VOL. XIII. LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, APRIL ' 24, 1902. NO. 49. A DEMOCRATIC COUP r V i f X Carry House of Representatives First Tim in Sight Years Re publican Insur gents Enjoy a Brief Freedom Washington, D. C., April 21, 1902. Editor Independent: For the first time in eight j ears the democratic par ty has succeeded in carrying the house of representatives. For the first time since the adoption of the Reed rules has the minority been able to pass a bill or in fact to really make itself heard. On Friday last after the vote had been counted, the Cuban reciproc ity bill had been passed as amended by the democratic members, aided by thirty-two insurgent republicans. But it was the amendment that showed the master work of the minority and that caused the complete defeat of the re publican majority in the house. Dis satisfied at the vote taken by the tel lers, Chairman Payne of the ways and means committee demanded a record vote, and sixty-four republicans joined a solid phalanx of democrats to re move the differential on sugar. For almost two weeks the house has been considering the bill coming from the ways and - means committee of the house to provide for reciprocity with the new republic of Cuba. And while everyone seemed to believe that we should do something for Cuba, the democrats also thought that it was their policy,: whenever possible, to re move any high and discriminating du ties. They displayed splendid gener alship. For once they stayed loyally by their caucus instructions. When the test came on overruling the decis ion of the chair (Mr. Sherman, of New York), that the amendment that Mr Morris of Minnesota had offered was not germane, the minority stood in one solid column and slowly filed through the tellers as one man. It was as fine a display of discipline as the republicans ever displayed in the palmiest days of their supremacy. The Insurgent republicans, marshalled' by Mr.Tawney and Mr. Littlefield, exer ted wonderful control. Their point carried, they promptly caused the breach between themselves and their party to be closed, and refused to aid the democrats to open the whole ques tion of tariff. The entire delegation of republicans from Michigan, Minne sota". West Virginia and Washington had bolted their party's leadership and "lad declared that they were against :he reciprocity bill and would even loin with the democrats in order to till it or at least to destroy the power of the , sugar trust. They had de clared that they would defeat the bill, but it was thought by many mem bers of the minority that when the bill time came to overrule the decis ion of . the chair that they would for get tbeir opposition to the bill and would fall back in line with their lead er - on parliamentary questions. But t.n was finally set at rest by the action of the insurgent caucus which decided to join the minority to remove the differentials on sugar and to over rule the decision of the chair on the question of the germaneness of the amendment. It was as spirited a picture as one sees in the house in a quarter of a century. The fight began in earnest a few minutes before three o'clock, ps Mr. Dalzell said the last word for the committee's bill. The parliamentary arguments that dragged through two hours, the while every seat on the floor was ocupied by attentive members and the galleries were banked with un broken fringe of humanity, were suc ceeded by the decision of Chairman Sherman of New York to sustain the point of order, which was that the amendment of Mr. Morris was not ger mane. His decision was appealed from by the insurgent leader, Mr. Taw ney, and tellers were appointed to take the vote. The democrats stood by and watched the republicans H favor of the chair's decision file through the tellers and waited the call for the negative. They allowed the insurgents to pass through first and cheered thLem to the echo as the last man filed through. Then slowly did the victorious minority pass and they lined up on the east side of the house while the insurgents lined the west wall. It seemed like" a love feast between them for they took turns in cheering the coalition and cementing the alliance between them. The republicans now recognized the defeat of the chair's opinion and Payne stopped counting. The chair an nounced "The decision of the chair has been overruled by a vote of 130 to 171." Then came one of the most deafening cheers that ever emanated from the lower house. The opposi tion republicans were wild with joy and gaily did they join many of the democrats in shouting for joy at their victory, while the defeated republi cans, meek and disgruntled at their defeat, slowly sank into their chairs, with one exception. That was the white haired hypocrite Payne of New York, who arqse and began bitterly