V I mm r v VOL. XIII. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, iAPRIL 17, 1902. NO. -IS. A ROW AMONG REPUBLICANS The Organization Iron Band Snaps The Nebraska Delegation Dietrich. Ilea Learned to Keep His Mouth Shut Washington, D. C., April 34, 1902. Special Correspondence. The all-absorbing question now be fore congress is the Cuban reciprocity bill, which in a test. vote completely rent asunder the dividing lines of polictics. I think it was General Hancock, who away back in. the eighties said the question of tariff is a local one, and this was never more fully proven than when the test vote upon the consideration of the bill was taken. Members whose constituents would be Injured by its effect upon Beet Sugar, literally swept by their party's intention and cast their votes as their constituents approved. There were thirty-nine republicans who left their party to oppose the considera tion of the bill as well as forty-oue democrats. But this will not be the final vote upon the bill. Many were willing to have it discussed to find out the sentiment of the country upon the subject, while others who op posed the consideration, feel that Cuba is our ward and something should be done to aid her and make easy her entrance upon the highway as a full fledged ntlon. Many feel that a refusal to grant reciprocity to Cuba would be the la.st straw to that much troubled country. Many of the other nations including Germany, France and Russia give large bounties for the growth of sugar and they feel that the further collec tion of duties from Cuba, wrecked by war as it is, would be a failure to do our duty by the nation we launched. The sentiment that we should do something for Cuba is certainly a strong one and will be able to pull the bill through, when it comes to a vote on next Thursday. The demo crats will be united in one thing and that is to try and add some "riders" to the bill, which the republicans broken as they are, will try and de feat. They will provide for the opening of the whole question of tariff at this session. When the speaker promptly rules amendments out of order and irrelerant, the minority will take an appeal from the decision of the chair, and by many of the wayyard republicans,feel that they will have a majority of ten votes to open up the entire question of tariff. Many other, and perhaps more salient riders will be offered by the opponents of the Cuban reciprocity bill as it now stand. The house has also passed the Chi nese exclusion bill offered by Mr. Kahn of California. The opposition was not to the principle of Chinese exclusion, but to the provisions of the bill. It is now being considered in practically the same form in the senate where it was introduced oy Senator Mitchell of Oregon. The ablest speech against the bill to date was that delivered on Saturday by Senator Vest, the old war horse from Missouri. His opposition was based on the fact that the bill excluded the Chinese citizens of the Philippine islands, whom Mr. Vest declared to be citizens of the United States. Fol lowing the passage of this bill and there seems to be no doubt that it will pass will come the discussion of the Philippine government bill as de cided upon by the Philippine com mute of the senate and introduced into the senate proper by Seuatcr Lodge of Massachusetts, chairman of the coru mitte. If you will pardon a little divergence fro mthe subject, I will say that Senator Dietrich, who is a member of the committee, did not ask one ques tion during the whole of the investi gation before the committee of both the Philippine tariff and Philippine government bills. He was fairly regular in attendance in the sessions of the committee, but not a question did he ask. Perhaps the learned senator from Nebraksa feels that he is entirely familiar with the whole Philippine question, and that his knowledge gained by lis few weeks junketing trip to the Philippines last summer, has given him a supply of information that would make queries unnecessary. But perhaps he realizes, and this seems to be the probablo ground, that every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. Perhaps this keeps him quiet. He remembers his little tilt with Tillman. He know3 that the brains of the senate are on the comittee and that silence is golden. The president visited the Charleston exposition during the iast week and was received with the usual demon stration given a president wherever he goes. His trip to Charleston has per haps given Teddy the idea that the solid south can be broken but when the time for election rolls, by, he will find old south with as large a demo cratic majority as ever before. The president, whenever called upon for a speech, responded in the line used by McKinley when visiting the south land. It was the old story of the civil war.hashed and rehashed to the south'? disgust. If what they say is true, and the civil war is over, as we believe it is, why not let the old question drop. Why not put aside your red rag and cease taunting the bull. If the war is over, as he says the south knows it and resents anjr reference to it. Lets stop opening old sores, it omy makes them worse. I am surprised that Teddy uia not receive an invi tation to close the subject as did Mc Kinley when he visited the city of Memphis, Tennessee. However the trip of the president was an 'ovation all along the line and everywhere he was treated with the