of newspaper interviews in which
he said tha,t republicans who had the welfare of
their party and their country at heart must call
a halt upon tlvsir party's tendency to connect itself
with trusts and must insist that the tariff shelter
enjoyed by the trusts be destroyed.
The Chicago Record-Herald, the Minneapolis
Journal, the New York Commercial Advertiser,
the Portland Oregonian, the Hartford Courant,
the Dubuque (Iowa) Times, the Philadelphia
Ledger, the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, the Rockford
(111.) Republican, the Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City,
the Indianapolis News and the Chicago Tribune
all republican papers long ago and repeatedly
demanded the removal of tariff .duties from com
modities controlled by trusts.
In 1901 Representative Babcock of Wisconsin
delivered a number of public speeches and gave
out a number of newspaper interviews in all of
wOUch he said that the consumers must be pro
tected; that it was impossible to defend a tariff
policy which simply inures to the benefit of those
who may secure the cnotrol of a commodity, and
that the Interests of the party as well as the in
terests of the public demanded the destruction of
the shelter which the trusts find in the tariff.
The Chicago Tribune went so far as to say
that the most of the fortune amassed by Andrew
Carnegie "came out of the pockets of his country
men through the operation of unequal laws," and
that Mr. Carnegie should never forget that ha
made his money "through the undue favoritism
of the government of the United States."
Such opinions as these were long ago and re
peatedly expressed by. republican statesmen ami
republican editors. It is true that "wise men
change their views," but will any one seriously
contend that in the light of present day conditions
the views of these gentlemen have been changed'
Would any of them care to explicitly repudiate the
sentiments they expressed as hereinbefore out
lined'' We know they would not We know that
the conditions against which they indignantly
protested ten, fifteen and twenty years ago have
so multiplied that they have become well nigh un
bearable; we know that the sentiment, twen among
the rank and file of the republican party, is so
pronouncedly in favor ,of tariff revision that a
number of republican politicians who have never
been charged with an undue disregard for their
own political fortunes have made bold to demand
tariff revision, at least to the extent of destroying
the shelter which the trusts find In the republican
tariff law. "iet in the face of these facts we are
told that there Ife no, probability whatever that
there will be tariff revision. What Is the explana
tion? It is that the rank and file of the republican
party have lost all control over their organization;
that the special interests which republican party
leaders have so long and so faithfully served have
secured such perfect control over the party that
no amount of publicly expressed Indignation can
disturb that control. It means that the republi
can party is wedded to its idols.
OOOO
,THE CHICAGO PLATFORM
Recently The Commoner said that "the radi
calism of t8D0 has become the conservatism of
1907," and added: "The Chicago platform, de
nounced and laughed at by many, has so grown
in favor that a republican president has won his
greatest popularity by the adoption of principles
and policies described in that platform."
Commenting upon this statement (he Sioux
City, Iowa, Journal, a republican paper, says:
"Mr. Bryan on numerous occasions has
manifested his desire to advance himself in
good society, but it Is still doubtful whether
President Roosevelt Is willing to admit the
association as broadly as Mr. Bryan chooses
to declare. To say that the radicalism of
1890 has become the conservatism of 1907
is on the whole an exaggeration; and so far
as the attitude o'f the democratic party in
1890 is concerned, as a matter of fact, It Is
disposed of with a sneer, for oven Mr. Bryan
himself, the calamity cry being unseasonable,
Is disposed to take hold of something new.
"Everybody remembers, whose memory ex
tends to that peiiod, that the Chicago platform
of 1890 declared the money question to be
paramount to all others at that time. The
plausibility of the declaration was supported
by the scarcity of money, induced by the
prostration of all business enterprises and the
fear induced by democratic threats against
the stability of all values reckoned In money.
Whatever else was mentioned In the plat
tluTi nn(1 subordinate place. It is unlikely
0pei.ftsident Roosevelt, or the congress co
cue In tiie'1'1 nIn nils at uny time found a
Bryan's cnnipilfo platform of 1890. Mr.
against all forms U that year was directed
' reached conclusion tHflvency, and lie readily
bankruptcy or Individua&idustrles opt of
were antagonistic to the weliiJIke fortune
mon people." nZ ihQ om'
The Journal does not accurately descrim
the Chicago platform or the campaign wagel1'-1'
the men who defended that platform. It spea!ft
the republican language of 1890 when, so we were
then told, the voice of the republican orator was
the call-of national honor, but as we have sinco
learned1, was-xsomething else.
. The democratic campaign was not directed
against "all forms o'f solvency;" it was directed
against the moral bankruptcy for which republi
can leadership stood sponsor; it was directed
against the forces of monopoly of whose con
tinued and enlarged impositions even thosewho
were apologists in 1890 are now making grievous
complaint.
It is true the Chicago platform did say the
money question was, at the time, paramount; but
that statement or that fact did not and does not
lesson the importance of other principles and pol
icies to which ihe platform was committed.
During the campaign of 1890 the republicans
sought to give the impression' that all there was
to the democratic platform was an Impossible
proposition described and disposed of by the
phrase, given with a sneer, "10 to 1." Through
out the campaign the republican leaders sought
systematically to keep the money question from
becoming paramount in the public mind and to
give prominence to "the 10 to 1 question" which,
as interpreted by republican leaders, meant what
ever the ignorant or poorly informed man might
conceive, provided it meant a vote with the party
whose campaign fund was derived from the mo
nopolists. Just as the Journal and other republican papers
sought to convey the Impression that "10 to -1"
was the alpha and omega of the democratic plat
form in 1890, so now they are quite willing to
leave the inference that the Chicago platform in
its essentials dealt with the money question.
Even so, and the Chicago platform's critic is likely
to be embarrassed. The logic of the platform was
the quantitative theory of money and today well
informed men of all political parties, even many
scholarly gentlemen who went to great pains to
secure argument against the quantitative theory
In 189G, admit the correctness of that theory. Nor
can we forget that the proposition to create ai
f
II
vB
1
-
Mmi!)"B
arKger"J'.7sg7'-; '
