VOLT XIV.
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, SEPT. 11, 1902.
NO. 16.
DE HART TO VAK VORHIS
Mr, D Hart Replies to Van Vorhls Along
the Lines Laid Down on Dei Mar's
Science of Mouey
Editor Independent: In your issue
of August 14 Mr. Van Vorhis said:
"Money and value are not words of
precise meaning. . . . And value being
nothing but a relation in exchange
can no more have a unit, either nat
ural or arbitrary, than can sweetness
or any other quality of things. . . .
When we use the word money in a
general sense, what do we mean by
it? What does Mr. De Hart mean by
it? . . . Value, as a word, i3 the sub
ject of no less confusion than money.
In a general sense, it is used with a
meaning quite different from its ac
curate use in economics. It would be
better understood if, In all economic
writings, it was qualified either by
the word commercial or exchange."
I believe we can give to the words
"money" and "value" a precise mean
ing, and that there can be such a thing
as a unit of value, and also a unit of
sweetness. I believe that the sugar
men have a unit of sweetness. I do
not believe that it is necessary to
qualify the word value with the words
commercial or exchange, so that when
ever we desire to use the word, we
must say commercial value or ex
change value. I do not believe that
there is more than one kind of value.
I have never been able to find but one.
I had to abandon the idea that there
is such a thing as intrinsic value, and
I am afraid that if I should under
take to believe In commercial value,
I would be believing in intrinsic value.
If, then, there is but one kind of val
ue, why should we not say value with
out any prefix?
Value has been ascertained by the
economists to be a ratio of exchange
between any two commodities or ser
vices. Mr. Van Vorhis himself says:
"Vahie is a relation between com
modities in exchange." I would prefer
to say that it is a relation between
any two commodities in exchange,
that is, such a ratio as appears when
any two commodities are exchanged.
I would also prefer to say that it is
not only a relation in exchange be
tween any two commodities, but a re
lation in exchange between any two
services. If, then, value never ap
pears, except when things are ex
changed or exchangeable, why should
we say exchange value or commercial
value or Intrinsic value, when we
mean nothing but a certain "ratio,"
in which any two" commodities ex
change? I believe that we ought to
say value when we mean value; and
when we don't mean value, we ought
to get another word and the proper
word, if possible. We must" get out of
our heads the idea that value is a
thing, but a relation, a. numerical re
lation, between any two things in ex
change; that it is not a commodity,
but a relation between any two com
modities in exchange; not a service,
but a relation between any two ser
vices in exchange. If we can do this,
then it will never be necessary to say
"exchange" value, when we mean
nothing but a ratio of exchange be
tween any two things.
I admit that, until recently, there
was much dispute, even among econ
omists themselves, as to the true
meaning of the word value. They de
bated it from the time of Adam Smith
till the time of Jno. Stuart Mill; and
the subject was not quite cleared up at
the death of Mill. He added some
thing, but he had to leave the work
unfinished. Others took up the work
and finally finished it. When Del
Mar came along, he found the work
about completed, but he had to devote
a considerable space to the subject in
his little book, Science of Money, by
way of a summary of the argument.
I refer the reader to the chapter en
titled, "Value is a numerical relation."
I might add, however, that the result
of all the argument is as I have stated
above. If you undertake to go over
the argument, you will find that men
of science even philosophers con
fused the word value with the words
price and utility; and that they found
great difficulty in separating the form
er from the two latter words. After
a while, however, they found that
price was a peculiar kind of value,
viz: value expressed in money. Then
they found that utility was not value
at all; that it was no relation to val
ue; that many things were very useful
and ye totally without value; that, for
instance, water was useful and yet
without value. Then they gave up the
idea of connecting utility with value;
and they stopped talking about value
in use, as Adam Smith had done or
commenced to do.
Can we give a precise meaning to
the word money?
We can, by studying the laws creat
ing money. ,Ve must study the coin
age laws, because they designate what
shall be money. In this country mon
ey is created by designating what
shall be dollars, and then enacting that
the dollars shall be legal tender for
taxes, rents, interest and all other
debts. 'We must study the 'banking
laws, because we find that these laws
enact that bank notes shall be legal
tender for debts. We must examine all
other laws, that make anything a le
gal tender for taxes, etc. This done
we know what is and is not money.