greatest of kind ness. There was not a word'of the Tillman-McLaurin feud. General Miles is to be retired at a very early date. Of this there is no that pending legislation will bs passed by congress. The president feels and knows that Miles has many friends upon the floor of both houses of congress and that any action by him to put Miles on the shelf would immediately call upon himself - the determined opposition of many men on his own party not to say the united wrath of the minority. Miles is to be superceded by General Brooke, who although he has passed the age limit and is even much older than General .Miles, has a stronger political pull and has incurred less enmity by his passiveness. He will be allowed to hold the position but a short while when he will be succeeded by General S. B. M. Young, formerly commander of the western branch of the army. He will be retired in about a year to make room for General Chaffee, who i? at present commanding the Philip pines. Representative Shallenberger of Ne braska, was accorded an honor the other evening that has been given but once before to a western member of congress. He was invited to address the junior congress upon the sub ject "If I were twenty-one." The congressmen, who is considered the "handsomest man in congress," cer tainly did himself proud and besides having the soubriquet referred to above, he has merited the title of be ing one of the best, if not the' best, orator . in the legislative branch of the government. He handled his sub ject in a masterly manner and the congress gave him a rising vote of thanks. Nebras-ka is certainly well represented in Hon Ashton C. Shal lenberger For a young man and a new member he has achieved a re markable reputation. It Is an oi l precedent that a new member must keep quiet during his first term but this old idea once in a while receives a set back. Its defeats are not very numerous however and the cases of Hon. William J. Bryan, Hon. C. E. Littlefield and Hon. Ashton C. Shal lenberger are the only notable ones in the past ten years. He deserves a handsome majority when he is re nominated this fall and the good peo ple of Nebraska, who can appreciate a good man, will certainly not le lacking when the time comes to go to the ballot box. But while I am talking of Nebraska delegation, I want to refer to the magnificent speech made by the "Dean of the Delegation," Hon. William Ledyard Stark on the subject of ser vice pensions on Saturday last. Mr. Stark showed himself to be thorough ly conversant with the subject of pen sions and a true friend of the old soldier If the republican party are as friendly to the old soldier as they claim to be they wil pass the bill in; troduced by Representative Stark. But whether they do 30 or not, in no way alters the fact that Mr. Stark is the friend of the old soldier and :s always watchful of their welfax-e. Every old soldier should read that speech for it puts the blame for the condition in the pension Office just where it belongs. It was a masterly and eloquent speech and in that re spect is just like everything that comes from the tongue or pen of -that dis tinguished representative from Ne- WILLIAM W. BRIDE. BUCKET SHOP MERCER Dave Mercer knows what suits his constituents, large numbers of whom are gamblers. Dave fought the tax on bucket shops, a business which has flourished in Omaha, which is Dave's baliwick. He knew who was chiefly interested in the bucket shop business and when the bill passed to take the tax off, he rushed to the tel egraph office, put his frank on. a Wes tern Union blank and wrote the fol lowing: "Washington, D. C James E. Boyd, Omaha, Neb.: Senate and house conference have just agreed to accept house bill reducing war taxes. This suits you. "DAVID H. MERCER." The gambling can go on now with out any restraint at all. Boyd will get out and hustle up all gold dem ocrats to vote for Dave at the pri maries and if he gets the nomination, Rosewater will never run on an inde pendent ticket. He may do a good deal of bluffing, but when it comes to the point he will take the matter into serious consideration. WHERE WILLIT END? The constant encroachment of the federal courts upon the rights of states to legislate upon matters affect ing the interests of the great corpor ations, is well shown in the recent decision of Judges Grcsscup and Hum phrey in the Chicago tax cases. The Illinois law provided for the valua tion of corporate property by esti mating the value of the stocks and bonds. The federal court said that inasmuch as the market value ?s largely "fictitious" this law could hot be followed, and the court then pro ceeded to lay down a rule for ascer taining the value a rule that no or dinary man could follow to save his neck. , Further than this, the court appointed United States masters in chancery to make the assessment. Here is not only judicial legisla tion, but also judicial appointment of officers to perform an executive act. The Illinois law is virtually repealed by a court and a new law enacted; but even worse than this, assessing officers, elected by the people of Illi nois, are ousted and in their place are installed appointees of the fed eral court. If. at the. behest of cor porations, a federal court can oust duly elected assessing officers and re place them by appointment, why may not the court, under some pretext, oust the governor : and apoint a mas ter in chancery to be chief executive? 