6
vjw
';
?
Mi
The Commoner.
ISSUED WEEKLY.
Encored at tho Postofllco r.t Lincoln, NobrasUa,
an second-class mattor.
Wll.I.lAM J. Ml VAN
ICtlltor mid Proprietor
IllCllAltl) L. MlCTCAI.I'I
A cf oclnto Kill tor
ClIAItl.KS W. UllVAN
I'uhllrticr
Fclitnrlnl Unguis nntl HiiKlntwi
Ofl'to .TM-320 South 12th Street
One Ycnr $1.00
Six Month no
In Clubs of Flvo or
more, per year... .75
Throe MontliM 2S
Single Copy 05
Samplo Copies Free.,
Foreign Post. Cc Extra.
SUUSCIUI'TIONS can bo sent direct to Tho Com
monor. They can also he sent through newspapers
which have advertised a clubbing rate, or througa
local agents, hero sub-agents have been n point
ed. All remittances should be sent by postofflco
money order, express order, or by bank draft on
not scnu muiviuuai
found that a largo
prefer not to havo
Wow York or Chicago. Do
checks, stamps or money.
DISCONTINUANCES Tt Is
majority of our subscribers
their subscriptions Interrupted and their files
broken In case they fall to remit before expiration.
It Is therefore assumed that continuance is desired
unless subscribers order discontinuance, either
when subscribing or at any time during tho year.
PRESENTATION COPIES Many persons -sub-ocrlbo
for friends, intending that the paper shall
Btnp at the end of the year. If Instructions aro
given to that effect thoy will recelvo attention at
the proper time
ItEVEWAIiS Tho dato on your wrapper shows
tho tlmo to which your subscription Is paid. Thus
January 21, '09, meatts that payment has ben re
ceived to and including the last Issue of January,
100.0. Two weeks aro required after money has
been recolved boforo tho dato on wrapper can bo
changed.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting
a change or address must glvo old as well as now
address.
ADVERTISING Rates will bo furnishod upon
application.
Addrnis all communications to
THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Neb.
Where Congressmen Stand
The Commoner will be pleased to publish
bvlot letters from congressmen iuid democratic
candidates for congress, giving their opinion of
tho tariff platform suggested by Mr. Bryan.
Texarkana, Texas, October 25, 1909. Charles
W. Bryan, Publisher Tho Commoner, Lincoln,
Neb. Dear Sir: I an 'n receipt of your letter
of October 21 asking my opinion regarding the
platform suggested by Mr. Bryan in his Dallas'
speech of September 14. In immediate reply I
beg to say that I am opposed to protection in
any sense and from any standpoint whether on
raw materials or finished products. I believe
that tariff duties should be levied for purposes
of revenue only and If I should vote for a duty
at all on any article it would be strictly for such
purposes. I would go further than Mr Bryan
as to the articles specified by him 'and favor
free woolen goods as well as free wool free
cotton goods, and free iron and steel products
as well as free iron ore and free coal. As to
the other articles assigned by him to the free
list I a-m in entire agreement. I believe in the
binding force of platforms and in such an amend
ment to the rules of the lower house of con
gress as will restore popular government and
majority rule in that body.
Yours very truly,
MORRIS SHEPPARD,
First Texas District.
HOW IT LOOKS - IN ILLINOIS
The president may be right we hope he is
but undoubtedly he is on the unpopular side
of the case, and in such a contest he will lose
In respect of the great mass of tho people. He
will win the respect of tho corporations who
aro trying to grab the public domain. His argu
ment, if read without his signature, and its
source unknown, would lead the general reader
to think that it was the plea of a lawyer be
fore a federal court for a wealthy corporation
who was charged with violation of law
We are sorry, but the presidents action in
sustaining Ballinger does not look good to us ,
Alton (111.) Telegraph, Rep. h US'
WHAT THEY WANT
Wanted: A new democracy that will so define
A protective tariff that a protectionist democrat
can be a protectionist without having to admit it
The Commoner.
Timely Editorials by
Commoner Readers
Web M. Ruboy, Macon, Mo. I do not deem
it necessary for mo or any one to aid Mr. Bryan
in his contention with tho Texas advocates on
the subject of tariff tax on raw materials, for
he is able to take core of his side of the debate;
but there is one thought connected with tho
matter I would emphasize, and that is that the
theory of tariff taxation of raw materials means
universal tariff protection, not only upon all
raw materials in all sections of the country, but
also upon all manufactured products. This
must bo apparent to every thinking person, for
the reason that in order for every congressman
who would have a tariff tax upon raw materials
of his district, he must combine with those con
gressmen who demand protection on all manu
factured, products, and pledge himself to vote for
protection on all manufactured products. Not
only so, but if one locality gets protection on its
raw materials, all localities have a right to also
demand it, and when the raw products of all
sections of the union get protection, by agreeing
to reciprocate the favor by voting for protection
on manufactured products, wo will thereby
spread protection universally over the United
States, and the possibility of tariff reform will
have passed, and the tariff as a party question
will necessarily have to be abandoned. The
democratic party had as well meet and declare
its abandonment of tho. tariff question alto
gether, as to adopt the Texas idea of demanding
a protective tariff on raw materials. The theory
of protective tariff is either right or, wrong. If
wrong, as democracy has always held, then it
is as wrong when applied to raw materials as
when applied to manufactured products, and no
democratic congressman can defend the appli
cation of protection to one thing and deny it
to all other things. If protection Is indefensible
as to manufactured products, It is Indefensible
as to raw materials. I agree with Mr. Bryan
that now is the time, In tho congressional elec
tion of 1910, for democracy to decide whether
it will stand, against the principle of protection
for protection's sake, or surrender to the repub
lican doctrine of protection.
