m imh nt i mi n i m lit :
I Commoner
Extracts Prom W.
THK PORTO RICO CASE.
By a vote of five to four the supreme
court has declared President McKln
ley emperor of Porto Rico, and accord
ing to the press dispatches the emperor
has gladly and gratefully accepted the
title and authority thus conferred upon
him by the highest judicial tribunal
of the land.
As the last issue of The Commoner
was going to press. Justice Brown be
gan reading the opinion of the court in
the De Lima case and as the decision
was against the government in that
case It was at first thought that the
Inhabitants of Porto Rico had been
brought under the protection of the
constitution. But those who were en
couraged to believe that the constitu
tion had caught up with the flag were
doomed to disappointment. In the
Downes case, decided immediately af
terwards, a majority of the court, com
posed of Justices Brown. Gray. White,
Shiras and McKenna, held that con
gress could deal with Porto Rico (and
the same logic applies to the Philip
pines) without regard to the limita
tions of the constitution. Chief Jus
tice Fuller and Associate Justices Har
lan, Peckham and Brewer dissented in
strong and vigorous language, but the
opinion of the majority even a ma
porlty of one stands until it Is re
versed. This !s one of the most im
portant decisions. If not the most Im
portant, ever rendered by the conrt;
it not only declares that congress is
greater than the constitution which
created it the creature greater than
the creator but It denies tne necessity
for a written constitution. The posi
tion taken by the court is defended,
r rather excused, by reasoning which,
if followed out. will destroy constitu
tional liberty in the United States.
Every reason given by Justice Brown
could be used with even more force to
support a -decision nullifying all limita
tions placed by the constitution on
congress when dealing with the citi
zens of the several states. If the Porto
Ricans can trust the wisdom and lus-
llce of a congress which .ey do not
elect and cannot remove, why do the
people of the United States need a con
stitution to protect them from a con
gress which they do elect and can re
move? The decision In effect declares
that the people are not the source of
power; ft defends "taxation without
representation" and denies that gov
ernments derive "their Just powers
from the consent of the governed."
It assails the foundations of the re
public and does so on the ground of
expediency.
The dissenting opinions bristle with
precedents and burn with patriotism:
tney ougnt to awaken conscientious
repuDiicans to a realization of the
meaning of Imperialism.
This decision, like the Dred Scott
decision, raises a political issue which
must be settled by the people. The
supreme court has joined with the
president and congress in an attempt
to change the form of our government,
but there yet remains an appeal to the
peopie
The election of 1900 did not decide
this question, for the republicans de
nied that they favored Imnpriaikm
but they can deny it no longer. They
"ow enraii tr.eir repudiation of
the constitution as well as the Declar
ation of Independence.
So much space is given to the ma
jority and minority opinicns that ex
tended comment is impossible at this
time, but the discussion of the subject
will be continued in future issues
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
The opinions delivered by the United
States supreme court in the Porto
RIcan cases are so Important, not only
for the present, but for the future, that
It behooves every American citizen to
thoroughly understand their purport.
In these opinions, three separate per
iods were treated and it will be well
to consider them In proper order.
Between the time - when General
Mile3 took possession of Porto Rico
and the time of the ratification of the
peace treaty, the military authorities
established certain military tariff du
ties. The court sustained these duties
on the broad ground of military au
thority and necessity.
After the ratification of the peace
treaty and prior to the enactment of
the Foraker law. In which law the
present Porto Rican tariff duties are
set forth, tariff duties were levied on
goods coming from Porto Rico to the
United States under the terms and
rates of the Dingiey law. On this point
the court held that the Dingiey law
contemplated the levying. of duties on
foreign goods from foreign countries
that after the ratification of the peace
treaty Porto Rico became "domestic"
territory, and therefore the Dingiey
duties could not prevail.
In the Downes case the court took
up that feature of the Foraker law
which established tariff duties on
good3 coming from Porto Rico to the
Lmted States. The court held thse
duties to be lawful on the ground that
congress had full authority to make
rules, regulations and laws for the gov
ernment of "domestic" territory other
than states.
