February 21, 190a
ticular case their interests and- ours happened to
to identical. ;
"Who saved us," therefore, is .a question that
is securing more attention than its importance
justifies.
JJJ .
Extinguishing Liberty's Torch.
An Associated press dispatch under date of
New York, February 14, conveys this information:
Liberty's torch is to bo put out.
The lofty light in the hand of the bronze
goddess, standing on Bedloe island, in the
upper New York bay, that has been allowed
to grow steadily dimmer since Bartholdi gave
the magnificent statue to the United States, is
to be permanently extinguished.
Sentiment, it is said, which has kept the
beacon burning all these years, can no longer
keep it alight, and now the government will
snuff it for all time.
News of the contemplated extinguishment
of the torch has beeen received here in the
form of a notice to mariners, sent out by the
lighthouse board of the treasury department
at Washington.
It states that on March 1, 1902, the light
will be discontinued.
Installed on the island to furnish current
for the torch there is a powerful electric
plant, but it is unused. A few lamps of small
power furnish barely enough illumination so
that the beacon can be made out by passing
mariners.
Lack of a congressional appropriation is
said to be the cause for discontinuing the light.
At one time the representatives of the Ameri
can people were very ready to do anything that
would keep alive those fine American sentiments,
the cultivation of which has had much to do with
the preservation and progress of this republic. But
now we are told that liberty's torch is to be "put
cut" on Bedloe island. "Lack of congressional
appropriation is said to be the cause for discon
tinuing the light."
To be sure. Where is the reason for making
an appropriation to direct public attention to the
statue of "Liberty Enlightening the World" wheu
the same body that would make the appropriation
has gone out from "liberty's unclouded blaze" and
has become a panderer to monarchical notions
and old world fads?
With what reason shall we ask a republican
congress to mako an appropriation for the Barthol
di statue when we have no protest to make against
the encouragement by that body of a war of con
quest, the refusal of that body to do anything to
give' hope to the two republics of South Africa,
and the readiness with which that body makes ap
propriations and does acts designed to show a par
tiality on the part of this republic for the empire
that is battling against our brethren in South
Africa?
' If "liberty's torch" in the hearts of men has
b'een extinguished, perhaps it is just as well that
"liberty's torch" on Bedloe island be "put ou1-;"
but let us hope that the people will yet make an
effective protest against imperialism;
JJJ
Oppose Colonialism.
'A memorial brought from the Philippines by
Governor Taft has been transmitted to the senate
by the secretary of war. The memorial was
adopted by the federal party in Manila at an ex
traordinary session held last November. The fed
eral party represents those Filipinos who favor
American sovereignty, but the memorial clearly
shows that even the most friendly Filipinos are
opposed to colonialism. They want the Islands
to be a territory with the promise of statehood
and point out that the colonial system is working
great hardship upon even those Filipinos who havo
surrendered to the American authorities. The
memorial will prove a great educator. The re
publican leaders have refused ' to consider the
The Commoner.
necessary alternative presented by the Philippine
situation. The democrats havo pointed out that
if wo hold the Philippine islands wo must either
make citizens or subjects out of the Filipinos. If
we make subjects out of them wo will have to
abandon our American principles, plant ourselves
upon European doctrines and accustom ourselves
to insurrection, uprising and eternal hatred from
our subjects. If, on the other hand, we mako citi
zens out of the Filipinos It must bo with the Idea
of full participation in the destiny of the nation.
Nothing short of this will be satisfactory there
is no middle ground.
If independence is not to be granted to the
Filipinos we must choose between colonialism and
the Incorporation of the Filipinos into full citizen
ship. When the rank and file of the republican
party understand that there is no escape from
these alternatives, they will rise up and demand
the independence of the Filipinos not less for the
Filipinos' good than for our own safety.
If we attempt to mako a territory out of the
Philippine islands It will be a territory governed
by the Filipinos, for wo cannot keep a handful
of white men in authority over eight millions of
Filipinos without the maintenance of a largo
standing army there all the time.
The race question which wo have in the south
will sink into insignificance in comparison with
the race question that we will have to meet in the
Philippines if we give them a territorial form of
government and attempt to insure white suprem
acy. Democrats may well thank Governor Taft for
bringing this memorial. Nothing could better
show how utterly the colonial idea is repudiated
it: the Philippines. If the only party in the Phil
ippines which is friendly to the United States is
thus hostile to a colonial system, how does the
republican party expect to defend that system?
And if it abandons the colonial idea, will it daro
to Invite the evils that would follow the giving
of a territorial government with the promise of
statehood?