denouncing the insurgents for desert ing his leadership. He took his defeat as hard as possible. Then began a flood of amendments, among them the Babcock bill to -remove the duty on articles manufac tured by the steel trust, but the coal ition could not hj3 kept up and the amendment failed. Finally at the hour of seven, the bill was passed as amended by the opposition by a vote of 257 to 54. The democrats had made their fight that the bill was the work of the sugar trust and they had determined that a vote for the bill in its original form was u vote for the sugar trust and one against the American people. They had made a strong fight and allowed all of the dissensions to spring from the republican side. They had al lowed a - plainly democratic amend ment to ' be introduced in the repub- determined to vote for Cuba, but equal ly determined that a word for Cuba should not mean two for the sugar trust, So they united with their re publican brethren on common ground and defeated the majority in one of the most parliamentary battles that the old house has ever seen. The democrats voted for the bill as amen ded almost to a man. The bill as passed authorizes thn president as soon as may be after the establishment of an independent gov ernment in Cuba and the enactment by that government of immigration, exclusion and contract labor laws as restrictive as those of v the United States, to negotiate, a reciprocal trade with Cuba by which, in return for equivalent concessions, the United States will grant a reduction of twenty per centum from the Dingley rates on goods coming from Cuba into the United States, such agreement to continue until December 1, 1903. Dur ing the existence of such agreement the duty on refined sugars and all sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard is to be 1,825 per pound. y ' The list of opposition republican?" was as follows: , ' V" Alpin of Michigan, Barney of Wis consin, Bishop of Michigan, Bower sock of Kansas, Bromwell of Ohio, Brown of Wisconsin, Burkett of Ne braska, Calderhead of Kansas, Conner of Iowa, Coombs of California, Cooper of Wisconsin, Corliss of Michigan. Cousins of Iowa, Crumpacker of In diana, Cushman of Washington, Dahle of Wisconsin, Darragh of Michigan, Davidson of Wisconsin, Dayton of West Virginia, Esch of Wisconsin, Fordney of Michigan, Gardner of Mich igan, Gill of Ohio, Greene of Massach usetts, Hamilton of Michigan, Haugen of Iowa, Hepburn of Iowa, Hitt of Illinois', Holliday of Indiana, Hull of Iowa, Jones of Wash ington, Kahn of California, Knox of Massachusetts, Lacey of Iowa, Law rence of Massachusetts, Lessler of New York, Littlefield of Maine, Loud of California, McCleary of Minne sota, McLachlan of California, Mann of Illinois, Mercer of Nebraska, Mil ler of Kansas, Morris of Minnesota, Moss of Kentucky, Mudd of Maryland, Needham of California, Powers of Massachusetts, Prince of Illinois, Rob erts of Massachusetts, 7 Sheldon of Michigan, Smith of Illinois, Smith of Iowa, H. C. ,Smith of Michigan, S. W. Smith of Michigan, W. A. Smith of Michigan, Southard of Ohio, Stevens of Minnesota, Sutherland of Utah, Tawney of Minnesota, Thomas of Iowa, Warner of Illinois, Weeks of Michigan, Wood3 of California. ; During the debate on the Cuban! rec iprocity bill, the republican side of the chamber had to listen to an elo quent diatribe" from one of their own number. Cushman of Washington, a republican, gave the 'speaker and the committee on rules one of the worst lambastings that it has ever had. If the same speech had come from a democratic member, it would only have been a case of pyrotechnics. But coming as it did, from a republican, its effect was marked. I think that the speech was so good that I send it in part and ask that it be printel. It so truthfully shows just what the committee on rules is, as viewed from a republican outlook, and so truthful ly accords with the democratic opin ion that the readers of The Indepen dent "would learn ' how legislation is manipulated at this end of the line. The Independent regrets that lack of space this week prevents extended quotations from Mr. Cushman's speech.) The senate passed the Piatt substi tute for the Mitchell Chinese Exclus ion bill. The bill as passed by the senate is virtually the old Geary law that was passed , ten years ago this coming May. The senate thought the Mitchell bill too stiff and after much discussion, and a lack of party unity, the bill was killed. In its stead the substitute of Senator Piatt of Con necticut was passed. The senate then took up the bill to provide for the government of the Philippine islands. This will take up the best part of the coming month and will probably be amended in several instances. A number of amendments were offered to modify the bill, but those of Mr. Carmack, senator from