1 V f JXa xi-i 11 Vo f 4 r c rl act rrTi -3 -a I ri i a i s.is i i j 1 ' SELF-CONVICTED LIAR." the Editor of the Toledo Blade Plaeea Himself In That Category by HIi Own Act. A subscriber of The Independent, Mr, O. P. Dyar, Laird, Colorado, en closes two clippings, and says: "If you are right, answer him; if not, say so. I would like to see The Indepen dent come out best." The first clip ping is from The Independent, being the letter of Mr. J. H. Wright, Rus kin, Neb., relative to the Taft commis sion's sedition law; and the second is from the Toledo Blade. We reproduce the latter. The head line was "An other Falsehood": "M. O. H., Ruskin, Neb.: Why both er with the Ignorant people who are telling you gross falsehoods? No, the Philippine commission has passed no law, issued no order, nor anything of the sort, to prohibit any one from publishing, reading, 5r circulating the American Declaration of Indepen dence. Now, is that sweeping enough, or can their narrow, malignant, bigot ed minds find any loophole? Why should the commission do such a fool ish thing? And why, when they assert such absurd proposition, did you not ask for proof? You are not, by any rule of logic, required to prove a neg ative. The man who asserts a thing is the one to prove it; and if he can not show indisputable proof, he stands a self-convicted liar." The whole contention hinges on what sections 9 and 10 of the sedition law actually include. Of course these laws do not specifically name the declaration of independence. Nobody ever claimed that they did. But they actually do include the declaration of independence, the constitution of the United State, and any speech of doc ument asserting that all men are en dowed with certain inalienable rights life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap piness. Let us read these sections and see who is "the Eelf-convicted liar." Write to your congressman for senate Document No. 173, 57th congress, 1st session, and verify the correctness of the quotation below: The act is known as No. 292, "An act defining the crimes of treason, insur rection, sedition," etc. "By author ity of the president of the United States, be it enacted by the United States Philippine Commission, that: (Sections 1 to 8 and 11 to 18 are omitted, being unnecessary to settle this contention.) "Sec. 9. All persons who shall meet together for the purpose of forming, or who shall form, any secret society, or who shall after the passage of this act continue membership in a society al ready formed having for its object, in whole or in part, the promotion of treason, rebellion, or sedition, or the PROMULGATION OF ANY POLITI CAL OPINION OR POLICY, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. "Sec. 10. Until it has been officially proclaimed that a state of war or in surrection against the authority or sovereignty of the United States no longer exists in the Philipine Islands it shall be unlawful for any person to advocate orally, or by writing or print ing or like methods, the independence of the Philippine Islands or their sep aration from the United States, whether by PEACEABLE OR FORCI BLE MEANS or to print, publish, or circulate any hand bill, newspaper, or other publication advocating such in dependence or separation. Any per son violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and imprisonment not exceeding one year." Now, who are the "ignorant people who are telling gross falsehoods"? Who told the truth and who is the "self-convicted liar"? It is unlawful to "continue membership in a society already . formed having for its object . . . promulgation of ANY political opinion or policy." Isn't it the most natural thing in the world that the Partido Conservador, the conservative party in the Philippine Islands, should look to the American declara tion of independence for its inspra tion? This party, Gov. Taft admits, advocates peace; submission to the sovereignty of the United States; that the Filipinos in Insurrection lay down their arms and recognize the author ity of the United States; and then to agitate PEACEABLY for the indepen dence of the Philippine Islands. It was organized before Act No. 292 was passed "by authority of the president of the United States" there's imper ialism for you but now the members of that party can not promulgate ANY political opinion whatever without being guilty of sedition. They dare not circulate Copies of the declaration of independence, because, as a high army officer remarked, "it is a damned incendiary document." The old sedi tion law of 1798, so often used by im perialists to bolster up what they know is infamous, covered the writ ing, printing, uttering, or publishing of any "false, scandalous, and malic ious writings against the government of the United States," but section 3 prescribed that it should be lawful for the defendant to given In evidence in his defense the truth of the matter contained in the publication com plained of. A Spanish editor tried to prove the truth of his statements not long .go, but the judge said "no," it merely "aggravated the offense" and fined him all the more heavily for it. Still more recently the editor of the Manila Freedom, an American paper there, has been arrested under the se dition law, and the matter is arousing general indignation and protest. . On February 25 Senator Patterson of Colorado said in the U. S. senate: In a public