Wayne C. Williams, Denver, Colo. I am en
closing selected portions of President Taft's
speech on the income tax amendment, made in
Denver on Tuesday, September 21. I believe it
contains two remarkable admissions:
First, He admits thct the income tax law
would have passed congress had he not proposed
tho substitute of the amendment to the federal
constitution and the corporation tax feature. I
quote from a verbatim, stenographic report of
his address:
"But the income tax amendment seemed
quite likely to pass by vote of all the democrats
and a sufficient number of republicans. There
fore those who were opposed to the income tax
amendment looked about to see If a compromise
could not be proposed less objectionable than
the income tax amendment, which would satisfy
enough republicans who were inclined to favor
the income tax to prevent the passage of that
amendment. Such a compromise was found in a
proposal to pass tho present corporation tax
and also the joint resolution already referred to'
proposing an amendment of the federal consti
tution to the states authorizing the general gov
ernment to Jmpose an income tax without ap
portioning it as a direct tax according to the
population of the states."
Second, He now says that ho is opposed to an
income tax law, based on the amendment ex
cept in timc:s of great stress or national emer
gency. Did President Taft admit this much
when congress was in session and when ho was
persuading republican senators to accept his
substitute for an income tax law? My best
recollection is that he kept silent about his own
attitude toward the passage of such a' law He
now leaves the plain inference that he will veto
such a law if it is passed, even pursuant to an
amendment. He says:
"Assuming the constitutional authority to
have been given, I am opposed to a general in
dividual income tax law, except in times of great
national stress. I am opposed to it because of
the difficulty already alluded to, that It puts
such a premium on perjury as to have led other
governments to abandon that method of levying
an income tax and of Imposing the tax wherever
possible on the sources of income in the hands'
of those who are not ultimately to pay it."
Finally, is tho president correct in thisstate-
VOLUME 9, NUMBER 13
ment as to England's experience in income tax
collection? On. this I ask for information:
"In England, after a hundred years df 'expe
rience, the income tax is levied in only excep
tional Instances on tho individual directly it
is first levied on tho declared dividends of cor
porations; secondly, on rents before they leavo
the hands of the tenants, and Anally, on tho
individual with respect to matters that are not
covered by rents and corporate investments."
R. E. Morgan, Mankato, Kansas. i
frequently see you, as well as other edi
tors, falling into the same error, namely
-the error of raising the same question'
whether, in a given case, goods are sold more
cheaply abroad than at home. Now that ques
tion is immaterial and irrelevant and has noth
ing to do with the point at issue. The only
question pertinent is whether goods made in
America are sold abroad. If we find American
goods on the foreign market, we at once know
that they are sold in competition with foreign
goods, a fact which denies and overthrows the
argument in favor of a protective tariff. And
the reason for the law having ceased, the law
should no longer stand. If we should adopt
the method of trying to ascertain whether goods
are sold more cheaply abroad than at home,
we might be worsted in a clever system of jug
gling with figures. But the chief reason why
we should not Indulge in such an inquiry is
that it is not pertinent.
SUBSIDIZING INSTRUCTION
N The more one reads the writings and sayings
of Thomas Jefferson, the more one's admiration
is excited at his wonderful, insight into human
nature. No matter what question arises, it Is
found that Jefferson said something bearing
upon the subject, and his utterances were at all
times on re side of the whole people and
against the corrupt influence that attempt to
pervert government.
At present increasing attention is being called
to the subsidizing of our institutions of learning.
Our trust magnates are silencing criticism by
their donations to colleges and universities. The
following from a letter written by Jefferson to
Mr. Cabell is in point. (Volume 2, page 27, Jef
ferson Memorial Association edition):
"In most public seminaries text-books are pre
scribed to each of the several schools as tho
norma docendi in that school; and this is gen
erally done by authority of the trustees. I
should not propose this generally in our univer
sity, because I believo none of us are so much
in the heights of science in the several branches
as to undertake this; and, therefore, that it will
better be left to the professors, until occasion
of interference shall be given. But there is one
branch in which we are the best judges, in
which heresies may be taught, of so Interesting
a character to our own state, and to the United
States, as to make it a duty In us to lay down
the principles which shall be taught. It is that
of government. Mr. Gilmer being withdrawn,
we know not who his successor may be. He
may be a Richmond lawyer, or one of that school
of quondam federalism, now consolidation. It
is our duty to guard against the dissemination of
such principles among our youth, and the diffu
sion of that poison, by a previous prescription of
the texts to be followed in their discourses."
NECESSARIES VS. LUXURIES
One of the claims made for the new tariff bill
by Senator Aldrich and other sponsors was that
it bore down strongly upon the luxuries, thus
making the rich who consume them, pay more
for them, while at the same time it greatly re
duced the rates on the necessaries, the things
that tho great middle class use, thereby reduc
ing tho prices upon them.
The News was curious to learn whether this
was true or not. It listed eight articles that are
distinctively luxuries, and it also listed eight
other articles which are distinctively necessaries.
Here thpv are:
Necessaries Luxuries
Per Cent Per Cent
Sugar 78.87 Diamonds 10
Blankets 165.42 Automobiles 45
Yarns 138.12 Champagne 50
Carpets 66.72 Furd 35
Stockings 87.95, Paintings and
Clothing ....... 86.61 Stntuary 20
Dress Goods, Jewelry.' 60
(wool) 105.92 Jewel Boxes 32
Shirts 60.16 Yachts 35
These are official figures, taken from the pub
lication issued by the senate " committee on
finance. Lincoln (Neb.) Evening News, Rep.
ii. & h.mafcfcjfcjj
ljjLyujutt