By continuing the process we can
find what is and is not money in' any
country. There is no such thing as
"money of the world." Each nation
has its own money. I suppose that
money originated in each nation by
the" necessity to have something with
which to pay taxes. Whatever any
government receives for taxes Is mon
ey. This is the voice of organized
society. The value of money in each
nation depends upon Its quantity in
connection with the whole number of
debts to be paid. and the whole num
ber of exchanges to be made within a
given time. The total amount or num
bers of money, in connection with the
debts to be paid and exchanges to be
made, will determine not only the
value of all the property of the whole
nation, as measured by the total mon
ey, but the value of " each "piece of
property in the nation, as measured
by a part of the. whole money. This
i3 stating the value of all the property
of the nation in all rthet. money and
the value of each niece on Darf of the
whole wealth of the nation ia a frac-
uon oi ine -wnoie moneij -p or in
stance, the total money oiithe United
States is two billion 'dollars, and the
total wealth Is one hundred billion
dollars Our total, money measures
our total wealth by saying that our
wealth is fifty , times as mudh as our
mbney. "The fractions of ouf money,
one or more dollars, measure each
fraction of the whole wealth, by say
ing how much wealth exchanges for a
certain number t of f dollars. jMarket
prices determine-the value of each
commodity in money. Price fassists
us in ascertaining how any two com
modities exchange, and how tar any
commodity, if sold, will go in paying
taxes and other debts. If wheat . is
worth a dollar a bushel and corn half
as much, then we know that two of
corn is equal to one of wheat, and
that two of corn go no further than
one of wheat In paying taxes and
other debts. This enables us to see
how the total money of a nation Is the
nation's measure of value and how a
fractional part of the money may be a
measure of the value of! a fractional
part of the wealth of the nation. '
Another method of ascertaining the
precise meaning of moneys is by study
ing the works of the political econom
ists. They define money) by : saying
that it is a medium of exchange, and
a, measure of value. As a rule they do
not give us a clear idea of value, and
consequently they must necessarily
leave the subject in .confusion. Only
the later economists have arrived at
the idea that value Is only a ratio of
exchange between any two commodi
ties or services. These economists,
are the only ones who will help us
much in coming to a precise idea of
money. And even they find it difficult
to explain to us how money is a meas
ure of value, if value lis only a ratio
of exchange. I have neyer been quite
satisfied with their explanations. I
have, therefore, taken to writing on
the subject myself, with the hope that
I might throw some light on the sub
ject. Mr. Del Mar, who does not claim
to be an economist, has thrown more
light on this part of the case than all
the economists put together, and I
will therefore refer my readers to him.
This essay is getting1 Jong and I must
touch on another point or. two.
"Value being nothing but a relation
in exchange," saysfMr. Van Vorhis,
"can no more have aunit,' either natt
lira! or arbitrary', ;han can sweetness"
or any other . quality : of things." I
think this declaration has had more to
do in requiring me to answer his ar
ticle than any other declaration he
has made. This explains why he does
not understand me and why he asks
me, what I mean by the word money?
I am writing this essay, not so much
for the purpose of showing that the
words money and value are each capa
ble of a precise meaning, as for prov
ing that there is such a thing as a
unit of value, although value is only
a ratio of exchange between any two
commodities or services. I cannot
go Into any extended argument on
this subject now, but I will call Mr.
Van Vorhis' attention to at least two
units of value and then ask him which
he prefers to adopt in the future argu
ment on the Fowler bill. All that I
am saying now, has a bearing on the
great argument before all the people
of the United States when Mr. Fowler's
bill comes before congress for adop
tion or rejection.
In 1873 congress solemnly declared
that a certain gold coin weighing
25 8-10 grains of "standard" gold, no
more, no less, should' be a "unit of
value" in the United States and for
the United States. This was making
gold, by weight, money. It was -not
making gold coins money, but gold
coins of a certain weight, money. The
coins were not to be "dollars," unless
they had the required weight of gold,
nine-tenths fine. And, if they had,
then each one was to be not only a dol
lar or multiple thereof, but a unit of
value or a multiple thereof; so that
we were to have not only a great many
dollars, but a great many units of val
ue. "Free" coinage of gold was au
thorized by the same 'statute, and, "con
sequently, there would be as many
dollars and units of value as the own
ers of gold should choose to have made
at the public mints out of their own
private property. At the same time,
the statute discontinued "free" coinage
of silver dollars, and thereby pre
vented any units of value from being
made out of silver. This placed the
vholn currency of the country on as
many units of value as the owners of
gold should, choose" to make.