meeting of the commit- ee I asked Governor Taft if the wise, senior senator from . Massachusetts (Mr. Hoar) should be distributed in the Philippine Islands whether he who engaged in its distribution would not be subject to prosecution and punish -ment under this section. Immediate protest was made against propounding such a question, and the question was never answered. ' But I submit to the members of this body that under this section if any person living in the Philippines should be f ottnd distribut ing a copy of the Congressional Rec ord with the eloquent speeches of the senatpr from Mississippi (Mr. Money) or the opening speech o the senator from Utah (Mr. Rawlins) or the speech of my colleague (Mr. Teller) or the speech of the senior senator from Massachusetts (Mr. .Hoar) or any of the speeches that have been made in this body upholding the principles of free government, declaring that the principles of the declaration of inde pendence were applicable to all the people as well as to the people of the colonies at the time . the declaration was published, he who distributes the Records would be amenable, under this section, and could ..be arrested, fined, and imprisoned for giving them circulation. No man who understands the force and effect of the English lan guage will or can take issue with that proposition." Who last sought the loophole? Cer tainly the "narrow, malignant, bigot ed" mind of the editor of the Toledo Blade. The laws against murder do not mention all the. devilish ways of taking human life, yet no one con, tends that if some new way of killing should be invented that the murderer should escape because the law does not mention the new process. The act of taking human life is the gist of murder, varying only in degree be cause of premeditation, etc. Sedition under the Taft law, " among other things, is belonging to , any society which promulgates ANY POLITICAL OPINION OR POLICY, or as an indi vidual advocating the independence of the islands, "whether by PEACEABLE or forcible means," or printing, etc., any newspaper, etc., "advocating such independence." Printing: the Ameri can declaration of independence would constitute the crime of sedition un der section 10 of the Taft law. There is no escape from that except, per haps, by men of '.'narrow, malignant, bigoted" minds like the editorial writer of the Toledo Blade, who lied by telling only part of the truth. The American declaration of independence "advocates independence" for all men, Filipinos not excepted, and its pub lication would be sufficient, to commit the crime of sedition under the Taft laws, because it 13 in fact "a damned incendiary document" in the handa of any people whose liberties are being crushed out by a stronger imperialis tic power. The Independent has. proved its case. As Senator Patter son says, "No man who understands the force and effect of the English lan guage will. or can take issue with that proposition." - No man except a mul let head will deny that the Taft law covers the American " declaration of independence among the things pro scribed as fully as though it were spe cifically mentioned. SOMEWHAT ASTONISHING The Springfield Republican says "The Republican for the past two months, in exposing the immense militiary importance to Great Brit ain of the horse and mule shipments from the station at Chalmette to South Africa, and in calling attnetion to the principles of neutrality in volved, this newspaper has been alone among the press of the country." That will appear a very astonishing statement to the thousands of read ers of The Independent scattered over every state and territory of this union. Not for the last two months only, but for more than six months The Inde pendent has been calling attention to this British camp at Chalmette, Louisiana, and also declaring that, the British could not carry on a suc cessful war against the Boers save for the assistance they got from this country. The editorial writ ers in the i Springfield Republican should give- a glance at their ex changes once In a while. l-ALSE IN AIX The editor of The Independent was well acquainted with Gen. Crook for many years. It was upon Gen. Cook's sugestion that he took up the fight against the old Indian ring and he wishes to say from his own per sonal knowledge of the facts and fre quent conversations with Gen. Crook, that Walter Well man's statements in regard the Geronimo campaign are wholly and completely false. The au thorities at Washington were treating Crook very much as they . are treat ing Miles now. They wanted r Gen. Crook to do certain things that he would not do, and the contest came to such a stage that Gen. Cook asked to be relieved of his command. Mile3 without asking for It, was ordered to take the command. The result- was that Miles was given credit by the public for the whole result, when In fact Crook was entitled to most of it, but that was no fault of Miles. All that Crook ever complained of was a remark that Miles made when he met Crook to take the command. When the contest came for promotion to major general, the editor of The In dependent and his wife went to New York City and did all they could to influence President Arthur through prominent men in New York and New England, to get Crook the appoint ment. President Arthur was then In New York City. Gen. Miles knew of all this, but Miles is a gentleman and never exhibited any feeling