Tennessee, to provide for the emanci pation of the slaves in the Jolo islands were the most important. Considera tion of the bill will go on for perhaps four weeks and we may look for a very hot fight. The senate committee on priviliges and elections reported favorably the bill to provide for , the election of United States senators by direct vote of the people as amended by Senator Depew. The amendment is as fol lows: ' ' . "Qualification of citizens entitled to vote for United States, senators and representatives in congress shall be uniform in all the states, and congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation and to pro vide for the registration of citizens entitled to vote, the conduct of such elections and the certification of the result." ' . The committee voted down the Pen rose amendment, which provided for representation in the senate accord ing to population. , This vote was unanimous. Senator Burrows (Rep.) voted with the democrats against the passage of the Depew amendment. The vote was as follows: Ayes Hoar, Pritchard, McComas, Foraker, Depew, Dillingham and Bev eridge, all republicans. Seven in all. Noes Burrows (Rep.) Pettus, Black burn, Dubois, Bailey and Foster, dem ocrats. Six in all. . , A funny thing happened during the Cuban debate. Representative Bur kett is a pretty busy man. He Is com pelled to keep his eyes on his republi can colleagues and then has to watch out of the corners. of, his eyes to see rrnn Hnned on Page 2 THE POWER TO TAX Comment on the Grosscup Decision In the Chicago Tax Cases Is Ioeal-9elf-GoT-ornmest Doomed to Destruction . The rapid advance of imperialism are often made without a blare of trumpets, but they are none the less certain. Millions of patriotic Amer lean citizens look on calmy and utter no . protest, because their minds are so engrossed with the chase for the "Almighty Dollar" that they are for the time blind to everything elsj They get little enlightenment from reading the. great subsidized dailies, and day by day their liberties are slowly but surely being taken away from them, and they do not protest because they do hot realize the full meaning of what has happened. The advance of Imperialism is not to be gauged simply by what is oc curring in the Philippine islands. Th& situation there is only an index to what has been slowly taking place in the United States for a number of years. It is simply a pustule on the body politic which shows how insid iously the virus of imperialism has permeated tha whole body, even while the patient believed himself healthy. But while the republican party's pol icy in the Philippines is the most glaring example of imperialism, mat ters at home frequently require more earnest attention and vigorous denun ciation. The Independent has no desire for notoriety as an alarmist. It is in no sense pessimistic, believing that in the long run the people will find the right way and do the right thing. But The Independent is aware that "eter nal vigilance is the price of liberty" and therefore feels called upon to comment at some length upon the re cent decision of Federal Judges Gross cup and Humphrey in the Chicago tax cases. Mention was made two weeks ago of Judge. Grosscup's ruling wherein he arbitrarily set a3ide an act of the leg islature of Illinois, enacted a law to suit his ideas, ousted the regularly elected state assessing officers, and ap pointed others to perform the duties of making assessments of certain cor poration property in Illinois for the use of Illinois state government. Last week The Independent asked the ques tion, "Where will it end?" The In dependent is not a prophet, but it ven tures to say that if a halt is not soon calltd, local self-government ; will soon cease to ' exist.' 1 ' ' The legislature of Illinois, a sov ereign state, had enacted a revenue law which provided that in the assess ment of corporate property, the market quotations of the stock and bonds' on a given day should be considered in estimating the value of the corpora tion's property (and franchise.) The assessors in Chicago did not do their full duty and permitted certain pub lic, service corporations to escape their just share of taxation. This aroused the teachers' federation and a lawsuit resulted, popularly , known as "the school ma'ams' case." The state court ordered a reassessment, which was made. Then these public ser vice corporations went into the fed eral court, on the theory that the Fourteenth amendment was being vio lated: that they were being denied the equal protection of the law. Judges Grosscup and Humphrey granted the writ of injunction asked by the corporations, restraining thd collection of the "whole of the taxes levied on the re-assessment, and ap pointing masters in chancery to re assess again, holding the - state law invalid "because