was designated the Dominipn of. Canada"
ratlior than the empire of Canada, because our
British friends imagined that it would grate
on our nerves to have, any imperial designation
of government in America. We must cer
tainly feel grateful for this consideration of
our fine feelings and our sensitive republi
canism.; in return for this distinct favor we
might afford at least to refrain from any ob
jection when the King of England seeks to
amend and enlarge his already extensive title.
There arc, so far as the question of title is
concerned, ,at least two distinguished prece
dents. The King of Portugal calls himself,
among other things, the "Sovereign of Brazil,"
while the king of Spain is officially known
among other designations as "King of the
West IndieB." Brazil long ago passed out of
the keeping of Portugal and the incidents arc
yet fresh in the public mind which marked the
withdrawal of Spanish sovereignty from the
West Indies. 4
Great Britain yet maintains authority over
Canada, and there could be no serious objec
tion if King Edward called himself "King,"
"Emperor," or "Sultan of Canada." The time
will come when Canada will pass from the con
trol of Great Britain, and when that time rolls
around, even then, we will not object if the
British monarch finds enjoyment in an empty
title having reference to a rejected sovereignty.
Gompers Replies to Schwab.
In giving testimony before the industrial
commission, Mr. Schwab, of the steel trust, took
occasion to condemn labor organizations on the
ground that they interfere with the advance
ment of the more efficient. Mr. Gompers,
President of the Federation of labor, replied
to the criticism as follows:
"It is a misstatement to say that we are en
deavoring to fix one price for the wages of work
ingmen of any one class. What we aim at is to
establish a minimum of wages, below which a
workingman will not be obliged to labor. Because
a minimum is established it does not follow that a
worker can not receive more than that.
"We are engaged in promoting the general
welfare of the working classes, and are aiming at
their general improvement rather than trying to
get one preferred position for some particular in
dividual. It may bo true that there are cases
where a laboring man advances beyond his co
laborers, but it is usually at the expense of others.
Better the conditions of the craft generally and all
will profit." '
"Untrammeled by the Past."
In his speech delivered at Memphis, Mr.
McKinley said: "We will solve the problems
which confront us untrammeled by the past."
An American, who, although he belongs to
the "past," was something of a man in his day,
said there was but one lamp by which his feet
were guided and that was the lamp of experi
ence. In the solution of public problems men
have not heretofore regarded history and ex
perience as being unimportant. If Mr. Mc
Kinley meant anything at all by this statement,
he must have meant that we would solve the
problems which now confront us on other lines
than those which would have been adopted by
the founders of this government,
This "past" which seems so embarrassing
to Mr. McKinley has many things which Amer-
The Commoner.
ican statesmen have been glad to accept as
beacon lights on stormy seaB. The declara
tion of independence, the impassioned utter
ances of the orators of the revolutionary
period, the warnings of Washington in his
farewell address, the utterances of Lincoln and
the men of his time these arc some of the
things that embarrass the McKinley adminis
tration. That administration's policy is out of
harmony with tho things which were in per
fect accord with American character and Amer
ican principles; and so long as Mr. McKinley
is determined to solve "the problems which
confront us" on un-American lines he will be
"untrammeled by the past." The chances arc,
however, that before Mr. McKinley accom
plishes the solution of the problems that now
confront us he will be compelled to appeal to
the past and learn wisdom as well as patriot
ism from history. .
W
Before and After.
During the campaign of 1900 the republi
can papers gave great prominence to those
democrats who declared their intention of vot
ing the republican ticket. On the morning of
October 18, the La Crosse Chronicle printed
an interview with Mr. Albert Hirshheimer in
which that gentleman gave his reasons for
voting for the re-election of Mr. McKinley.
A few days agoMr. Hirshhcimer's company
sold out to a trust and the La Crossd Rcjiubli
dan and Leader of May 8th contained an inter
view with Mr. Hirshheimer in which he gave
:the reasons for selling;1 He began business in
18G5 seven years before silver was demone
tized and the agitation of the money question
never drove him out of business but the trusts
have forced him to sell. Below will bo found
extracts from his two interviews:
Before October 18, 1900.