because of it. ' The editor of The Independent jointly Col. Turner in his statement about Wellman's articles: "False in NOT INEVITABLE Thla Nation Will not go Over a Niagara to be Swallowed up In a Whirlpool of Socialistic Drtami Editor Independent: In your com ments on my letter in your last issue, you get out of answering my'question by asking one of me. My particular point is that the competitive wrage system limits distribution, so that we can and do have "overproduction," owing to the fact that distribution is not accomplished. You say that un til all persons have yachts, carriages, automobiles, ' pictures and palaces, and everthing else they desire, there can be no overproduction. The in ference from this is that the reason workingmen do not have automobiles, yachts and carriages is that they do not desire them, or else that there are not enough of them produced to go 'round. As far as the supply is con cerned, the people who produce these articles will all assure you that there is no trouble in producing plenty of them the trouble is in selling them. There are plenty of artists to paint pictures, but there are not plenty of buyers to purchase them after they are painted. Workmen's wages hard ly, suffice for an art gallery in every home. On the other hand, if it were simply of question of "desire" I doubt if any workingmen would be without the things you mention they have the desire all right enough, but it is ineffective simply because they haven't the means to purchase the things de sired. When a workingman Is hired he is not paid upon the basi3 of what he desires, but upon the basis of what the employer can get somebody else to do the work for if he refuses it. I wish you would kindly take up this particular point, because the whole crux of the discussion rests upon it. If you admit that the laborer gets as wages no more than the unemployed man demands, and that means simply a bare existence, then, under your own construction of things you have ad mitted overproduction, which, as you say, is equivalent-- to granting the whole Socialist contention. If, then, we come to an agreement that Socialism is an inevitability, you are forced to admit that the details of how we shall live under Socialism become inconsequential. If we agree that we are forced to go over Nicagara, there is no use fighting over the exact spot where we are likely to land at the bottom. You object that Socialism is imprac ticable, because you cannot compre hend how the government could "do the work that a certain supply house house in New York does in offering for sale 170,000 different articles. These articles are sold by this supply house in response to a demand from the public; and I suppose you will ad mit that if the corporation which now runs that concern should lose its manager, the corporation would have trouble in substituting another man ager and the business' would be con tinued as usual. If the government should take over that business, they would find no more difficulty in run ning , it than would another private corportion that might buy it. At worst, the government would simply have : to appoint a new manager, but even that might not be necessary, as I have no doubt the present manager would be just as wiling to work for the government as for the present cor poration. The manager of the rail ways of Germany certainly requires a much higher order of business intel ligence than the management of any supply store, however large; yet the German government has no trouble In managing its railroads. Any business today which is owned and . run by a corporation, could be owned and run by another corporation. The death of stockholders of the original corpor ation would not mean the end of corporation. Wherever private corpor ation can run a business, it is perfect ly reasonable to suppose that a pub lic corporation, or the state, could run it. It seems to me that inasmuch as your proposition today is that you woud advocate the government owner ship of any business which has nec essarily become a monopoly, and inas much as all business is tending toward monopoly, you will finally be landed in the Socialist camp, if you are given time enough. In the meantime, you are supOrting the present competitive wage system, with all the misery it forces upon humanity, simply because you have not imagined enough to see what. the future must inevitably bring forth. With kind regards, EDITOR WILSHIRE'S MAGAZINE. Toronto, Canada. Mr. Wilshire insists that "we can and do have 'overpoduction, ". The cause if it, he says, "is the competi tive wage system." Any man is at liberty "to infer" anything he pleases, but The Independent never made a statement that could by any reason able and fair construction, be made to mean workingmen did not have palaces and yachts was beca,use "they did not desire them." It has always said and still insists, tht the very un equal distribution of wealth in the United States has resulted from gift3 of hundreds of millions to private par ties by legislative bodies, city .state and national by giving away of fran chises, right-of-ways, by voting them bonds and special privileges to issue money so they could get interest on what they owe and in many other ways. It continually denounced the concentration of wealth in few hands. It believes that it can be stopped by having a government administered in the interest of the whole people in stead