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.”