market values are largely fictitious" and prescribing a different method of assessing the cor porate property a method which al lowed the corporations to escape tax ation on something over $2,000,000 of property. This .rule was commented on two weeks ago in The Independent. The Chicago Chronicle said editor ially, "The principal thing about this decision, however, is that the United fStates court assumes power to fix rules for assessment in Illinois which set . aside state laws and reverse the decisions of its highest court in a matter purely of state legislation and policy. United States masters in chancery shall make the assessment. This is a great stretch of jurisdiction under the overworked Fourteenth amendment. But as the federal courts are the final judges of the limits of their own jurisdiction the law must be taken as they lay it down." With the last sentence, The Independent cannot agree. A few days ago Judge Murray F. Tuley of Chicago was ruling on a mo tion, made in connection with the Union and Consolidated Traction companies' injunction suits. He took ocasion to express himself in no un certain language regarding the Gross-cup-Humphrey decision; saying: "WTe appear to be in a deplorable condi tion in this state with respect to the assessment and collection of taxes. In spite of all our efforts to perfect our revenue laws it appears, that the state authorities are powerless to .en force their decrees. We find the United States courts stepping in and constituting themselves the assessing bodies of the state. The highest court in this state apparently cannot enforce the state tax law. The United States courts appear to be able to come in with an injunction and - defeat a heavy percentage of an assessment levied. This power of the United States courts over our state tax af fairs is simply another illustration of the dangers toward which we are drift ing with our applications of govern ment by. injunction. My position on that is well known. I am as much opposed to . resort to government in- unction, when applied against a cor poration as I am when lit is invoked against labor." Perhaps no other sentence In Amer lean law has been? so warped , and twisted, its j meaning:? so perverted, as that part of the Fourteenth amend ment which says: "No state . shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of. the United States, nor shall any ' state deprive any person of life, liberty or prbpertyi with due process of law; nor deny to any per son the equal protection of the laws." The whole amendment; was the out growth of the civil war, and althougn not so stated in the text, the Inference is strong : that the quoted portion was aimed 5 to secure to the emancipated negro the same rights enjoyed - by his white brothers. A citizen was de fined to be a ''person born or natur alized in. the United States and subject to the' jurisdiction thereof." When the amendment was adopted no on? dreamed that a "person" could be anything but a real, living, flesh-and-blood human being. But it was not many years until, those modern Frank ensteins, the corporations, were clam oring to be recognized as "persons." These Frankensteins were purely the creatures of law, and like Mrs. Shel ly's famous monster, were? popularly said to be ; soulless. It cannot , be gainsaid, however, that they possessed some attributes almost human the power of producing offspring. Man, created in God's own image, possesses the power of reproduction after ' his kind; but these Frankenstein's could not reproduce Frankensteins they were limited to the production of .offi cers, executive, . legislative and, judi cial. But in this they were prolific and untiring. As the codlin moth de posits innumerable eggs which hatch out into ugly, , crawling, voracious worms or grabs which ruin millions of apples, so these Frankensteins de posited their spawn; in every conven ient place' and: patiently waited' for judges and congressmen and gover nors and presidents to hatch. ; ? The French , have a saying that it is a wise son who knows his own father, but the ; numerous progeny; o? these , Frankensteins ; always knew and acknowledged the parent. Hence. it did not require a great stretch of imagination for the members of the federal courts to argue and finally hold that a corporation is a. "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth amend ment. Didn't a certain railroad, cor poration "make" this federal judge? Why,; certainly,. Didn't, the Standard Oil trust make that one ? Oh, yes : to "be sure. ..........,. V Once recognized as persons," j the corporations have ever since kept the Fourteenth amendment working, over time. Does Nebraska desire, through her legislature, to prescribe maxi mum freight rates; : it can't be done that would . be depriving a "person" of property "without due process of law." Do the people of Illinois desire to exercise their sovereign powers of taxation,, ; under laws . duly enacted, enforced by officers duly elected; , it can't be done that would be denying certain persons of 'the equal protection of the laws."