I. do not believe that 25 8-10 grains
of gold can be our unit of value, al
though congress has so declared. It
is too much like enacting that a man
is a woman or a woman a man. Such
a thing cannot be done in the United
States and if It is done, it is null
and void.
It seems to me that, even from the
standpoint of the gold bugs, 25 8-10
grains of gold cannot be a unit of val
ue, and yet they have procured con
gress to so enact.
It seems to ml that, if the gold bugs
had -any reason! In them, or sense of
consistency, they would enact that the
total amount of gold, by weight, in a
nat'on and used for money is the na
tion's unit of value, rather than en
act that there are , as many units of
value as there are multiples of 25 8-10
grains of sxld. If they would do this,
their statutes would indicate that they
or their lawyers have some knowledge
of money as a scfence. -'
Thoee who are advocating "free"
coinage i cf silver, usually teach, In
substance, that the total amount of
silver, coined as d used for money, In
connection with ,the itotal . amount , of
geld, coined and used for money, is
the ration's un't of value, or measure
of . value, or standard of value. This
is much nearer the truth; and, when
we hear this kind of talk, we begin to
see the science of money. Those who
favor "free" coinage of silver as well
as 'free" coinage of gold, believe in
what they call a "double standard" of
silver and gold. This looks a little bit
contusing tc( many people, but if we
take into consideration that it is con
venient to have two clocks two stand
ard time-pieces in order to be sure of
the time so it is convenient to have
two standards of value, in order to be
sure that values are measured cor
rectly. The gold bugs are very fond
of talking about the inconsistency and
confusion of a "double standard," but
I believe that a double standard is al
ways safer than a single standard. I
have found the double standard very
useful in proving the fraud of the sin
gle standard. v
The next question is, What does the
total amount of paper money, in con
nection with the total amount of coin,
have to do with the unit of value? In
other words,, does paper money1 have
the same influence upon the level of
prices as the same amount of coin?
This is a difficult question to answer,
because coin is. used not only as mon
ey, but as a redeemer of paper money;
the latter being assumed to be nothing
unless redeemed by the former.
The next question is, What influence
do the substitutes for money, such as
bank credits or debts, have to do with
the unit of money? This is still more
difficult to answer, because all sub
stitutes for money have to be re
deemed by money either by paper
money or by coin. I started out , to
show, (1) that money is capable of a
precise meaning; (2) that value is also
capable of a precise meaning; (3) that
there is such a thing as a unit of val
ue, and that this measures other val
ues by producing a level of prices. If
I have shown, that the unit of value
for our nation cannot be a single gold
dollar, although so declared to be by
our congress, I am satisfied. I am
also satisfied that as soon as it is seen
that a single gold dollar cannot possi
bly be a unit of value, then the whole
fraud of "free" coinage of gold will be
seen. I am also satisfied that all the
confusion about money grows out of
the fact that we are living under free
coinage of gold.
We must come up (or down) to the
idea that, under our system, gold by
weight is money, and that the total
amount thereof by weight is our unit
of value, although congress has de
clared to the contrary; not , only once,
but at least twice; and it is the inten
tion of the Fowler bill to . declare It
again. , It is-not only a monstroua
fraud, but absolutely barbardffs:"Thl3
awful barbarity is what I am trying
to resist. ' ' ' '...
Here I must stop, regretting that I
cannot now enlarge more upon the
points raised rby Mr. Van Vorhis.
JNO. S. DE HART.
Mt. Freedom, N. J.
SPECIAL PRIVILEGES
Who Pys for Them? It is the Fartner
and Small Landowner Who Bears
the Burden
In a recent public address Tom John
son in his vigorous way gave expres
sion to some views that have appeared
over and over again in the editorial
columns of The Independent. This is
what he said:
"The existing struggle is not be
tween capital and labor; it is between
labor and monopoly, between capital
and special privilege. It is monopoly
and privilege which must be dealt with
mefore any just solution can be
reached.