The readers of The Commoner are urged to
call the attention of their republican friends to
this memorial and then quote the Kansas City
platform, which says:
The Filipinos cannot-be citizens without
endangering our civilisation; they cannot be
subjects without imperilling our form of gov
ernment, and as we are not willing to sur
render our civilization or to convert the re
public into an empire, we favor an immediate
.declaration of the nation's purpose to give tho
Filipinos, first, a stable form of government;
second, independence, and, third, protection
from outside interference, such as has been
given for nearly a century to the republics of
Central and South America.
JJJ
Roosevelt vs. Protection.
When Theodore Roosevelt wrote "The Life of
Thomas H. Benton," he had something to say
concerning "protection." On pages 66 and 67 of
that book will be found the following:
The vote on the protective tariff law of
1828 furnished another illustration of the
solidarity of the west. New England had
abandoned her free trade position since 1824
and the north went strongly for the new
tariff; the southern seacoast states, except
Louisiana, opposed it bitterly; and the bill
was carried by the support of the western
states, both the free and the slave. This tariff
bill was the first of the immediate irritating
causes which induced South Carolina to go into
the nullification movement. Benton's attitude
on the measure was that of a good many other
men who, in their public capacity, are obliged
to appear as protectionists, but who lack his
frankness in lating their reasons. He utterly
disbelieved in and was opposed to the prin
ciples of the bill, but as it had bid for and se
cured the interest of Missouri by a heavy duty
on lead, he felt himself forced to support it;
and he so announced his position. Ho simply
wont with his state precisely as did Webster,
tho latter, In following Massachusetts' chango
of front and supporting tho tariff of 1828,
turned a full and complete somersault. Neither
the one nor tho other was to blame. Freo
traders aro apt to look at tho tariff from a
sentimental standpoint, but It is in reality
purely a business matter, and should bo de
cided solely on tho grounds of expediency.
Political economists havo pretty generally
agreed that protection is vicious in theory and
harmful in practice; but if tho majority of tho
peoplo Interested wish it, and It affects only
themselves there is no earthly reason why
they should not be allowed to try tho experi
ment to their heart's content. The trouble Is
that it rarely does affect only themselves;
and in 1828, tho evil was peculiarly aggravat
ing on account of tho 'unequal way in which
tho proposed law would effect different sec
tions. It purported to benoflt tho rest of tho
country, but it undoubtedly worked real in
jury to the planter states and there is small
ground for wonder that the irritation over It
In tho region so effected should havo been
intense.
What did Mr. Roosevelt mean when he said
thst "a good many men In their public capacity
aro obliged to appear as protectionists?" What
did ho mean when he said, "Political economists
have pretty generally agreed that protection Is
vicious in theory. and harmful in practice?" What
did ho mean when ho referred to protection as
"the evil" and used the expression "peculiarly
aggravating" in citing a specific instance?
Was Author Roosevelt a protectionist or a
free trader? In his advocacy of protection today
are we to understand he is in the position of a
"good many men who, in their public capacity,
are obliged to appear as protectionists?" Are wo
to understand that ho gives his support to a policy
that is "vicious In theory and harmful in prac
tice," to a policy to which ho refers as "the evil"
and against his honest sentiment, and Is ho
"obliged" to do as he does In order to maintain
his hold upon public ofilce? . .
JJJ
Yes, Why Not. .
The Boston Traveller Is propounding to its
eastern constituency a question which has been
propounded in the west for many years and never
satisfactorily answered.
Tho Traveller comments, upon ex-Congressman
Walker's recent interview and discusses tho
as?et currency plan. Mr. Walker says that the
banks are decreasing their circulation because tho
bonds are selling at too high a premium; to rem
edy this so-called evil he wants the banks to havo
authority to issue bank notes on their capital.
This is what is called an asset currency. Tho
bank notes instead of resting upon government
bonds as they do now are to rest ur-on and be se
cured by tho bank's assets. The Traveller asks:
Will Mr. Walker kindly tell us why the
government does not issue enough greenbacks
to cover the deficiency? Surely, if the banks
issue their own bills upon the credit of the
government, it would be safe enough for tho
government to issue its own notes direct, with
out subsidizing the banks.
Wo are whiping the devil around tho
stump. Bank bills wouldn't be worth much
without the guarantee of the government.
'Why, then, shouldn't the government replace
the bank bills with United States notes? Will
Mr. Walker answer this question?
Yes, why not? If bank assets are a good
onough basis for currency, why not havo tho gov
ernment issue greenbacks based upon the nation's
assets? If it is necessary for the government to
guarantee a bank note, why can't tho government
issue the note itself? There is just one answer?
because the banks want the government to furnish
the security and let them (tho banks) mako tho
profit. Sooner or later tho people will realize that
the government is being run in tho interests of tho
hanks, and when that time comes there will bo
a shaking up of tho dry bones.
w