of a few multi-millionaires. It believes that the application of the doctrine of equal rights-to all and special privileges to none will bring that result about. . never satisfied and never will be, but a reasonable distribution of wealth will give to all men-who are reason ably energetic all the comforts and many of the luxuries of life. The un fortunate, the physically disabled, we will always have, as well as the feeble minded and the perverts. Neither soc ialism or any other "ism" wiU ever prevent that. There will always be inequalities. God never made two things exactly alike and no political arrangement will everbe able to do it. Men must be free. They must choose their own callings. No govern ment ever can direct the individual ocupation and energies of a nation of men. Instead of socialism being "in evitably." it is impossible.. Mr. Wilshire's assertion that if the government should take a great sup ply house, appoint ihe manager and other employees, paying them a sal ary, that would be socialism is most astounding. Socialism demands - the collective ownership of all means of production and distribution. Under such management it would bev engaged in distribution, but not in production, and would be no nearer socialism than it is now. If it undertook the . "pro duction" it would be forced to have men under its directions engaged in thousands of trades, scattered all over the face of the whole earth and to pro duce many of the articles it would have to make arrangements years in advance. i The Independent has often pointed out that the public ownership of rail roads, street cars, electric lighting plants and other things of the same nature is not socialism. In fact it is rather the opposite of the theory that the public should own all the means of production and distribution. The attempt to force public ownership of all the means of production in this great nation of 76,000,000 people, is so far from being "inevitable" that not one man in ten thousand would admit of the possibility of it. With the kindest feeling toward all men who see the oppression and wrong resulting from a government by the trusts and plutocrats, The Independent must insist that there is a very great difference between fceeing the evils of a bad government and providing a remedy. The nature of man must be taken into consideration. The effect upon the minds of men of the laws and customs of hundreds of years, the family relation, the religious preju dices, the instinct of private owner ship even the dogs have that desire to be free, th einnate aversion1 of all men of energy and capacity and they are the men who always have and al ways will rule to government control of their movements and the direction of the labors. When one quits dreaming and faces facts like these, he must see that socialism instead of being "inevitable" is one of the things farthest removed from the probalities. Socialists have been predicting a catelysm for more than fifty years, but The Independen does not believe that this nation is going over Nia gara Falls. It will find some - better and less dangerous way of reaching lake Ontario and the sea. Jefferson threw a clause into the declaration of independence absolute ly true and full of the profoundest philosophy when he said: "All ex perience hath shown, that mankind are disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have been accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their) right, their duty, to throw off such govern men and provide new guards for their future safety." : That has been the course of man kind for ages. That will be the course that the people of the United States will pursue. They will not go over Niagura. When the plutocrats get so oppressive that they cease to throw a few crumbs to the poor fool who support them, then the patriotic and thinking men will receive enough aid to enable them to take charge of the government "and provide new guards for their future security." Those new guards will effect the dis tribution of wealth. The practice of voting millions of money and val uable franchises to the alreadjr rich will be stopped. It will cease exempt ing the rich from taxation and put ting the burdens of the support of the government upon the poor. It will provide for the public ownership of all things wherein competition is im possible or injurious. It will ! cease to allow a privileged class to create enormous debts and then get Interest on what they owe. It will do ) other things that will commend thmeselves to the common sense of mankind, but it will never go over Niagura.- Editor Independent. TARIFF REFORM IN THE SOUTH The daily papers get more and more disgusting from week to ' week. Last Monday they, had a detained account of a fight between a tame lion and bull. The poor lion fled to its master for protection and he beat it with a club and threw acid on it. Americans paid $5.00 each to see the horrible bru tality and the dailies printed the dis gusting details to sell their papers. This country is getting to be old Rome again, with all its brutality, imper ialism and vice in higha quarters. ' Are the originators of the new Fil ipino dollar going to play the old trade dollar scheme over again? That old trade dollar contained " the exact amount of silver that this new dollar does. After it got into circulation at its face value it soon became worth only the price of the bullion In it. Then the bankers bought it and the government "redeemed" , it.