-. And so it goes on year after year. -Where and how it will all end no man can foretell; but it re quires ; no gift of prophecy to predict that it cannot continue indefinitely. "The horse-leach hath two daughters crying, give, give." A time must come, when the bloodless victim can give no more. - Theoretically our federal govern ment rcpnsists of three distinct branches, the legislative, executive, and , judicial. There branches . are sometimes spoken of as "co-ordinate," that Is,"equal in rank or order"; but strictly speaking, although each branch in its way is of vital impor tance, there is little doubt that the framers of the constitution believed the law-making branch of first impor tance, the law-enforcing branch next, and last of all the law-interpreting branch This view is sustained by the constitution itself. Article I. treats of the legislative power, Article II of the executive, and Article III of the judicial power. Ten sections, subdivided into 54 par agraphs are devoted to defining the legislative powers granted which "shall be , vested in a congress of , tho United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives." (Art. 1, Sec. 1.) But four sections, 13 paragraph?, are used in defining the 'executive power which "shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." (Art. 2, Sec. .1.) And only three sections, 6 para graphs, were needed to define the .."ju dicial power of the United States," whici "shall be vested in one su preme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Art. 3, Sec. 1.) That it was not thought that the supreme court ; should be regarded strictly , in the light of a "co-ordinate" branch of the government is apparent from the fact that the president is given pow r to "appoint judges of the supreme court, 'by and with the ad vice and consent of the senate." (Art. 2, Sec. 2, Par. 2.) A better view, fs that the court was regarded as assis tant to the executive, although a. dis tinct branch of .the government; but one whose duties were and are to; in-? terpret and construe the laws as a guide for the executive in the perfor mance of his duties. It was not ex pected that the court should, perform any . legislative or executive duties--and so long as it confined itself to the performance of strictly judicial functions, everything went well. Paragraph 2, section 2 of article 3. confers original jurisdiction on the supreme court in cases affecting am bassadors, etc., and "those in which (Continued on Page 2.) i GENERAL MILES' RECORD That of no Civil War Tote ran Now Living Approaches It In Arduous and . Gallant Service : ,:. The disgraceful attacks being made upon General Miles by Walter Well man and other writers isplred by the Imperialists at Washington, which ara viler, more bitter and vicious than anythingthat came from the northern copperheads during the war, is arous ing the old soldiers and especially the officers of the civil war from one ei?d of the country to the other; Colonel Henry L. Turner, who served through the civil war and. on Cuba has a four column article in defense of General Miles in the Record-Herald in which he reviews Miles' career and shows up the vileness of the persecution which. -has been , inaugurated against him. In one place he remarks: Over and against the petty charges and complaints of his critics and ac cusers I cite a few of the warm words of praise and fellowship from heroic men who saw him "at his work for lib erty, and country: General Caldwell, in his report of the seven days' battle, July, 1862, says of General Miles: "I cannot speak in terms of sufficient, praise. His ac tivity was Incessant. On Sunday he volunteered to cut a road ; which was undoubtedly the means of saving ' three batteries. During the whole movement his services have been to me invaluable." General Phil Kearney said: "The Eighty-first ' Pennsylvania then nobly responding to the orders, gallantly led by Lieutenant Colonel Conner and Captain- Miles of General .Caldwell's staff, dashed over the parapet, charged and with few vigorous volleys finished the battle." General Francis C. Barlow said of the battle of Antietam: "Lieutenant Colonel Nelson A. Miles has been dis tinguished for uis admirable conduct in many battles. The voice of every man who saw him in this action will commend better than I can his cour age,, his quickness, his skill in seeing favorable positions and the power of his determined spirit ' in leading on and inspiring men." General Hancock said concerning the battle of Fredericksburg: "Col onel , Nelson A. ' Miles, severs! wounded, commanding the Sixty-first and- Sixty-fourth regiments,, New York Volunteers consolidated, con ducted himself in the most admirable and chivalrous manner." General Hancock said again: VJ strengthened . the? position, believing from the experience of the previous day and the well-known abilities and gallantry of Colonel Miles, that it could be held. ; That line was frequent ly assaulted during the morning with great gallantry, the enemy marching their regiment up .into the abattis. Colonel Miles had great opportunity for distinction and availed himself thereof, performing, brilliant ser vices' .' v -, , . V" General Caldwell again says of the battle of Chancellors ville: . "I have had occasion heretofore to mention the dis tinguished conduct of Col. Miles in every battle in which, the brigade has been engaged. His merits as a mili tary man seem to me . of the highest order. I know of no terms of praise too exaggerated to characterize, his masterly ability. . Providence should spare his life (he was wounded close to death.") Lieutenant Colonel Brody of Col onel Miles' own regiment, said: "We all,- officers - and men, deplore deeply the sad fate of our beloved and highly esteemed colonel." ' General Hancock says of the Wil derness campaign: "General Miles performed marked and distinguished services, especially at the Carpathian road on the 8th, at the battle of the Po in the 10th, and at Spottsylvania on the 12th and 18th . of May." There Is a government history of the war comprising 100 large vol- umnes. . In every volume there are pages recording the gallant, heroic and skillful work of Miles. Whether he was. captain, colonel, brigadier gen eral or the commander of a division or corps, he was always a gallant, brave and efficient officer. Why they hate Miles Is because, being born in the shadow of Bunker Hill, he will not abandon the ideals of liberty, which until imperialism got control of the government, were held sacred by all. .' THE SUPPRESSED REPORT It Tells of Horrible Cruelties and Inhu manity by the Politieal Officers . in the Philippines Secretary Root did an act for which he ought to be impeached and removed from the office, in with holding a re port of a regular army officer that had been ordered sent to the senate. Major Gardner who made the report is a man of undoubted bravery and honor and he tells a tale of horr0r3 committed by the newly appointed army officers who secured their places by political influence at Washington that is horrifying. He says: i "As civil governor I feel it my duty to say that it is my firm conviction that the United States ' troops should at the earliest opportunity be concen trated in one or two garrisons, if 'It is thought desirable that the good senti ment and loyalty that formerly ex isted to the United Sttes among the people of the province should be en couraged." . . . . . ' The cause of this protest was the work of the military in the province of Tayabas, where they burned whole towns and killed every thing in their way regardless of whether they were friends or enemies. Concerning this policy he says: ' "The course now being pursued in this province-and in the provinces of Batangas, Laguna and Samar is, In my opinion, sowing seeds for a pereptual revolution gainst , us hereafter when ever a good opportunity offers. Uh der present conditions, the political situation in this province is slowly retrojrading und the American senti ment is decreasing and we are . daily making permanent enemies. ! "In the course - above referred to troops make no distinction -between the property of those natives who are insurgents or insurgent sympathizers and the property of those who hereto fore have risked their; lives by being loyal to the United States and giving us information against their country men in arms. . Often every house in a barrio Is burned. ; "The atttitude of the army, thereby meaning most of its officers and .sold iers, is, however, decidedly hostile to the provincial and municipalitan government in this province and to civil government in ; these islands in general. . r - "In Manila especially it is intensely so, even among the higher officers.' The work of the commission in the es tablishment of provincial governments is ridiculed even in the presence of the natives. It is openly stated that the army should remain in charge for the next twenty years. Outrages com mitted by officers and soldiers against natives in an organized municipality and province, when reported by the president or governor to the military authorities are often not punished. "This in my opinion is unfortunate because loyal natives begin to fear that local self-government will not last long and that any slight distur bance in a province may at any time be made the pretex to again