i !''.
5
I
'APRIL 5, 191
pected as representing those influences has not
tho slightest chance of success of election at tho
polls.
To try to nominate such a candidate is con
summate folly in view of the fact that such
nomination means ruinous defeat for tho entire
party at the polls in November.
No sane leader of tho democratic party can
expect the men of 1896, 1900 and 1908 to aban
don their principles, repudiate their platforms
and support a candidate who bolted in the first
year, was dissatisfied in 1900, and has never
been sincerely and fully with the progressive
element of the democratic party. Why indorse
a candidate who can not hold the votes of tho
democratic party?
Such a nomination means a repetition of the
defeat of 1904 upon a larger scale and with
more serious consequences to the democratic
party.
Nearly 1,500,000 democrats refused to vote
for the democratic candidate in 1904, although
Judge Parker was loyal in 189G and active in
support of the candidate and the party in that
year.
Do the men who are seeking to foist now
upon the national party a representative of
these fatal interests desire that 3,000,000 of
democrats absent themselves from the polls, or
go to them to support other candidates?
The men of 1896, 1900 and 1908 are men of
convictions, decided and determined, and a
nomination such as that of an attorney-general
who for all the years he served found no violator
of the criminal section of the Sherman law
would mean nothing more nor less than the
sweeping of the union by an opposition candi
date. Why ruin the chances to win with our con
gressional, our state, our county and city candi
dates on the democratic ticket in order to pro
moto the political ambitions of a man who has
not been in thorough accord with the party
since 1896?
The party is not deficient in men who can con
solidate the party and gain recruits for it.
The party has Wilson, Clark, Foss, Marshall,
Kern, Burke of North Dakota, and others who
could be named that are incomparably stronger
than the ex-attorney-general with the voters.
Why select and push forward, then, for in
dorsement the one man who can not win, the
one candidate who insures defeat?
THE LA FOLLETTE PLATFORM
Below will be found the La Follette platform,
announced from Madison:
Madison, Wis., March 13. United States
Senator Robert M. La Follette, in his campaign
platform given out here today, declares among
other things his belief in the initiative, referen
dum and recall and direct nominations; govern
ment ownership and operation of express com
panies. He opposes ship subsidy, the Aldrich
currency plan and Canadian reciprocity.
Senator La Follette says it is not his purpose
at this time to discuss the issues, or, indeed, to
do more than suggest his position upon the
vitally important ones. He says:
"I believe in:
"The initiative, referendum and recall and
direct nominations and elections, not only as
applied to states, but also in the extension of
these principles to the nation as a. whole.
"The equalization of the burdens of taxation,
upon a property basis, through the adoption of
graduated income and inheritance taxes.
"The parcels post.
"Government ownership of express companies
and government operation of express business
at actual cost to the public.
"The reasonable valuation of the physical
property of railroads, justly inventoried and de
termined, as the basis for fixing rates, and the
extension of the powers and the administrative
control of the interstate commerce commission.
"I would have the nation know how much
of the $18,000,000,000 capitalization was con
tributed by those who own the railroads, and
how much by the people themselves.
"I believe in the creation of a commission
with power to investigate and ascertain the
illegal acts of all trusts and combinations, and
with power to ascertain the reasonable valuation
not the monopoly valuation of the physical
properties of tho great monopolies, beginning
with the natural resources, such as coal, oil and
iron; in the creation of a tariff commission of
experts clothed with real power to determine
the valuation of all the elements of production,
costs and profits, the reduction of tariff rates
to the ascertained difference between tho labor
in this country and abroad. Instead of each of
these government commissions investigating tho
The Commoner.
same factB independently, I bolievo it would bo
practical for a single board' of export accoun
tants, statisticians, economists and engineers to
be empowered to get tho facts, not for tho con
fidential use of tho president or the departments,
but for congress and the public.
"I am opposed to ship subsidies, which, once
-intrenched, will become anothor corrupting in
fluence in our politics.
"I am opposed to further extravagance, on
the advice of interested persons only, in build
ing battle ships and political navy yards, and
favor an unprejudiced commission to investigate
and report what is required in tho way of na
tional defense.
"I am opposed to tho dollar diplomacy which
has reduced our state department froin its high
place as a kindly intermediary of defens'eless na
tions, into a trading outpost for Wall street in
terests, aiming to exploit those who should bo
our friends.
"I am opposed to the Aldrich currency
scheme which, under the guise of providing
elasticity to our currency system and relieving
monetary conditions is, in reality, a means of
concentration of the currency and the credits
of the United States under a fifty-year franchise
into those hands which have already secured
control of the banking and insurance resources
of the country.
"I favor a policy of government ownership
and operation of -Alaska railroads and coal mines
and of an Alaskan steamship line by way of
Pacific ports through Panama to New York.
"I was opposed to tho Canadian reciprocity
agreement when President Taft submitted it to
congress January 26, 1911; I was opposed to it
when it was before the senate, argued against
it, voted against it, and I am against it now."
Accompanying his platform, Senator La Fol
lette makes this statement:
"When Roosevelt became president the total
amount of the stock and bond issues of all com
binations and trusts, including the railways then
in combination, was only $3,784,000,000. When
he turned the country over to Taft, whom he had
selected as his successor, the total capitalization
of the trusts and combinations amounted to the
enormous sum of $31,672,000,000, more than
70 per cent of which was water. Prices were
put upon transportation, and on the products
of the mines and factories to pay interests and
dividends on this fraudulent capitalization."