In order to fully understand these
opinions it must be known that in rul
ing that the Dingiey tariff rates could
not prevail against Porto Rico, the
court did not act on the theory that
the constitution followed the flag dur
ing any of these periods under con
sideration. This ruling was made be
cause, in the opinion of the court, a
law enacted for the purpose of levying
tariff duties against a foreign country
could not be applied in levying tariff
duties against a country that was not
"foreign." In other words. If imme
Taking Care or Forests.
Congress has appropriated 1300,000
for the preservation of our forest
lands. The salaries of those to be em
ployed are fixed at 3 per day, with
$3 additional for livery and traveling
expenses.
Fond for Education of Iloys.
The German Emperor hs.3 assigned
the sum of 100,000 marks, collected by
East Prussians at the bicentenary of
the kingdom of Prussia, as a fund for
the education of boys who are no lon
ger under the care of their parents.
i-)ti:i;i: itt in mm: m rr
i
Comment
J. Bryan's Paper.
diately after the ratification of the
peace treaty, congress had enacted i
law levying the Dingiey rates special
ly against Porto Rico those rates
would have prevailed. In the court's
opinion, the legality of any tariff rate
Detween Porto Rico and the United
States simply waited upon a formal
act of congress establishing those rates
as applying to Porto Rico.
The logic of this opinion as it applies
to fhe right of congress to levy tariff
customs would make it possible for
congress to levy tariff duties on ar
ticles coming from any territory of the
LnJted states.
With respect to our new possessions
the decision is an unfair one because it
denies to them equal trade privileges
with other portions of the United
States whose sovereignty has been es
tablished over tbem, and the pur
pose of the constitution in providing
for equal trade privileges was that no
section subject to United States sov
ereignty should ever become the vie
tim of discrimination. This principle
is in line with the very foundation
principles of this government which
contemplated that all the people of the
United States should have equal priv
ileges, snouia be exempt from discrlm
lnations, and should enjoy the lmmunl
ties which the constitution makers
conceived to be essential to the per
petuity of free Institutions.
THE ATTITUDE OF ALIENS.
In the opinion delivered by Justice
urown in the Downes case, the su
preme court went much farther than
the consideration of the right to levy
lann duties. Justice Brown contend
ed that power to acquire territory by
treaty "implies not only the power to
govern such territory, but to prescribe
on what terms the United States will
receive Its inhabitants and what their
status sball be in what Chief Justice
Marshall termed 'the American em
plre.' "
Justice Brown then distinctly de
clared that the annexation of territory
did not make the inhabitants of that
territory citizens of the United States.
He admitted, however, that whatever
may be finally decided as to the status
of these islands and their inhabitants
'"it does not follow that in the mean
time the people are In the matter of
piclic rights unprotected by tho pro
visions of our constitution and sub
jected to the mere arbitrary control of
congress Even if regarded as aliens,
they are entitled, under the principles
of the constitution, to be protected In
life, liberty and property."
Here we find the supreme court's dec
laration of the status of the people of
these islands. Although the constitu
tion does not follow the flag, "under
the principles of the constitution" the
people of our new possessions are en
titled "to be protected in life, liberty
and property." In other words, al
though cut away from all former al
legiance, although taken away from
former sovereigns and denied the right
of building a sovereignty for them
selves, and although required to render
allegiance to this country, yet they are
in the attitude of "aliens." they are
to be taxed without representation,
and to be governed without having a
voice in the government. This is im
perialism pure and simple.
DELEGATED POWERS.
Throughout the majority opinion de
livered by Justice Brown runs the
theory that the American congress
may do anything not forbidden in the
constitution. This is one of the most
repugnant features of this opinion.
Justice Brown seems to have searched
the constitution for prohibitions rath
er than for that grant of power which
the American people have always con
ceived to be the true office of that in
strument. In one place Justice Brown
said: "If in limiting the power which
congress was to exercise within the
United States, it was also Intended to
limit it with regard to such territories
as the people of the United States
should thereafter acquire, such limita
tions should have been expressed." In
another place he refers to a constitu
tional clause as "suggestive of no limi
tations upon the power of congress in
dealing with territories." In another
place he saj's that "no construction of
the constitution should be adopted
which would prevent congress from
considering each case upon its merits
unless the language of the instrument
imperatively demands it." And in his
conclusion Justice Brown, referring to
the right or authority of congress to do
what ever it sees fit to do, said "We
decline to hold that there Is anything
in the constitution to forbid such ac
tion."