place it under military-rule, and this is just the thing the insurgents at heart most desire. "It has been stated that a Filipino or an oriental does not appreciate just or kindly treatment and that he con siders it an evidence of ; weakness, and that severe and harsh measures are the only, one that are permanently ef fective with Filipinos. I have found that just and kind treatment, uniform and continued, is the only way by which these people can become our friends and satisfied with the United States sovereignty. "Having been stationed six years on the Rio Grande, I am well ac quainted with the natives of the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico, and while sta tioned in the province of Santa Clara, Cuba, I visited every town, in that pro vince and was able to observe the.ini telligence and education there. I be lieve that the people of 4 Tayabas pro vince are in every, , way- superior ; in education, ; intelligence, morals and civilization to the peole of Tamaulipas or Santa Clara." ,.; "As an officer of the army I regret that my duty as civil - governor of the province impels me to state the at titude of the majority of my fellow officers toward the civil government in these islands and its effect upon the people, but I feel that the Interests of the government involved and the future of these people for whose wel fare we are responsible are. of such vast importance that I ought to report things as I see and know them in or der that my superiors may be able to order what the situation demands." Besides this suppression of official records the sort of testimony that . is being given in Washington shows the determination of the authorities to keep the people in ignorance of the facts. The other day General Mac Arthur was on the stand and Senator Patterson was closely questioning him in regard to the severity of the war in the Philippines. Pressing his question, Senator Patterson asked" it the killing of twenty Filipinos to one American was not "simply slaughter." "No," replied General MacArthur, "not when your adversary stands up and fights you." , . . "Then, if under these conditions, with such disparity of casualties, the Filipinos stod up and fought, are they not the bravest people that ever went to war?" asked Senator , Patterson. "They did not stand up and fight af ter the, battle," replied the witness. "Then if they did not fight,-is it not true, as I before asked, that their kill ing was nothing more that slaughter?'.' 'No, that is not the case. The war is the most humane that was "ever fought." . -. " - ; .. " The imperialist editors have the samj reply to make to Major Gard ener's report that they : had to Gen. Miles' report that the war had been waged with great severity. They say V..e major wants to run for president. That satisfies all the mullet heads. They had better pass a law that every man who wants to ; run for president shall be shot. That would settle it.' A VOICE FROM THE NORTH We have carried on the war in the Philippines for a long time and the only thing that we have gotten out of it up to date is a smallpox epidemic, several - thousand dead soldiers sent home, a few hundred more sent to in sane asylums, and the privilege to pay our war taxes. Future prospects are: More of the same sort for many years to come. - The new English, scheme of taxa tion Is denounced by the opposition as "a cowardly budget for a bully's war." The heavy taxes on grain and flour may have a depressing 'influence ou the price in this country, for there certainly will be less sold in England. Every last cent that can possibly be squeezed out of the poor in that coun try has already been taken from them. They have had a bare existence. They can pay no more for bread than they, did before. Therefore they will have to eat less bread. One thing is cer tain. It will be a blow at the Ameri can miller. The difference in th? tariff on wheat and flour Is so great, that it will be to the' advantage of the British. to Import the wheat and grind it themselves. . i Tariff For Revenue Will not Win Demoe- , raey Must go Forward and Cease to . ,; be a Negation There is an association with head quarters in Boston, Mass., known as "The American Free Trade League." It has vice-presidents in eighteen dif ferent states in the union. Its motto is: "Equal rights to all; special priv ileges to none". The fundamental principles as stated in the constitution is: "To free bur trade, our industries, and our people from all tariff taxes ex cept those imposed for revenue only". Here, then is an organization call ing itself, a "free trade league." and yet It is in favor of tariffs for revenue. It is very difficult to see how such .m organization can now be in favor of rev enue tariffs and yet not in favor of protective tariffs. If they wanted frre