The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
lm& k'
tr.
i
JVOL. 7. No. 11.
Lincoln, Nebraska, March 29, 1907.
Whole Number 323,
CONTENTS ,
OUR DUAL GOVERNMENT
-THE STEAL IN STEEL
. . RUSSIAN REFORM , -
REAL INFIDELITY
THINGS "ULTIMATE" AND THINGS IM
MEDIATE GENERAL LEE'S EXAMPLE
MOVEMENT AGAINST THE ROCKEFEL
LER SUBSIDY
THE DEMANDS OF LABOR
CALAMITY! AND FROM NEW YORK
PARAGRAPHIC PUNCHES
' COMMENT ON CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
THE STEAL IN STEEL
The United States Steel (or Steal) company
has issued its statement for 1900 and from thte
statement it appears:
First That the gross sales were ?G9G,75G,
.02G.01. Second That the company has 202,457 em
ployes. , . ,
Third That the employes received last year-
$14T,7G5,540. &
Fourth That the net earnings for the year
amounted to $1! 5G,G24,273.18.
From these figures it will be seen that the net
earnings amount to about 23 per cent of the gross
sales. Can the average business man do that
well when he has no monopoly?
It will also be seen that the net earnings ex
ceed the wages paid to employes. That means
that each employe earns what is paid to him and
In addition to that earns a profit for his employer
more than equal to his wages. The company
makes more than one hundred per cent profit on
the wages paid; can the ordinary business man
do that well when he has no monopoly?
' The employes receive in wages about 21 per
cent of the gross sales and yet the average tariff
is about 50 per cent. What need has the steel
company of we tariff which it now enjoys? And
how long will the American people wait for the
tariff to be reformed by Its beneficiaries? Will
the average business man who has no monopoly
continue to vote with managers of the Steel trust?
IN A BAD WAY
The republican party is now in such straits
that it has just one man whom it regards as pop
ular enough to be the candidate for president. Is
there any parallel in history to a situation in
which a party hinges its success on one man, and
when that man is one who has had the courage to
drop his own platform and adopt that of the op
position party?
The republican party has claimed a monopoly
of intelligence, while it has fostered a monopoly
of everything else. Isn't it strange that with all
the brains it claims to have, it has no other
popular man. in the party?
oooo
THINK OF THIS
It is worth while to note that the main effect
of the new interstate commerce law, so far, has
beeji to enable the railroads to keep the rebates
that they used to pay to favored shippers. This
puts all the shippers on the same footing, but
what benefit-has it brought to the public which
pays the rates? The states, however, have been
reducing passeuger rates from 3 cents to 2 cents,
a reduction of 33 d-3 per cent, and the public gets
the benefit. No wonder the railroads prefer fed
eral to stateeontrol.
THE TABLES TURNED
HHHHHKBHMWHBSHHHMHHKHMi
OUR DUAL GOVERNMENT
J
Jefferson's second, reason for supporting state
governments in all their rights was that they were
the surest bulwark against anti-republican ten
dencies. Those anti-republican tendencies exist
today, and the bulwark cannot be dispensed with.
While popular government is growing stronger all
over the world, there are still those in this country
who distrust the people. There are many promi
nent men who regard Hamilton as the greatest of
the political thinkers of his day, although his
statesmanship cannot be considered independently
of the views embodied in his plan of government.
There are those who are constantly irritated by the
limitations which the constitution has placed upon
the sphere of the federal government, and who
resent the independence of the state in its local
affairs. This very Irritation ought to be a warn
ing; if there are those who are irritated because
they cannot override the wishes of the community,
what would be the irritation in the community if
the wishes of its members were overridden? A
systematic absorption of power by the federal gov
ernment would not only cause discontent and,
weaken the attachment of the people for the gov
ernment, but a withdrawal of power from the state
would breed indifference to public affairs the
forerunner of despotism.
The exercise by the federal .government of re
straining power is not so objectionable as the ex
ercise of creative power, but even in the exercise
of restraining power care should be taken to pre
serve to the states the exercise of concurrent au
thority, so that the state government, as well as
the national government, can stand guard over the
rights of the citizen.
The demand for the enlargement of the powers
of the federal government comes from two sources,
viz., from those who believe with Hamilton In
the theory of centralization, and from those who
want legislation which the state's rights doctrine
obstructs. Of these two classes the last is most
influential, because the members of this class im
part to their method the strength supplied by the
object aimed at. An abstract theory seldom pro
vokes discussion, but wars have been fought over
a theory embodied In a concrete issue.
First, there is the effort to secure the national
Incorporation of railway and industrial enterprises.
Those who desire tills hope for an act of congress
and a favorabJe court decision sustaining it. They
could hardly hope for tlie adoption of an amend
ment to the constitution. The national incorpora
tion of business enterprises is sought in order to
avoid-state courts and state regulation, but in
view of the growing sentiment against monopo
lies the subject will hardly reach the courts for
It is not likely that a majority of congress can be
brought to favor any enlargement of the power
of commercial corporations.
A second argument has recently been made In
favor of extending the sphere of the general gov
ernment, viz., that it is necessary to do so to
protect the treaty rights of foreigners. Some have
even gone so far as to assume that congress has
power to carry out the terras of a treaty without
regard to constitutional provisions. Tills is a very
palpable error, for the president and senators who
join In the making of a treaty are bound by oath
to support the constitution, and they can make no
binding treaty which violates the constitution. A
constitution which can only be amended by the
concurrence of the people of three-fourths of thp
states cannot be suspended by the mere concur
rence of the president and the senate.
The exclusion of Japanese students from cer
tain of the schools of San Francisco aroused the
discussion in regard to the treaty rights of tha
vl
Pil
j
41
'
31
I
ft
a
1
MKM',tteM(attiutJi&UBiub .