The American system of government
Is not a complicated one. Indeed, its
strength and success have depended.
in a marked degree, upon its very sim
plicity. For years we have been taught
to look in the constitution for power
delegated to the United States and for
powers prohibited by the constitution
to ihe states. For years we have been
taught that the federal constitution
was a grant of power, while the state
constitution was a limitation of power;
yet the opinion delivered by Mr. Jus
tice Brown encourages the notion that
our federal authorities may do what
ever they think necessary to be done
whn the same is not specifically for
bidden In the federal constitution.
The dangers arising from such an
irrational. un-American notion will
depend entirely upon the character and
disposition of men in authority. A
written constitution has been the safe
guard of American institutions, and
once it shall be fully established that
that constitution is a limitation rather
than a grant of power, this govern
ment and Its people are completely at
Game of "Pine Vomg."
"Ping pong," a society amusement
started in England, has found its way
to this side and is increasingly popu
lar. It is a table version of lawn ten
nis, with celluloid balls, parchment
racquets and a six-Inch net.
Drlvinx Oat BrltUh-Hade Goods.
American-made boots and shoes are
driving British made goods out of Aus
tralia and the British colonies in the
East and West Indies and Africa,
where they have always had a monopoly.
the mercy of the men who happen to
be in authority.
The mischievous character of Justice
Brown's decision on this point is lrdi
cated in one paragraph wherein he
said "The states could only delegate
to congress such powers as they them
selves possess, and as they have no
power to acquire new territory they
have none to delegate in that connec
tion." This was Justice Brown's apol
ogy for the absence from the constitu
tion of a delegation of power to con
gress to deal with newly acquired ter
ritory. He would then hold that con
gress, the creature of the constitution,
had greater powers than the body that
created the constitution itself. In or
der to avoid tbe well established the
ory that the constitution is a grant of
power, we have, according to Justice
Brown's opinion, only to ascertain that
the grantors of power were without
authority in a certain respect in order
to give to the creatures of the constitu
tion whatever authority and power
those creatures see fit to exercise.
A RADICAL CHANGE.
Justice Harlan discusses this point
at considerable length, and his words
are quoted here that the reader may
note the contrast between his views
and those expressed by the majority of
the court through Justice Brown. Jus
tice Harlan says:
"I take leave to say that if the
principles now announced should ever
receive the sanction of a majority of
this court, the result will be a radical
and mischievous change in our system
of government. We will, in that event,
pass from the era of constitutional lib
erty, guarded and protected by a writ
ten constitution, into an era of legisla
tive absolutism. In respect of many
rights that are dear to all peoples who
love freedom.
"In my opinion, congress has no ex
istence and can exercise no authority
outside of the constitution. Still less
is it true that congress can deal with
new territories Just as other nations
have done or may do with their new
territories. This nation is under the
control of a written constitution.which
is the supreme law of the land, and the
only eource of the powers whirh our
government, or any branch or officer
of it. may exercise at any time or at
any place. Monarchical and despotic
governments, unrestrained in their
powers by written constitutions, may
do with newly acquired territories
what this government may not do con
sistently with our fundamental law.
"The idea that this country may ac
quire territory anywhere upon the
earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold
them as mere colonies or provinces, is
wholly Inconsistent with the spirit and
genius as well as with the words of the
constitution. The glory of our Amer
ican system of government is that it
"was created by a written constitution
which protects the-people against the
exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power,
and the limits of which may not be
passed by the government it created,
or by any branch of it, or even by the
people who ordained it, except by
amendment.
"It will be an evil day for American
liberty If the theory of a government
outside of the supreme law of the land
finds lodgment in our constitutional
Jurisprudence."
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE.