"Democrats as well as republicans
have assisted to place iniquitous laws
upon the statute books, by which spe
cial privileges are allowed and monop
olies are protected. In national, state,
county and city offices men have built
up by man-made laws these special
privileges which you cannot enjoy,
and for which you have to pay.
"President Schwab, of the steel
trust, estimates the value of the trust's
property at $1,500,000,000. Of this
amount only $500,000,000 covers all the
tangible property, such as machinery
and buildings. This leaves a billion
to cover the value of the fields of ore
and coal over which the trust exer
cises a monopoly, nature's storehouse,
which God has given to all.
"This trust escape each year the pay
ment of $19,000,000 of just taxes. Who
is it that makes up this deficiency,
who is it that pays for the special priv
ileges enjoyed by the trust? It is the
farmer and the small land holder who
bear the burden. And in this I am not
talking politics. It comes nearer to
being religion, because I conceive it
to be in accordance with the teachings
of the Saviour to advocate the estab
lishment of full justice between man
and man. "And I care not which party
it is that advocates the establishment
of such justice. I care not whether the
man who advocates such measures has
his name under the rooster or under
the eagle. He is the man to vote for."
That is pure populism. That is the
course the people's party pursued when
it voted twice for the candidate of
another party for president.
Assess everything at its salable val
ue. That is the doctrine. The value
of a thing Is what it wUl.sll for. If
a railroad will sell for $100,000 a mile
that should be the assessment for tax
ation put upon it. If assessors will
persist in violating the constitution
and the law and assess property at a
per cent of its valuation, that don't al
ter the principle at all. If a farm will
sell for $50 an acre and a railroad for
$100 and the assessor returns all prop
erty at 50 per cent of the value, then
the farmer should pay taxes on $25 an
acre and the railroad owner on $50
a mile. ,
THE MONEY: QUESTION
Mr. Tan Vorhis Continues His Disensslon
ef Bank Credits and the Moiiey
Supply
Editor Independent: Money sustains
about the same relation to a bank that
its furniture and its vaults do. ' It is
an Instrumental its business. It Is a
part of the machinery for manufactur
ing credits; .
With nearly five thousand of these
manufactories operating under laws of
congress, and other banking institu
tions of various kinds, all with an ex
isting aggregate of products of about
ten billion - dollars of 5 bank credits,
there Is certainly; enough to indicate
a very intimate and important rela
tion of money ;to .credits-debts. '
The peculiarity of "the situation is,
that the mohey with which these Cred
its have been and are being so rapidly
increased does not belong to' the banks,
but to their depositors. In' the hands
of thebanks it also represents a debt
due to depositors, amounting'' to four
times the whole amount of money in
circulation. The question of money
supply" is a very important part of
the money question, butjl cannot agree
that the money question is "this and
nothing more," as stated by Gen: A. J.
Warner. . - -
Important ' changes have been tak
ing place by law and social circum
stances, commencing certainly as far
back as the beginning of; the 16th cen
tury, that have a bearing upon the
money question today. Conditions, by
reason of laws in part, and of com
mercial and financial combinations in
part, are not Tvhat they were fifty and
more years ago.' ; !r''" r -
In this country, and in most of the
leading countries, the' question of
"adequate money supply" has been
completely subordinated to the ques
tion of "prerogative of issue;"'' As a
political question, "money supply" is
only controlling when the "prerogative
of issue" rests undisturbed with "Jth
government. When this 'prerogative
has been surrendered in any consid
erable part to -i private interests, the
question of "adequate supply" ceases
to be controlling as a political or
economic question; '
It may be possible to freeHhe; sub
ject of supply; from misunderstand
ings, so that, as a naked scientific the
ory or principle, it will be clearly un
derstood. Before the; principle, how
ever,, can be made' available in prac
tice; before it -can ? be made advant
ageous in legitimated commercial ex
change, it must be. freed- from adverse
conditions and sinister influences that
interfere with its correct application
and prevent ..results that would other
wise ; flow frpni 14 economic doc
trine has Jbeeii ...more clearly Jemon-;
strated, or more generally- admitted to
be true, than the law of supply and
demand, , but there are very few, who
will assert that the law now has free
play to produce its natural economic
results. It is very-certain that' there
ate influences at work in commerce
.and among industries that have ac
quired power sufficient to set the law
at naught. Thequantitative theory of
money is the application of this law
to money. Whether stability of. prices
and uniformity of "movements .in "mar
kets can be assured by "money supply"
depends upon whether there are agen
cies that are able" to disturb or conr
trol, not only the amount of money;
but the character of it and the rela
tion it sustains' to commerce and to.