While democrats will not indorse all of it
they will approve of most of it, and they will
applaud the concluding paragraph on Mr. Roose
velt's anti-trust record. Mr. Roosevelt's attitude
on the trust question probably explains his hos
tility to La Follette a hostility that has shown
itself ever since the two have been prominent in
politics. Mr. La Follette is opposed to private
monopolies Mr. Roosevelt is not. Why do not
Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt announce their plat
forms? And the same question might be put
to some democratic candidates. The people are
entitled to know for what their candidates stand
and what can bo expected of them.
Practical Tariff Talks
If there is any man in the United States who
still retains the delusion that tho real and
primary object and accomplishment of the pro
tective tariff are to insure to labor a living
wage, let him read tho facts brought out about
conditions at Lawrence, Mass., the center of
the worsted cloth-making industry of this
country. If there is any one part of the tariff
law that a clear majority of intelligent men are
agreed upon as exorbitant, extortionate and ex
cessive, it is that known as Schedule K, the
woolen schedule. Even President Taft says so,
and that ought to bo convincing. If, therefore,
the workers under Schedule K do not receive a
living wage then it would seem hopeless to
attempt to insure this by law. The evidence
submitted differs somewhat as to what are the
average wages paid adults at tho Lawrence
mills but the correct sum is probably not
much in excess of $7 a week. Think of that as
a sum upon which to support and rear a family.
The last census figures at hand show that in
io n the value of the woolen manufactures of
the United States was $767,000,000 If all of
these eoods had been purchased abroad they
would have cost $405,000,000. This leaves a
margin of protection for the manufacturers of
62 000 000 The census bureau says that
the labor cost of producing these goods was
$135,000,000. The difference between that
sum and the $362,000,000 of protection and
more, because no account is taken in this calcu
lation of tho labor cost abroad roprcnonted
what was put in the pockot of tho manufacturer.
Under the protective theory as explained In tho
last republican national platform tho manufac
turer was charged with tho duty of taking this
protection, extracting therefrom his roasonablo
profit and hnnding the remainder over to labor.
With wages averaging $7 or $8 a week for
adults in his mills, how much of this monoy do
you think Mr. William Wood and bin associates
retained as a reasonable profit and how much
did they give their workmen?
Tho answer is not far to find: Tho mills
built at Lawrence by Mr. Wood paid for them
selves the first five years they were built. They
consume ovor 24,000,000 pounds of scourod
wool in a year, and they, with other worsted
mills, have been given a special privilege or
advantage over all mills which produce tho
cheaper grades of clothing. Five worsted mills
at Lawrence consume eighty million pounds of
wool (scoured weight) a year, which is about
two-thirds of all tho wool grown in tho United
States. The development of this industry has
been one of tho wonders of Industrialism, but
there is no secret about it when one examines
tho way the tariff was juggled in favor of this
industry.
The worsted industry uses almost exclusively
tho combing or long fibred wools. Tho woolen
mills, where the carding process is employed,
uses only the shortor wools. Tho longer wools
shrink very much less than tho heavier and
shorter wools, but tho tariff levies the same
duty per pound upon them both. Hero Is what
President Taft's tariff board says of this matter:
"As one result of this various wools of heavy
shrinkage can not be profitably imported into
tho United States. Anothor result Ib the prac
tice abroad of preparing and selecting light
shrinking sorts that are peculiarly suitablo for
tho American trade. Certain manufacturers
complain of tho first result, on tho ground that
it prevents them from using the heavier con
ditioned wools of foreign origin. Domestic
wool growers, on tho other hand, complain of
the second result on tho ground that it enables
manufacturers to procure clean wool of the
light-shrinking sorts at a materially lower not
rate of duty than tho law apparently con
templated. The board finds that both of these
complaints are well-founded and that steps
should be taken to remove the cause."
Briefly stated, hero is what wo find: That the
worsted industry, enjoying the highest protec
tion afforded by the law for forty-five years,
enjoying a special advantage over competitive
wool industries that must use heavier shrink
ing wools; marked by a development extraordi
nary in its character; earning dividends that
gave its stock high quotations on the market,
has been paying such small wages that it has
practically driven American born workmen out
of the mills and filled them with Italians,
Lithuanians, Poles, French Canadians, Armen
ians, Franco-Belgians and the like; that these,
when their wages were reduced because the
state law cut tho hours of labor from -fifty-six
to fifty-four hours a week for women and chil
dren, refused longer to work.
Isn't it clear to even tho most sodden intel
lect that the manufacturers have been keeping
for themselves the money they were empowered
by the tariff law to collect and hand over to
labor? C. Q. D.
NOT FOR HARMON
A Columbus, Ohio, dispatch says: At tho
meeting of the democratic state central com
mittee recently, Mayor Baker of Cleveland, was
elected to tho place on tho committee made
vacant by the death of Tom L. Johnson. Be
fore Ijo was elected Baker took tho floor and
declared his anti-Harmon principles. "I do not
want to get on this committee on false pre
tenses," he said. "Governor Harmon is not my
ideal as a candidate for president. If I go on
the committee I want to reserve for myself the
greatest freedom of action to help the demo
cratic party select some man more progressive
and more in tuno with the progressive spirit of
the times. I do not question Harmon's great
ness as a lawyer or as a man, but I do think
tho democratic party should select some one
more progressive."
"Woe to him that lmildcth a town with blood,
and established a city by iniquity."
I
7 1
:
w
ii
1
9
gg-B-ift-gAifMtowEaggj
r n 1 J N. Jvi ,.
rffftrrx."
"-ej WSflCTT
:'WAKW'-HJ38'S.Vtr.
nrzvs&r. j --
JlL