The court's decision was based upon
expediency. In the opinion to whica
Justice Harlan referred as an effort to
establish "two governments in this
country one resting on the constitu
tion for Americans the other carried
on in the national capital by the same
people, without the constitution for a
subject people," Justice Brown said:
A false step at this time might be
fatal to the development of what Chief
Justice Marshall called 'the American
empire.' "
It would seem that thra phrase was
employed by way of apology or de
fense for the American empire which
Justice Brown and his colleagues were
seeking to erect upon the ruins of the
American constitution. W hen the
great Marshall used the term "the Am
erican empire," he referred to an em
pire of love, an empire of perfect re
publicanism, an empire of hearts, an
empire in which the people reigned su
preme and the congress, the executive
and the courts were the servants, rath
er than the masters, of the people. He
referred to "the American empire" as
expressing the perfect reign of Ameri
can principles on every foot of Ameri
can territory, and the enjoyment of
American rights, privileges, and im
munities on every foot of soil within
the American domain.
It was in 1820 that Chief Justice
Marshall used this term. The court
at that time had under consideration
the constitutional provision that "all
duties, imports and excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States."
On this point Chief Justice Marshall
said "Does this term (the United
States) designate the whole or any por
tion of the American empire? Cer
tainly this question can admit of but
one answer. It Is the name given to
our great republic which is composed
of states and territories. The District
of Columbia or the territory west of
the Missouri river is not less within
the United States than Maryland or
Pennsylvania and it is not less neces
sary on the principles of our constitu
tion that uniformity in the imposition
of Imposts, duties and excises should
be observed in the one than in the
other."
What a difference, then, between
'the American empire" of the great
Marshall and the American empire of
Mr. Justice Brown!
Marshall's "American empire" was
'our great republic which is composed
of states and territories." The Ameri
can empire of Mr. Justice Brown con
templates two governments in this
country; one resting on the constitu
tion for Americans the other carried
on in the national capitol by the same
people, without the constitution and
for a subject people."
Bringing Fruit to Market.
A fleet of small schooners is being
fitted out preparatory to leaving for
the Bahamas to load pineapples for
Philadelphia and Baltimore. Every
year these vessels leave for the small
Islands which comprise the Bahama
group and return with the fruit.
Miss II ol man a laboratory Worker.
Miss Josephine Bowen Holman, ai
Indianapolis girl who is to marry Mar
coni, is herself an enthusiastic labor
atory worker and has devoted a great
deal of her attention in that line tc
electricity.
SOOTHING SYRUP.-
Oso cf the extraordinary features of
the supreme court s decision, delivered
by Justice Brown, is the attempt to
assure the people that the safeguard of
a written constitution can be destroyed
without danger. This argument is of
such a remarkable character that it de
serves to be pasted in every American
scrap book. On this point Justice
Brown said:
"Large powers must necessarily be
Intrusted to congress in dealing with
these problems, and we are bound to
assume that they will be judicially ex
ercised. That these powers may be
abused is possible. But the same may
be said of its powers under the const!
tutlon as well as outside of it. Human
wisdom has never devised a form of
government so perfect that it may not
be perverted to bad purposes. It is
never conclusive to argue against the
possession of certain powers from pos
slble abuses of them. It is safe to say
that if congress should venture upon
legislation manifestly dictated by self
ish interests it would receive quick re
buke at the hands of the people."
Having been dispossessed of the ad
vantages of a written constitution we
have the right to hope that the men
whom we elect to office will not abuse
the extraordinary power conferred up
on them by the United Statco supreme
court.
It is an amazing bit of logic for a
dignified justice of the highest court In
this land to contend that a fear that
congress might abuse the unlimited
power given it by the supreme court
should be quieted by the reflection that
"the same may be said of its powers
under the constitution as well as out
side of it."
Justice Brown says that "human wis
dom has never devised a form of gov
ernment so perfect that It may not
be perverted to bad purposes." True,
indeed, and because the statesmen of
this country realized that fact, having
had it burned into them by the hot Iron
of experience, they provided limita
tions upon the authority and power of
their public servants. They never
dreamed of giving unlimited authority
to their public officials; and when they
devised this government and Improved
it. by placing certain powers with the
states, when they denied certain pow
ers to the states and gave federal au
thorities certain powers specifically set
forth in a written constitution, resting
the whole frame-work upon a founda
tion of justice, liberty and equality to
all men and to all sections of this
country, they devised the best form of
government yet conceived, and their
handiwork was never so much endang
ered as It was by the opinion delivered
by Mr. Justice Brown.
