Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The frontier. (O'Neill City, Holt County, Neb.) 1880-1965 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 26, 1922)
VOLUME XLII. O’NEILL, NEBRASKA, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1922. NO. 21. SENATOR NORRIS EXPOSES HITCHCOCK’S RECORD Senator Gilbert M. Hitchcock did not vote against the repeal of the ex cess profit tax law, for the r*epeal of which measure the democrats in the present campaign are condemning the republicans. Reading from the records of the proceedings in the senate Senator George W. Norris speaking to one of the largest audiences ever as sembled in the Knights of Columbus hall Wednesday night gave the record of the democratic candidate showing that the latter did not vote for any of the important amendments to the measure, which would have retained or increased the tax in many instances and that Hitchcock was recorded as not voting when the bill was passed. The expose of the democratic candi date’s record came as the result of an interruption of Senator Norris’ speech at Norfolk by a heckler who stated that Hitchcock had been recorded against the measure, and which state ment Senator Norris at the time was not prepared to refute, but which he was able to Wednesday night after an inspection of the congressional record. The big audience which listened to Senator Norris was composed largely of democrats, who vociferously ap plauded his utterances from time to time and who apparently approved most enthusiastically of his expose of the record of Senator Hitchcock as a representative of the Wall street in terests during the fight being made in 1917 to tax the profits of war profiteers to assist in defraying the expenses of the war. He showed that in every instance Senator Hitchcock opposed the taxation of wealth to help carry on the war, and told how Sen ator Hitchcock, one of four owners of large newspapers and magazines in the senate, was the only one of the four who had opposed the increasing of the postal rate on second class mat ter, during the war, which applies to the mailing of newspapers and maga zines. The purpose of the increase he said was to make the rate pay at least a part of the cost to the govern ment of carrying newspaper mail and to lift the burden of paying the dif ference from the shoulders of the tax payers. A; strict rule of parllementary proceedure, he said, was that a senator should not vote upon a measure in which he had a direct and personal pecuniary interest. Senator Hitch cock’s opposition to the measure was because it would increase the annual postal bill of the World Herald about $20,000. Two of the four other pub lishers in the senate, one a democrat and one a republican, did not vote on the measure although they would sus tain a larger personal loss through the passage of the bill than Senator Hitch cock. One of these was Senator Hard ing, now president. Senator LaFol lette, the third of the publishers, who is the publisher of a magazine of im mense circulation, voted for the in crease and against his own personal financial interest. Briefly referring to Newberryism Senator Norris said that if Senator Hitchcock had to pay ad vertising rates for the campaign mat ter being 'published in his behalf by his personal newspaper, the World Herald, the bill would make Newberry look like .a pikep. Senator Hitchcock was commended several times by Senator Norris where his vote had happened to be cast in the interest of the common people and he said he was not necessarily to be condemned for his opposition to woman suffrage. His own Opposition to his democratic col league, fie declared, was not because of partisanship and that if in Massa chusetts he would vote for the demo cratic senatorial candidate, yiom he did not know, as against Lodge. He mentioned other states in which he declared the democratic candidate should be supported as against the re publican. He was opposed to Senator Hitchcock because the latter was fun damentally wrong, the major portion of his record showing him to be lined up with the big manufacturing and the predatory interests commonly desig nated as Wall street. For proof of this assertion he presented roll call after roll call, reading from the con gressional record, showing that Sena tor Hitchcock was generally lined up as he charged. He admitted that Senator Hitchcock rather warmed the cockles of his heart toward the com mon people just before election and said that if the senator was running for office every thirty days he might make a very fair senator. Delegations from all sections of the county and from all of its towns were presently in goodly number to listen to Senator Norris and It was most noticeable that these delegations were composed largely of democrats. Country democrats pronounced it one of the most able and convincing talks ever delivered in O’Neill, declaring that it proved conclusively that Sena tor Hitchcock had betrayed the trust imposed in him by the common people. That the speech was a most excellent and convincing one also was demon strated by the