- How many millions the bankers made out of that little deal, has never been offl- Deinorrat Must Abandon Tariff For Uer nu and .Substitute an Income Tax or the South Will IZecome a Hot-bed of Itepitbllcnnltm Mr. Clark Howell, editor "of the At lanta Constitution, and democratic na tional committeeman from Gcorsia, having been invited by the Xew York. Journal to ' state the "Best Methods of Establishing Democratic Harmouy and of the Issues Upon which the Democratic Party Can Elect the Next President, says: "Our largest imminent, issue Ij tariff reform. It is essentially the l--sue assigned to the championship of the democratic party." We take Mr. Howell as an illustra tion of southern opinion. He is opposed to free trade and t protective tariffs, and therefore "tar iff reform" must mean "tariff for rev enue only," Before going into such a discission It is necessary to define what is meant by tariffs for revenue only and tarilta for , protection. These are the only two systems of tariff duties advocate:! by an considerable body of citizens; democrats usually supporting revevuin tariffs, republicans protective tariffs. The question arises, What is the dif ference between the two systems? Tariffs for revenue only are high duties on such commodities as we can not, produce in the United States, and low duties on such commodities as we can produce. Tariffs for protection are low du ties, or none at all, on such coradod ities as we can not produce, and hish duties on such commodities as we can produce. The two systems of taxation arc the reverse of each other, and have been since 1840. No two antagonistic sys tems have been pitted . against oat h other for so long a' time. For mor; than sixty years, to be in favor of rev enue tariffs has been to be against pro tective tariffs, and to be in favor of protection was to be against revenue tariffs. Such having been the condition of public opinion for so long a time, t seems proper to spend a little time in investigating the cause. The object of a revenue or demo cratic tariff Is government revenue; such being the object, the duties can be very high on such commodities a a we can not produce because we must pay the duties or go without the goods. The price to the consumer of such goodslls the foreign price plus trans portation and plus the duty. The higher the duty the higher the prica of the goods here Is certain to be. But the duties can not be high, with respect to goods we can produce, be cause, if they are high, such goods will not be imported, and If they are not imported, , there will be no duties and no revenue for the government. A revenue tariff, therefore, must nec essarily have a constant tendency to be high on such goods as we can not produce and low on such goods as we can produce. The object of. a protective or re publican tariff being encouragement of domestic industries (and not reve nue except incidentally), the duties can not be high on such commodities as we can not produce, because we can not protect or encourage what we can not produce; but they will be high with respect to commodities we can produce, because the higher the du ties, the more will foreign commodi ties of the same kind be kept out. and the more they are kept out, the more will similar domestic commodi ties be protected and encouraged. A protective tariff, therefore, has a con stant tendency to be low, or none at all, on goods we can not produce and high on such goods as we can pro duce. , The objection to any tariff duty, whether it be for revenue or for pro tection, is that it makes high prior? to the consumers of goods and there by becomes a tax acordlng to the amount of goods consumed instead ot the amount of the wealth of the con sumer. If the tariff is a revenue tar iff, then prices of commodities which we can not produce will be high and the prices of commodities which we can produce will be low; but if the tariff is protective the prices of jtockIs which we can not produce will be low and the prices of goods which we can produce will be high. It sometimes happens that the im porter of foreign goods pays the du ties and does not add them to the price. When this happens the duty is tax upon the importer and not upon the consumer; but It makes the pro fits of the importer as much less ss the duty is great. It also sometimes hap pens that foreigners, having an ex cess of goods which they can not soil in their own country, send them here to be sold at what they will fetch, without regard to cost of production. In such cases, our prices being low, foreigners are not able to add the du ties to the price, and therefore they pay the duties themselves." In such cases our tariff duties become a tax upon foreigners, and our government is. in part, supported by foreigner?. No Importer will pay the duty him self unless his profits are large and ho can' still make a profit after paying the duties. No foreigner will pay the duties himself unless he is unable to sell his goods elsewhere and he must sell thera here for what he can get, and unless he can get here as much as elsewhere, if not more. 4 As a general rule, then, the duty adds to the price of the goods, and our consumers must pay the duty in pav ing a higher price for the goods. This cornpels them to pay. taxes in propor tion to what they consume, instead of In proportion to their wealth. As for-