A SUBLIME REASSURANCE.
In his effort to further quiet those
who apprehended danger by reason of
the unlimited power bestowed by the
supreme court on the federal authori
ties. Justice Brown said:
"Grave apprehensions of danger are
felt by many eminent men a fear lest
an unrestrained possession of power
on the part of congress may lead to
unjust and oppressive legislation, in
which the natural rights of territories
or their inhabitants may be engulfed
find no justification in the action of
congress in the past century, nor in
the conduct of the British parliament
toward its outlying possessions since
the American revolution.
This is sublime reassurance: Those
who fear that an "unrestrained posses
sion of power on the part of congress
may lead to unjust and oppressive leg
islation" in which the natural rights
of men may be engulfed have only to
look at the. action of congress during
the past century.
But if this is not sufficient Mr. Jus
tice Brown bids them look at the "con
duct of the British parliament toward
its outlying possessions since the Am
erican revolution."
To what a glorious field for Inspec
tion this Justice of the supreme court
has invited the American people!
Under this opinion we are about to
embark on Great Britain's colonial
policy and to reassure ourselves, to
quiet our conscience, we have but to
look at the history of Great Britain to
ward its outlying possessions "since
the American revolution."
An inspiring spectacle. Indeed!
We may look at South Africa where
Great Britain's "unrestrained posses
sion of power" has destroyed two
promising republics and has drenched
the soil with the blood of patriots;
we may look at India whose people
have been dying by starvation for
years at India where on several occa
sions the bounty and generosity of the
American people have been necessary
in order to save human beings, living
under the sovereignty of Great Britain,
from death by starvation.
We may look at Ireland, whose pop
ulation today Is 4.000.000 less than it
was In 1841; at Ireland whose people
have been defrauded of their natural
rights; at Ireland whose people have
been 'denied the highest aspirations
and the purest ambitions; at Ireland
whose people have been burdened with
unjust laws, with outrageous taxes.
with infamous decrees; at Ireland
whose people have fled from British
sovereignty or died with broken hearts
and famished bodies. Wherever you
go. whether you find the Irishman at
home or abroad, you will find a hater
of British sovereignty and a living wit
ness to the fact that British rule over
the peoples who are denied equal par
ticipation in British government has
been unjust to the people governed
and discreditable to the governing
power.
A Hot Literary Dinner."
A Georgia paper, has an account of
A hot literary dinner, after which
there was a wrestling match to decide
who was the best literary man in town.
Mart Tompkins th rowed Luke Landers
five times, and was afterward declared
head writer and literary president."
Suddenly Rich and Generous.
George W. Carroll of Beaumont,
Texas, who has become rich through
the discovery of oil in Texas, has giv
en $60,000 to Baylor University, Waco,
Texas, to erect a science building and
has promised more if that sum is in
sufficient. Higher Mathematics.
ine story writer who figures out
that there has been 121 generations of
the human family beginning with
Adam has done something that ought
to discourage the most enthusiastic
genealogist. Boston Globe.
ONIS A CARTJER.
TYPICAL CASE OF POVERTY
IN
' METROPOLIS.
Skinned by the Doctors, Skinned by
landlords and Skinned by Twentieth
Century ClTlllzatlon A Common Thing
la Division Street. .
The following appeared in the news
columns of a recent issue of one of
New York's leading dailies:
It will be a curious sight to the tene
ment dwellers about lower Division
street when the Malklns are evicted
on Saturday.
Neighbors will gather to see the mis
erable household goods of the unhappy
family put upon the street. Six little
Malkins will stand about the dingy
bedding and the cracked stove, as sol
diers rally about their tattered colors,
wondering why they are not allowed to
live in houses like other people.
And a pallid man and woman, with
the furrows of sorrow on their faces,
will look across the bundles comprising
all they own in the world, acros3 the
six tousled heads of their children and
Into each other's eyes, seeking there
the trust and pity which-their fellows
have denied them.
