The Nebraska independent. (Lincoln, Nebraska) 1896-1902, April 24, 1902, Image 1

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

    VOL. XIII.
NO. 49.
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
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
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
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
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
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. .'
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.'
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-