Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 5, 1909)
mverKri-.ex.3Lzz j.. j iHnnBHmm NOVEMBER f, Hit The Commoner. lb 4-..y. 'W i 4 Congressman Gets Pointers From a Cobbl The Ventura (California) Democrat prints the following:: O. H. Hedges makes his bread, possibly but ter, and occasional hunk of pie, by the manipula tion of leather in the capacity of a cobbler. Leather Is tho product of green hides, and tho duty on hides gets pretty close to tho product of his toil, affecting his purse according to tho ratio of the duty imposed. He carried his grievance to Congressman S. C. Smith who, under date of July 6, replies as follows: Mr. O. H. Hedges, Ventura, Cal. Dear Sir: I am pleased to have your note of tho 30th, again referring to the subject of the duty on hides. I have been Industriously trying to learn from some one what effect the repeal of tho hide duty will have on the hide supply. You epeak of a certain tannery going out of business because it was unable to obtain green hides. I wish that you would write mo again telling me why they can get more hides under free trade than under present conditions. Yours very truly, S. C. SMITH. The following Is Mr. Hedges' reply: Ventura, Cal., July 15, 1909. Hon. S. C. Smith, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Yours of the 6th inst. at hand, asking mo to tell you why more hides could be procured under free trade than under the present conditions. Now, don't you think that a rather big order to give a common cobbler, who is not supposed to kno. anything but to mend old soles, and vote her-straight?.! Especially rAB it comes from one who is supposed to know all these things, that he may intelligently transact the business of his employers? But I am going to take for granted that you honestly wish to know hat people of my class are thinking of these things and try to answer you. It is a fact that 80 per cent of the hides of the United States go into the packing houses on the backs of tho cattle. Now, anyone controlling 80 per cent of any commodity can control price of same. But packing trusts are not an open market for hides; they tan most of their own hides, and only sell to tho tanneries with which they have a gentle manly agreement. Then where are independent tanneries going to got hides? They can not have them shipped from South and Central America, or Mexico, because the duty added to the freight makes them too ex pensive. Take off the duty and for a short time, until the trusts could get themselves in a posi tion to control the world supply of hides, the in dependents could have hides shipped in, and compete with the trusts. The tariff simply restricts tho supply by creat ing a false condition, thereby making it more easy for the powers that be to control that supply. Leather has advanced from 38 cents to 57 cents per pound since 1895. Do you realize what that means? It means that I am paying to the trusts a tribute of 19 cents on every pound that I use. I use about one hundred pounds per month; that means $19 every month, or $228 per year, for one poor cobbler. A hundred thou sand of us pay the enormous sum of $22,800,000 accrued tribute every year. Did you ever hear of any of that being divided with tannery em ployes? The tariff Is a farce, so far as helping any one but the trusts is concerned. It helps the trusts, because it restricts the supply of all com modities, while the demand Is over increasing, thereby allowing large combinations to control the available supply, and charge all tho traffic will bear. Even supposing it resulted in increased wages for the working man, is it right to tax eighty million people dollars that a few thousand may gain cents? But it does not increase wage::. With the tr- ts and corporations owning most of the jobs, and 38 per cent of the workingmen con tinually out of a job, competing with their fel low working men for their job, is any sane cor poration manager going to pay any higher wages than he has to? But you say the American working man does receive a higher wage than those of most other countries. So he does; but why? The history of the world shows that when the standard of living for the working man was re duced to three meals of rice a day, that three meals of rice was about all that he received. The United States being a new and undevel- er oped country up to a few years ago, and plenty or jobs to bo had In tho dovelopmont, also plenty pf opportunity, tho American working man be ing moro prosperous bocauao of those reasons than tho working men of other countries sot his Btandard of living higher, and demanded a wngo that would support that standard. Tho powers that bo do not dare to reduce that standard to threo meals of rice a day, at ono blow. If thoy did, they would havo a revolu tion on their hands. But thoy advanco wages one per cent to fool tho worker, and then ad vanco tho cost of living flvo por cent. About how many advances llko that will it tako to gain the desired result? That is, to reduce tho worker to just onough to keep himself, and al low him to reproduce himself? Now, my dear sir, just a few more words in an endeavor to jar you out of a rut in which our law makers havo long run. By education and association you all have become so trained to think of and for property Interests, that you all seem to think that one who has no property is not worthy of being legislated in behalf of. Now, if you consider that twenty por cent of tho people own eighty per cent of tho property, you will find that as long as you only consider property interests, you aro representing really only a small por cent of the people. Surely, ho who has the greatest need should got tho most attention. Or, do you all bolievo that "to him that hath" should bo given, and to him who hath should bo taken away oven tho littlo which he has? Well, that is tho way our laws aro be ing framed today. But I am not one who accuses you all of dis honesty; but rather that most of you aro honest in purpose. However, your education and asso ciations aro such that you aro really in touch with but tho one class, who represent property interests. And your sympathies and tastes nat urally being with that class, you do not got In touch with tho groat masses who nood you, and badly; and so you havo really no opportunity to study their needs, or to find out what is really best for them. I do not apply this to you personally, but to most members of our legislative bodies. Thanking you for your kindly hearing, I am Very truly