There is another little Malkin, the
seventh, but he is comparatively well
off. He is in Beth Israel hospital with
slxty-slx square inches of skin burned
from his back. But he has bread and
butter and cake and pie, and be has at
least the pity of the doctors and kind
words from the nurses.
He is at a careless age. thi3 little
Malkin, and he was the innocent cause
of the undoing of his father, Louis H
Malkin. who lives with the rest of his
family in three miserable rooms at
123 Division street. Louis Malkin was
a hardworking carter up to the last of
February. He was sober, respectable,
industrious and energetic. His wife
and family of seven stair stepping
children were well cared for.
On the evening of Feb. 11 the third
child, a boy of 8, went down into the
dark tenement cellar to get a bucket
of coal. He took a candle, and in come
manner his coat was Ignited. He ran
shrieking upstairs, where he fell un
conscious on the floor. His back was
terribly burned from his shoulders to
his hips.
He was taken to Beth Israel hospi
tal, where for a time it wa3 thought
he would die. His father was called
upon to supply cuticle for the boy's
back. Twenty-two inches of skin from
Mr. Malkin's right leg disabled him
for work.
He lost his position, lost his credit.
lost all but hope. He pawned every
thing he could pawn. The heroic fa
ther, still lame from the awful skin
stripping he had endured, was called
upon by the Beth Israel doctors for a
similar graft from his left leg.
He leaned wearily against a table in
his home a pale apparition of hard
luck and talked about it. Six child
ren, gaunt starvelings of the street.
gazed at him with querulous eyes.
The mother, with the lines of despair
in her face, heaved and toiled despair
ingly over a washtub. A neighbor
through charity had sent in some
washing which must be finished by
nightfall.
And so she went, scrub, scrub, scrub.
while her husband made ready for the
hospital, while her children wailed or
slept.
I cannot work anyway, I am so
lafke from the other operation. But If
I dn't go to the hospital and submit
to another grafting this afternoon the
boy will die. I cannot bear that. I
suppose that God will take care of us.'
Then, lowering his voice: "We will be
put out Saturday, I gues3, but they
can't do any more than starve us to
death. The poor mother can't take
care of them all alone."
Scrub, scrub, scrub! The woman's
ears had been open. She was crying
now, and she bent her back to her
burden with the envy of despair.
'After I have recovered from the
operation of today," Mr. Malkin con
tlnued, "they are going to take another
grafting twenty-two inches from my
back. God knows what will become
of us."
Scrub, scrub, scrub, went the arms
monotonously. Then suddenly, with
white averted face, the woman walked
suddenly past and cast herself face
downward on the bed in the next room.
"Poor woman." said the stricken
man wearily. 'Excuse me. now. She is
broken hearted, and ' I must go and
comfort her."
And so it has fallen out that the
tenement dwellers of Division street
will b8 treated to a curious but not
unusual sight on Saturday.
LAND AND WORK.
For colossal impudence Jt would
seem hard to surpass the claim of John
D. Rockefeller, that he has given to
men work of the value of $600,000,000
and given It. too, in a spirit of
benevolence. What Rockefeller has
really done has been to seize the
source cf employment the earth, and
then to permit men to labor on it and
produce wealth of which he kept the
largest share. The "work" would have
beja there In the oil regions had
Rockefeller never been born. Indeed,
there would have been more work for
he has been a monopolizer, a fore
stalled a reducer of consumption, and
by his Interferences with trade has
obstructed the natural growth of the
oil industry.
let itocneieuers ciaim is only a
personal arrogation of the impersonal
claim so often made that the rich give
employment to the poor; a statement
which has Just' this much of truth in it.
as the &pnngneia uepubiican points
out: "That when natural bounty has
been monopolized for private profit
the mass of men work only by grace
of the monopolist, and the chance to
work and lire comes only as o
gratuity."
The employment has been furnished
by nature; the land and the man are
the two factors needed to produce
wealth. Yet when the land is monopo
lized its owners can demand as the
price of the chance for employment
all the laborer can make above a bare
living. And so by a confusion of
thought they are accredited with fur
nishing the employment Itself. Were
rivers subject entirely to private own
ership we would be told that the
waterlords provided the water which
Is essential to life.