trade, we would expect them to abol ish revenue, as well as protective tariffs, and inaugurate, another sys tem of taxation. How can they be in favor of equal rights to all and spe cial privileges to none and at the same time support revenue tariffs, which tax the people according to the quan tity and quality of goods consumed, in stead of taxing their wealth and their ability .to pay and benefits , received? I could not believe that such an as sociation would support revenue tar iffs if I did not see it written in their constitution. I "cannot understand how they can be in favor of such tar iffs and yet opposed to protective tariffs. If they were opposed to both kinds I could see a consistency, es pecially if they would present soma other practical method of supporting the government at Washington. We are now living under the pro tective system; they propose to shift to the revenue system. We are col lecting two hundred . millions annual ly for the government through the former system; what profit would It be to the people, if we should collect the same amount through the latter system? Under the present system w put high duties on such commodities as the country can produce and none at all on commodities we cannot pro duce. If we shift to the revenue sys tem we will put high duties on such commodities as we cannot produce. and low duties on commodities wa can , produce. What will then be the difference to the people? Will they not be taxed according to the quan tity and quality of goods consumed in stead, of according to their wealth and ability to pay the only difference be ing that' they are taxed on different kinds of goods? If we have the rev enue system and have low duties on such goods as we can produce, then foreign goods of this class will be cheaper and the same kinds of goods of a domestic make must also be cheap er. This would be a gain to our work ing . people, provided they had work at the same, old high wages; hat if they did not have work and conse quently no wages, they would not ba as. well off; and if they should hav-3 work, but at lower wages, they would be no better off; they would be simply receiving less wages and paying less for , goods. The revenue system has the disadvantage of putting our labor In competition with the outside labor of the world and American labor must be about as low as foreign labor The system produces large revenue for the government, because it brings !n large amounts of foreign goods, upon which duties are paid. The low du ties on a very large amount of good produce large revenues for the gov ernment. But the large revenues for the government do not help the peo ple when they are starving. The peo ple want revenue . for themselves as well as for the government. If they should be fortunate enough to have work, under the revenue system at low wages, and should find that all commodities which this country can not produce, are coming in under hi;h duties and consequently very high prices, they would very soon begin t think that a revenue tariff is woie than a protective tariff, which brings in. all. of these things free of duty and consequently at low prices If w continue the protective system then our people will have work at hish wages, ' because all goods which wo can produce are kept out unless they come in under high tariffs and high prices; and all goods which we can not produce will come in free of duty and at low prices and our working people will be able to make use of all kinds, of ' food and clothing out of their high wages, whether the country produces the goods or not. Whatever disadvantage the protect ive system may have in encouraging domestic . trusts along with all our other domestic enterprises, It is fa? superior to the revenue system which causes all working people to . pay very high prices for tea, coffee and all other articles which we cannot produce. If we should undertake to live under the revenue system very high duties would be put upon a'l articles "which we cannot produce, and every working man would be obliged to pay these high duties or without such goods. The rich could pay them and not feel it. A million aire needs no more tea and coffee than a man who works for a dollar day. It is a system that causes or dinary day laborers to pay the san'd taxes as the richer people, and yet the American Free Trade League call? this "equal rights to all and special privileges to none."If this league ex pects to accomplish equal rights It will have to work as vigorously in favor of protection as It does In favor of . revenue tariffs; but better still. It might work against revenue tariffs a greater evil than protection, and at the same time try to inaugurate som' system ' of taxation that would toll upon the people in proportion to the'r wealth" instead of advocating a sys-