heat with which it was denounced by local democratic ma chine leaders. , Senator Norris was a visitor to the bazaar being held at the Knights of Columbus hall and partook of dinner there. At the conclusion of his ad dress he also assisted in the sale of a box of candy, the proceeds of which go to St. Mary’s. The senator left at midnight for Chadron where he speaks Thursday night. SOME THINGS DEMOCRATIC SPEAKERS WILL NOT MENTION Democratic spellbinders will soon be taking the stump and it is announced that the “iniquitous tariff bill” will be one of their chief points of attack. That of course is to be expected and there is no doubt that the new tariff will come in for some emphatic de nunciation. However, for the sake of Democratic consistency, it is to be hooped that few of the hearers of these spellbinders Democratic Falsification Exposed A False Charge Holt County Independent (Demo cratic), Oct. 20: I also brought out very plainly at this meeting the fact that all bridges on -.federal roads should be built with federal aid funds and Mr. Porter and Mr. Watson will both remember that we agreed that that would be quite a relief to our county bridge fund. Later that year and last year some contracts for fed eral aid roads were let in Holt and Boyd counties and the state engineer asked the boai’ds in both counties to build the bridges. .The. Boyd county board refused and called the state en-, gineer’s attention to the law which provides that “Roads and bridges” shall be built with federal aid funds and the taxpayers of Boyd county were saved over $30,000.00 including the Whiting bridge. Mr. Porter and Mr. Watson it seems forgot all about it and when the state engineer asked the Holt county board to build the bridges on the federal aid road in Holt county, they agreed to do so and paa sed a resolution prepared for them specifying the bridges and ordered them built on a contract made at war time prices and to be paid for with county funds. These bridges will cost about $50,000.00 or more than $10.00 each for every voter in Holt county, and not one dollar of it should be paid with county funds. The law is very plain on this and is found on page 420 of the 1917 session laws. JOHN A. ROBERTSON. Holt County Independent (Demo cratic), Oct. 20: Mr. Taxpayer,.^sk Mr. Porter, county clerk and Mr. Wat son, county supervisor, why they al lowed $50,000.00 to be pat on the tax payers of Holt county when they knew it was not required by law. Holt County Independent (Demo cratic), Oct. 20: No bridges are being built in Holt county this year except on federal aid roads as the county bridge fund for two years will be re quired to pay for bridges on federal aid roads and -the rest of the county can go without brdiges. that the County waa spending all of their ;r* ge money on bridges on thie road and for that reason could hot construct the bridges that aho 'li fee bull the county reads. There tag no fouria cio 'statement, for the reason hat your Board made the-request for -.fate and d last i£arch for the'construction of these bridzes, and you were promised *t that time that you would receive payment as aoor aa funds were available. The enclosed warrant for $18,o52.76 *8 the total payment for the bridges on this 'project, and on the*filing of this warrant with ycur Counvy Treasurer yerr county will not have sr.y money in vested in this project^ all being paid by the state and federal government! Very truly.yours, “IPARTh ITT 3F A , : r c ' V, . i or, / - - - ■ , “ ______I I Its Refutation Not daring to stand on the party’s record in either national, state or county affairs, democratic leaders are conducting a campaign of villification and falsification in an effort to deceive the voters and thus secure support for their candidates. Such a course is being most extensively pursued in the county campaign and conclusive evi dence of it is herein presented. A party which will stoop to such methods in its desire for office can hardly ex pect to have its 'promises believed. In the Holt County Independent of October 20, appeared the articles on the opposite side of the page of this pamphlet, Similar charges have ap peared in the Independent from time to time during the summer, in an ef fort to make the taxpayers believe that the Holt county board of super visors was using the regular bridge funds of the county to construct bridges on the state and federal high ways in the county and that as a result the county found itself unable to build other bridges for the construction of which the bridge tax is levied. Be it known that the contract for the bridges on the federal highway was made by the state department of pub lic works between the state and the Western Bridge and Construction company. It was a contract the car rying out of which was directly under the supervision of the state engine Br ing department and not the county board. These photographs are of the state warrant issued in payment for the bridges and of the correspondence accompanying the warrant. They may be seen at the office of the county clerk. have been at pains to keep an