existing indebtedness. The practical
political question that confronts us, in
any attempt to solve the financial
problem, is the existence of a power,
not under the control of the govern
ment, that is' able to interfere writh,
and tt at naught, the law of supply
and demand as applied to money as
well as when applied to the products
of our industries. It is the same
question, whether it is viewed from the
industrial and ' commercial side, or
from the financial side. :.
The motives that have inspired al
most every attempt In the history of
tlv world to interfere with and change
monetary standards; the controlling
purposes of almost" every great finan
cial crime has been to change the re
jat'or between the "standard of pay
ment" and existing indebtedness for
ths benefit of creditors. Occasionally,
an unscrupulous monarch has7 robbed
creditor? by an unwarrantable inter
ference' with and depreciation of legal
standards, but generally it has been'
the other way.
There is no doubt about quantity
being a very important element in our
monetary affairs, but this is not the
whole question. If it were so, the sol
ution of the problem would rest upon
our ability to determine what the sup
ply ought to be. The question, so fre
quently asked. How are we to deter
mine what the supply ought to be?
would be pertinent. We know by his
toric experience that a contraction of
the money; volume will Interfere with
exchange," diminish the number of
commercial transactions, and discour
age industries; that, on the other hand,
an increase of money will facilitate
exchange, - and stimulate industrial
movements; but, if we are frank, we
must admit that we can not determine
the relation that must exist in amount,
between the "'money supply" and the
volume of business in order to main
tain a "stable level of prices" believed
to be so important by. some students
of economics. Any comprphensive con
sideration of the volume of money
must include a recognition of the vol
ume V coir mercial credits, and - the
volume of other articles and devices
that perform In any degree any func
tion inl? facilitating exchange. The
terms that are necessary to a solution
of the pro! iem are so uncertain and
shifting: so much do they depend upon
the conflicting interests, unscrupulous
selfishness. want of information, de
fective jud en ts uncertain motives,
and divers purposes Involved in the
aggregate that makes the social struc
ture, that the prospect for speedily ar
riving at a correct conclusion is not
encouraging. The problem is still
more complicated by the uncertainty
there is about the extent to which
things not called money can or do per
form the functions of money as It Is
generally understood.
FLAVIUS J. VAN VORHIS.
Indianapolis, Ind., Sept. 1, 1902.
- The conventions and unions of or
ganized labor are engaged in denounc
ing General Gobin, who commands the
militia in Pennsylvania, Morgan and
the coal Larons generally. That is
child's play. What they should de
nounce and seek to change is the gov
ernment of the state of Pennsylvania
and of the" United" States which, by
their policy and laws, make present
conditions In the heat of the contest
at the populist state convention held
some years ago at Kearney, a resolu
tion that was overlooked got into the
platform, or seemed certain to be put
in, demanding the abolition of the
militia. The labor delegation from
Omaha was "dead set" that it should
go in. When all hope of saving the
party from ruin was about abandoned,
this writer went over to the labor lead
er and said to him : "Van Wy ck " is
going to be nominated and elected.
What do you want to tie his hands
for? When he is seated at Lincoln the
state will be overrun with Pinkeftons
and" he will not have a man to help
drive them out. Van Wyck will make
you adjutant general and start you af
ter them. Whatlwill you do without
a soldier? Wouldn't you want a com
pany or two of militia to help you?"
"That's so," he replied, "I never
thought of it in that way," and the
anti-militia resolution was tabled.