While monopoly Is as wrong when
enjoyed by a thousand as when en
joyed by one man, the mass of man
kind seen unable to realize Its In
justice until the profits concentrate in
a few hands. Large estates arouse the
greatest popular antagonism to land
lordism, and the rapid growth of a few
monopolies like the Standard Oil is
arousing antagonism to the private
ownership of such natural resources as
oil, coal, and Iron. That these are
the common property of the race i3
coming to be recognized more clearly
every day, and the rightfulness of per
mitting them to be owned by Indivi
dual is being questioned even by those
usually classed as conservative think
ers. But this fundamental and all
embracing truth needs to be pro
claimed that ajl land is a natural re
source which cannot justly be owned.
The earth is the only source of em
ployment, and when It Is subject to
private ownership "the chance to
work and live comes only as a
gratuity" to the landless. To har
monize the equal rights of all men to
the earth (which means to any portion
of it) with the Individual possession
necessary to secure to each the re
sults cf his toil is the purpose of the
single tax, which would destroy mono
poly of land and natural resources and
yet leave the individual free to em
ploy his labor as he chose and to en-
Joy the fruits thereof.
CURRENT COMMENT.
New York Evening Post: The com
munity of Interest that was to produce
such harmony in the Industrial and
financial world has led to a battle of
giants. The field is strewn with dead
and wounded, and the question ri3ea
involuntarily:
Can such things be.
And overcome us like a summer cloud,
Without our special wonder?
The country, prosperous though it
be, Is full of discontent with the arro
gance of men who control millions,
and who combine today and fight to
morrow, regardless of the rights and
Interests of the masses. There is a
substratum of socialism in every com
munity which demands municipal
ownership of "public utilities." It
wants street railroads and gaa and
electric lighting works and telephones
to be owned by the cities and adminis
tered in the Interest of the consumer.
It will very likely want country trolley
lines to be owned by the state and
operated in competition with the steam
railroads. It may demand the taking
of coal and iron mines and oil wells
under the law of eminent domain. It
may impose killing taxes on what it
conceives to be dangerous monopolies.
It may meet the "community of inter
est" idea of railroad management with
more stringent legislation by congress
and the legislatures than any we have
yet had. It is only a rumbling force
now, but is capable of doing vast mis
chief, both to Itself and to those
whom it conceives to be Inimical to It.
Nothing is better calculated to awaken
this slumbering giant than such spec
tacles as we have had in Wall street
the past few days.
San Francisco Star: A despised con
temporary says that "Tom L. Johnson,
the newly elected mayor of Cleveland
is said to have one eye on a seat in
the United States senate and the other
on the governorship, so it would seem
he will have to go it blind so far as the
city Is concerned." Mayor Tom L.
Johnson has already saved the city of
Cleveland millions of dollars by stop
ping a water front grab of the Pennsyl
vania railroad, by his promptness In
taking office, and he is now vigorously
overhauling assessments, by which
course he will reach the tax-shirkers
and relieve those who are now bear
ing double burdens. He has also taken
the first step toward three-cent streel
car fares and municipal ownership.
That does not look much like "going
it blind."
Springfield Republican: A reputed
trust salary of $SOO,000 ought to make
the recipient a zealous defender of
trusts, and Charles M. Schwab of the
United States Steel corporation is no
disappointment in that respect. He
admitted to the federal Industrial com
mission that the trusts made lower
prices on the export trade and used
the tariff to hold up the home price
but while claiming that great econo
mies in production were effected by
the trusts, still he held the steel trust
needed tariff protection on account of
differences in labor cost. He was op
posed to labor consolidation and in
favor of the highest degree of capi
tal consolidation. And he was
also opposed to enforced publicity
in the accounts of such monopolies as
he is now running. In a word Mr.
Schwab believes fully In public mon
opoly conducted by private individuals
for unregulated private profit. Under
the circumstances this is not remark
able.
Now, all this is the opinion of an
expert after consultation with the
manufacturers and jobbers in these
lines of business and to make the lack
of prosperity more plain," it must be
remembered that a trade journal never
gives a discouraging outlook if pos
sible, it is against the Interests of
such a publication.