eye on Democratic action toward the tariff, as disclosed in that sprightly publica tion, the Congressional Record. For example, Senator Ashurst, of Arizona, voted for protective duties on citrate of lime, graphite, cattle, wool, nuts, hides and several other products in which the good 'people of Alabama are interested. Sheppard, of Texas, voted for a long string of protective tariffs, including wool, hides and cattle. Walsh, of Montana, voted for a half dozen pro tective tariffs, including wool, even against Senator Lenroot’s amendment fixing a maximum of 60 per cent ad valorem on wools not improved. The record of the vote of senators in the eight peanut and cotton pro ducing states shows that one voted against the protective duty on vege table oil, seven voted for protection, six left the Senate chamber when the roll call began and two were out of the city. Fourteen Democratic senators, or nearly 39 per cent of the entire Demo cratic membership, voted for amend ments that would increase the rates | of duty on various commodities. I Seventeen, or 42 per cent, voted against amendments that would reduce the rate of duty. The Democratic spellbinders will not call to this record. But it may be well for citizens who are in danger of being too strongly impressed by their general declaration to bear in mind that there is a good deal of difference between a Democratic ora tor denouncing the tariff on the stump and a Democratic senator cannily figuring that the tariff in some ways is big help to his constituents.—Mil waukee Sentinel. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WOOL TARIFF Omaha Daily Stockman After all is said and done the fact stands out that wool growers have not been de claring dividends for several years. All the dividends seem to have gone to the wool manufacturers and the wool importers. To a more limited extent the cloth ing manufacturers and merchants have profited in the industry, but wool growers strongly resent the announce ment that clothing houses have re cently put out to the effect that the present tariff will increase the cost, of clothing from $4 to $7.50 per suit. Commenting on this, C. J. Fawcett, director of wool marketing for the American Fartn Bureau federation, says: “Evidently, the estimated cost to the consuming 'public was arrived at by doubling, tripling and multiplying the cost of various items representing cost of manufacturing, such as interest upon money invested, overhead and cost of retailing. These items are at best all too great, but when pyramid ed to suit the clothing manufacturers the result, which is an astounding figure, is all attributed by them to the paltry additional cost of raw wool caused by the duty imposed on do mestic wool. “The final rate named in the new tariff, 31 cents per scoured pound, is 2 cents per scoured pound less than the rate in the Payne-Aldrich bill, which has been in effect the major portion of the time for the last 40 years, and 14 cents per pound less than the scoured pound rate of the emer gency tariff which has been in effect since May 1, 1921. “So far as we know, no clothing manufacturer has given a satisfactory explanation to the consumer why re tail prices on clothing remained at the highest peak for over two years after the armistice was signed and at a time when there was no duty on wool and the government hud approximately 400 million 'pounds of wool for sale, most of which was suitable for clothing pur poses, and millions of pounds of do mestic wools were in the hands of growers for want of a buyer. The fact of the whole matter is that the total value of raw wool required in the manufacture of a suit of clothes represent a very small per cent of the cost of the finished article. The greater cost must be attributed to labor. It is entirely possible, how ever, to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of money the wool grow er gets for his 9.8 pounds of wool re quired to manufacture a suit pattern of 3Va yards. If made from a better grade of wool, such as three-eighths blood, and no substitute used, the grower would get approximately 9.8 'pounds times 38 cents, or $3.43 for the total amount of wool.” BRYAN’S OPINION OF HITCHCOCK Speaking in New York on March 19, 1920, Bryan gave his views on Hitch cock in thp following language. “Senator Hitchcock is a leader of the liquor interests in Nebraska, and he refuses to submit the prohibition amendment, even though the state favors it by 29,000 on a popular vote. . . As to the question of suffrage, he also refused to submit this ques tion, even after the state had adopted suffrage and asked him to vote for its submission. “When Harmon was the Wall street representative in 1912, Senator Hitch cock was his representative in Ne braska, and he wrote the minority re port for the republicans in opposition to currency legislation. “He has been on the brewers’ side of the question, has been opposed to woman’s suffrage and on the Wall street side of the currency question. Senator Hitchcock has been fighting me 10 years because of my attitude on the prohibition question.”