What labor needs is a military force
that will act in Its defense. It can
have such a force by simply taking
charge of the government and it has
votes ' enough. - to do it. But instead
of doing it, the wage-workers cast
their votes so as to give command -of
the militia to the capitalists.
SHAW'S VAIN NOTION
An Elastic Currency That Always Springs
Back the Wrong: Way and Knocks
Over the System '
"The secretary of the treasury has
become possessed with a strange no
tion. It is that the existing national
bank-note system can be made to yield
a flexible currency volume, quickly re
sponsive to the rising and falling de
mands for money for use in trade. In
stead, therefore, of buying bonds or
increasing government deposits in
banks as . a- means, of relieving the
money market from stringency during
the crop-moving . season, the secretary
has sought to have the national banks
Increase their note circulations. They
have - an aggregate capital of some
$700,000000, and can Issue circulation,:
to the full amount of their capital; but
their actual circulation amounts to J
only -about $358,000,000. Secretary
Shaw has accordingly suggested to tne
banks in the larger cities that they ex
tend their issues of notes based on
government bonds, and it was stated
yesterday by an assistant secretary of
the ' treasury that many of the banks
had engaged to act upon the suggestion.
We shall, nevertheless, not see a
great expansion of the currency vol
ume on this account, and new bank
notes will not play a conspicuous part
in the movement of the crops. The
reason is that the cheapest of the gov
ernment bonds "available for circula
tion command a premium of from 6 to
8 per cent, and this premium will rise
as the banks attempt to increase their
note issues. For a 2 per cent bond on
which to issue $100 of notes the banks
must pay $108, and it is not always
that a profit can be figured out in tak
ing $108 from loanable funds, available
for bank reserves, and substituting
$100 In notes not so available; and the
closer or more profitable the money
market, the less becomes the induce
ment to Issue notes on such condi
tions. " '
Presumably the secretary of - the
treasury is familiar with all this; yet
he thinks that such a note system can
be made elastic. The thing is, of
course, impossible. He is in a position
to influence the action of the banks.
He controls an enormous sum of gov
ernment money for distribution and
use among the banks without interest.
He can doubtless induce many of the
banks to increase their issues by
merely suggesting the matter to them.
But will the secretary undertake to
affirm elasticity of a note system
which expands or contracts only on a
word from him that it had better do
so? A truly elastic' system, if any
exists or can exist, is one which re
sponds automatically to the demands
of trade and not to the commands of
a secretary of the treasury. Spring
field Republican.
DEMOCRACY ADVANCES
The Text of the Ohio Democratic State
Platform "Written by Tom Johnnon
In state convention assembled we,
the democrats of -Ohio, hereby ac
knowledge and declare our continued
allegiance to the democratic party of
the nation and on national issues re
affirm and indorse the principles laid
down in its last national platform
adopted at Kansas City and as . fully
and ably represented in. the presiden
tial campaign of 1900 by William Jenn
ings Bryan. Regarding those prin
ciples as opposed to imperialism and
colonialism, as opposed to government
by injunction, as opposed to trusts
and trust-fostering tariffs, as opposed
to -financial monopoly and as opposed
to all other legalized monopolies and
privileges, we condemn : every effort
to repudiate or ignore them. .
In state and , municipal affairs we
pledge our party to a faithful applica
tion of those democratic principles, to
the end that the burdens of taxation
may be equalized and home rule and
local self-government be established
and preserved.
' Under the long continued control of
the republican party in this state
monopoly has been fostered and pro
tected; the farmer and the small home
owner have been burdened with ex
cessive taxes that the beneficiaries
and favorites of that party might be
permitted to escape their just share
of the public burdens; our public in
stitutions have been wastefully and
inefficiently managed and in them
scandalous and . cruel wrongs have
been practiced upon the defenseless
wards of the state; the farmers and
small shippers continue to suffer from
unjust discrimination at the hands of
unregulated monopoly; the system of
municipal government has been
wrecked and the credit of cities de
stroyed, thereby producing a spirit of
insecurity and unrest in all public af
fairs. The people can no longer trust
the administration of their affairs to a
party thus recklessly devoted to In
terests adverse to the public welfare.
As a more specific statement of our
principles upon these and other public
questions we declare: ..
