The Nebraska independent. (Lincoln, Nebraska) 1896-1902, April 17, 1902, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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-