yours, O. H. HEDGES. Some Texas Opinions In all seriousness, what is tho difference be tween Aldrich, the republican senator, and Bailey, who claims to be a democrat? Aldrich voted for the tariff schedule that was most help ful to his constituents, and professes to bo a high tariff man, while Bailey voted for the same kind of a tariff because it helps his con stituents, but claims to be opposed to a high tariff on general principles. Ono is as much re publican as the other. Palestine Herald. SENATOR BAILEY'S FORT WORTH SPEECH The major motif of tho Fort Worth deliver ance, if we may use a term somewhat technical to the language of music, Is essentially different from that of the speech Senator Bailey made at Dallas or anywhere else during tho present tour of explanation. In his latest allocution Senator Bailey endeavors to make himself tho defender of the national as well as of the state democ racy. That he does it with some skill we shall admit, tho more eagerly for having been Im pelled so often of late to complain of the kinder garten quality of Senator Bailey's arguments, though all will- testify that our criticisms in this respect have been tempered with a full understanding of Senator Bailey's predicament. Yet, while admitting the skill with which Sen ator Bailey endeavors to make his own course tho test of orthodox democracy with respect to the tariff, we nevertheless believe the enter prise Is too difficult even for ono of his sophisti cal skill. For Instance, If the votes he cast are dumb but infallible witnesses of democracy, what an unpardonable heretic is his colleague. Senator Culberson! Tho weakness of Senator Bailey's position is suggested by his effort to prove himself a better tariff reformer than those progressive republicans. Proof of that conten tion would not be without force; but when ho offers In evidence only those Instances in which ho yoted for lower duties than the progressive republicans would assent to, and ignores those Instances in which he was on the side of Senator Aldrich rather than on tho sldo of Senator Cum mins, can it bo said that ho proves his proposi tion? Bvon his partisans, wo think, could not concede more to his argument than that ho proved himself to bo as much of a tariff reformer as tho progressive republicans aro, and thoy. as Sonator Bailey remarked, avow thomsolvcH to be protectionists, ll0 did, Indeed, as ho says, vote for riiioa lowor than the Dlngloy rates, and Senator Aldrich did tho samo thing with vory little loss frequency; hut Sonator Bailoy In most cases voted against the lowest rates proposed, and often despite tho fact that I. In party had positively pledged him to tho contrary course. Sonator Bailey's excuse for ihls is that the rate for which ho voted, when Ills alternative was a choice of tho lower or tho lowest rate, consti tutes hut a small porcontago of tho artlclo'a value. Ho defends his vote on hides, for ox anlplo, with the plea that tho duty ho supportod was only 15 por cent of their valuo. Wo shall not say that ho subjects his democracy to a per centage test, but slneo tho values of commodi ties fluctuato constantly and wldoly, thus vary ing tho percentage of protection, ho gives his democracy rather a precarious status. So much relates only to tho effort of Sonator Bailey to prove that his own courso with re spect to tho Aldrich bill marks tho historic posi tion of domocracy on tho tariff, r.nd this effort, ?,? W- lfl ft?"""01' lB th0 nmJr motif of Mb l on Worth deliverance In Its minor motif it is with somo conspicuous exceptions, sub stantia ly the same speech that Sonator Bailoy had delivered at Dallas and Houston, and since wo offered somo criticisms of that speech It would bo rather supororogatory to consider the detailed arguments with which ho oxcusoa his repeated violations of tho Donvcr platform. Most cheerfully we shall admit that this part of his Fort Worth speech Is devoid of somo of thoso absurd propositions which gave Imitated luster to his Dallas and Houston dollvorances. Senator Bailoy assures us he was besought by no ono Interested in tho lumber industry In Texas to voto for a duty on that commodity. That proves nothing. Southorn lumbermen were In Washington during tho formatlvo stage of tho tariff bill, and Toxrb lumbermen wr, too; and so far as tho general observer could see they were as clamorous as any others for protection. If thoy did not lobby with him, may It not havo boon that thoy wore Kcnnlble of other considerations which Imtwllod thorn to think that work superfluous? No ono, bo far as tho News knows, has charged that Senator Bailey was Improperly Influenced; thereforo the fact that ho should defend himself from an Imputation which ho himself Infers from the moro mention of a' name illuminates the ovll of allowing public servants to onter tho service of large corporations. Senator Bailey's speech shows unmistakably tho refining Influences of criticism. Ho elimin ated some of tho moro grotesque absurdities, though, since It Is the keystone of his defense, ho must try to make us believe that although tho trusts can collect from tho people any fine thoy aro made to pay tho sheriff, there Is some mysterious circumstance of tho tariff which pre vents them from reimbursing thomselves for the duty they aro made to pay tho tax collector. Senator Bailey's latest deliverance, while more specious, is not less sophistical than thoso from which it Is evolved. Dallas News, REPLYING TO BRYAN Senator Bailey has spoken again. This time it is In Fort Worth and in reply to Mr. Bryan's El Paso speech. And there is nothing sincere or sound In his last speech any moro than in his first. All of them Indicate clearly to citizens who understand contemporary politics that Sen ator Bailey thinks himself strong enough not only to vote with tho republicans In congress whenever the interests need his vote, but to preach republican doctrine in the banner demo cratic state of Texas and endeavor to pass It off as good democratic doctrine. Why? Un deniably in order to give aid and comfort to tho republicans or to completely disrupt tho demo cratic party. Houston (Texas) Chronicle. ELECTION RETURNS When this edition of Tho Commoner went to press the election returns were not sufficiently complete to give an accurate idea of the results In general. If the republican stato convention of Ne braska had declared for the bank guarantee would republican judges have felt sure of its unconstitutionality? Or did a republican na tional victory settle that question?