1. That all taxable property should
be appraised by assessing boards,
which should be in session for at least
a part of each year, and whose pro
ceedings and deliberations should be
open to the public; that power be giv
en to employ a representative to pre
sent the interests of the public in
hearings before these boards, and that
in making assessments all property
should be appraised at not less than
its salable value.
2. That the present laws for assess
ing the property of steam railroads
and other public service corporations
should be so changed as to compel the
assessment of those properties at not
less than their salable value and to
prevent their evasion of just taxation.
3. That to prevent evasion of state
taxes by discriminating valuations a
separation of the sources of state and
local revenues should be made. And
to that end we heartily indorse the
constitutional amendment now pend
ing before the people and to be voted
on next year, which will permit classi
fications of taxable property.
4. That all public service corpora
tions should be required by law to
make sworn public reports and that
the power of visitation and examina
tion over such corporations should be
given to the proper auditing officers,
to the end that the true value of the
privileges had by such, corporations
may be made plain to the people.
5. That the acceptance of free pass
es or other favors from railroads by
public officers or employes should be
adequate ' ground , for their rem oval
from office. ;;" ' .'VV
6. That the denial of the right of
peaceable persuasion in times of labor
disturbance is a denial of the right
of freespeech, and that government
by injunction, if persisted' In, will
wreck the liberties of the people. :
7. That we demand the enactment
of a code which provides absolute
home rule for municipalities, which
shall include the right to establish the
merit system with civil service, under
which that system, as now in use in
fire and police departments, may be
strengthened and perfected and be ex
tended to other municipal departments,
particularly , to water and lighting
plants now operated by municipalities
and to street .car and all public ser
vice plants as they may hereafter be
established under municipal owner
ship and operation. 1
8. That we condemn the vicious and
corrupt bargainbetween' the boss of
Cincinnati and Ohio's United States
senators to force through the legisla
ture a code that will" foist' upon the
municipalities of Ohio Cincinnati's
form of government, in order that the
p-wer of its boss may be preserved, on
the one hand and on the other hand
will perpetuate existing street railway
franchises which Ohio's United States
senators represent.
9. That the municipal code should
protect the public against all clauses
which may be clandestinely placed
therein in the special interest of pub
lic service monopolies by requiring
that all ordinances granting, renewing,
extending N or modifying franchises
shall be inoperative until confirmed
by a majority vote of the people of
the municipality; and we are unalter
ably opposed to the granting of any,
perpetual franchise. , ; ,
10. That until United States sena
tors are required by amendment to.
the federal constitution to be elected
by popular vote nominations of can
didates for United States senator
should be made by state conventions.
And we hereby direct that in the offi
cial call for the next democratic state,
convention of Ohio there be embodied
a clause providing for the nomination
at that convention of the democratic
candidate for United States senator
and a clause providing for action by
said convention upon all the amend
ments to the state constitution then
pending before the people.
Upon these principles of home rule
and just taxation and to the accom
plishment of these purposes in munici
pal and state affairs we invite the
co-operation of all citizens of Ohio, re
gardless of their party affiliations on
national questions, hereby solemnly
pledging our candidates to the faithful
observance of .this declaration, both
in letter and spirit
. Said Mr. Bryan, in his letter of ac
ceptance, in 1896: "Corporations are
the creatures of law, and they must
not be permitted to pass from under
the control of the power which cre
ated them." The republican president
of 1902 is echoing almost the language
of Mr. Bryan, while in 1896 when he
uttered those words Bryan . was de
nounced by this same president ; as a
demagogue. The similarity of the lan
guage of - Roosevelt to that which Mr.
Bryan used six years ago has attracted
notice all over the country and is com
mented upon even in the great repub
lican dailies.
IMPERIALISM
It Takes Two tm Make a Bargain Beth the
Haughty and Abject are Necessary
, to Empire '
Editor Independent: Imperialism in
government affairs ia defended by
those who believe in the superiority
of one class of people over another,
who believe that one class should
rule, and another should serve; that
one class ' is the superior mentally,
physically, morally of another. In or
der to establish imperialism, there ar
two things necessary. You must have
the haughty, arrogant. Impudent spir
it that asserts its right to rule, and to
support that, you must have the meek,
humble, servile, self-debasing spirits
that recognizes the right of the afore
said haughty, spirit to rule, and thai
one is Just as necessary as the other.