Said Mr. Hirshheimer:
"I voted once for Abra
ham Lincoln,and for Wil
liam McKinley four years
ago.and these aro tho only
exceptions to my voting
for the nominees of the
Democratic party on na
tional candidates. I shall
vote for the re-election of
President McKinley.
"My reasons, you ask;
I don't court newspaper
n o to r i e t y, but I will
givo my reasons for vot
ing for President Mc
Kinley. They are purely
business reasons. We
want stability in our
financial affairs, as well
as stability in our tariff
laws. I do not consider
that a high tariff or a
low tariff makes much
difference. The trouble
comes from anticipating
changes every two or
four years. I submit
that the commercial in
terests of the country
should not be -made the
football in the game of
the politicians.
Lottery by Another Name.
Some of the newspapers have adopted a
scheme for increasing circulation which has all
the ear marks of the old Louisiana lottery.
These papers announce enormous prizes to be
given as a reward to those who guess nearest to
After May 8, 1901.
Said President A.
Hirshheimer: "The Pack
ers Package Company
was forced to soil out to
the trust. They control
the tin output and they
have been hindering us
so during the past month
that wo have not boon
able to run our factory
only ono-half its capacity.
They havo rofusod to de
liver us tho tin ordered,
shipping only one or two
cars a week. Thus wo
either had to sell out to
them or fight them. We
could not do the latter
thing, for wo could not
get the tin with which
to make our product,
and carry on the fight.
Therefore, wo simply had
to sell out to the . trust.
It was either that or lose
our money.
3
the population of a city or state, or tho .vote to
be cast at some future date. As there is no
possib.lo means of determining either the pop
ulation or tho vote the game is as purely one of
chance as a guess on a wheel of fortune or on
the drawing of a lottery. Only those aro al
lowed to guess who send tho subscription price
of the paper with the guess, and sometimes the
subscribers are encouraged to guess a largo
number of times. Tho whole system is de
moralizing; it encourages and cultivates . the
get-something-for-nothing idea which lies at
the foundation of all gambling, whether at tho
card table or on the stock exchange. A lottery
cannot run unless it takes in more than it pays
out, therefore, tho chances are always against
the man who patronizes it. If ho keeps in
vesting the probability is that he will put in
more than he takes out, and if he wins a prize
early he is apt to waste the money because it
came to him so easily.
It is not probable that the postofiico depart
ment will long tolerate these guessing contests,
but while they are permitted they will exert a
baleful influence upon the morals of the coun
try.
W
: The Richmond Times' Mistake
Tho Richmond (Virginia) Times, has been
one of the most violent opponents of demo-
eratic principles as enunciated in the Chicago
platform; Its zeal in the support of a rcpubli
canized democracy has only been -equalled by
the ability with which it has misrepresented
the position of thcdbmo'cratic party upon pub
lic questions. In a recent editorial it repeats
what it has so often said about those who aro
"opposed to monopolies and other republican
methods of enriching a few at the expense of
the many. It takes for its text an editorial
which appeared in the Atlanta Constitution,
and after charging the Constitution with in
consistency says: ''
Everybody knows that Mr. Bryan's crusade
was against poverty. He has Insisted that there
ought to bo no such thing as poverty. He has
made war upon millionaires and plutocrats, and
the whole tendency of his gospel has been to put
all men on the same plane and to make every man
as rich as his neighbor. Ho does not believe, if wo
understand him, that there should be plutocrats on
the one hand and hewers of wood and drawers of
water on the other. He does not believe that
there should bo master and man, but that every
man should be his own master and serve nobody
but himself.
As I have defended the principles set forth
in the platforms adopted in 1890 and 1900, it
is not necessary to regard the Times' editorial
as a personal criticism. It is rather directed
against all members of the party who have sup
ported the platforms referred to. While tho
democrats believe that there should be-no such
thing as a "plutocrat"1 or a "master," it is
not true that they expect to eliminate poverty,
neither do they expect to make every man as
rich as his neighbor. The Times discloses
either great ignorance or great insincerity in
the language quoted. In accepting the presi
dential nomination in 1896 I quoted with ap
proval the words of Andrew Jackson, to wit:
" "Distinctions in society will always exist un-
der every just government. Equality of talents, of