There never was a master where there
wa3 not a slave or slaves; the ono is
necessary to the other; neither can
exist without the other.
- One can be a master, provided he
has the disposition and the power or,
might to make himself such. One can
become a slave by being overcome by
superior might, or voluntarily on ac
count of being possessed of a servile
spirit. In the one case there Is no
blame attaches to him, because he
can't help himself: in the other ho ia
to blame because he becomes a slave
by his own election; that is, granting
that becoming a slave is a blamable
offense.
There Is no doubt that the Imper
ialistic Idea of government is obtain
ing a mighty hold, on the minds of the
people of this. country and the estab
lishment of an imperialistic form of
government would be no great sur
prise. But I cannot understand why the
American citizen should rush into this
matter blindly; why not pause to con
sider, why not make an analysis of it
first? -
True it may be that at first sight
imperialism is "fair to look upon."
but in the later stages of its develop
ment it contemplates the destruction
of the office of citizen altogether.
But I am not here to deny the Amer
ican people's right to have it if they
want it. According to our plan of
government : majority rules, and I
think it likely it will be too good for
them when they do get lt and I will
not deny that the imperialist has the
best of the argument. They say that
the people of this country are no
longer fit. to rule, and they can point
to the destruction of the silver stand
ard, the establishment of militarism,
the war. of conquest, all of which is
supported , by the people and proves
"their assertion. After all it's the peo
ple, the people; If this-people who en
joy blood-bought " privileges and lib
erties for whom thousands of martyrs
have died to give them religious lib-
erty, for whom tens of thousands of
heroes have died to give political lib
erty, if they have lost all apprecia
tion for the precious legacy left them:
if they have become .so dull-brained
and brutal as not to resent it, when
their liberties are being taken away
from them; worse than that, when
they can be induced by cunning de
ceivers to go to the poll3 and vote
away their rights, there is no use to
deny that the people are fast proving
the assertions of the imperialist.
But what Is to be done about It?
Nothing. The people can still assert
and right themselves if they will
but, will they? If they will,' "well and
good;" if they will' not, then let the
whip 1 that 1 they themselves have
plaited lash them, and let the halter
that they have made for the necks of
others lead them. " I have no quarrel
with the ruling class of imperialists,
no quarrel with the rich or powerful;
they are not so much to blame for as
suming the mastership of the people,
if the people want them to do It. They
are no worse, or as bad, as other peo
ple. They actually believe, from look
ing at the political antics of the citi
zen that he would be better off In their
control. No great blame can attach
to them In the matter because if the
citizen wants to be owned, if he want3
to be controlled, if he wants to b
made a slave of, that Is his privilege;
and who shall blame the rich or great,
if they gratify his desire? The citi
zen seems to have lost sight of the fact
that he is the master of the political
situation. The citizens take a man
like themselves out of their ranks and
by their ballots put him In office; then
they proceed in their minds to ele
vate him to a sort of pedestal or
shrine and assume a worshipful atti
tude toward him. Instead of demand
ing that he do what he is sent to do,
and paid to do, that he attend to his
business, in the way he was directed
to attend to it, they persist In regard
ing him as a public ruler instead of a
public servant. Who can blame th
official for carrying out the kingly part
of the imperialistic program if the citi
zen persists In carrying out the hum
ble, servile part? SID FOREE.
The injunctions down in West Vir
ginia, though they were certainly num
erous enough, did not produce a gov
ernment that any One was proud of.
The troops fraternized with the strik
ers and divided their rations with the
starving wives and children of the
miners. The upshot of the whole
business Is that the miners, so the pa
pers say, are going back to work.
President Mitchell having advised
them that with the anthracite strike
on, it would be impossible for the
union to provide for them. The opera
tors owned all the shacks in which the
miners lived and drove them out onto
the hills where they were in a desper
ate condition." The Independent, has
often told the miners that strikes will
not win this fight. Let the working
people take charge of the government
of West Virginia, pass laws to abolish
the "pluck-me stores," fix a minimum
price for mining coal and compel the
operators to submit to the decision of
a just arbitration board.