Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (March 21, 1902)
March 21, I063 3 The Commoner. ting her sovereignty recognized everywhere, we can speculato upon the duration of the enforced silence for which General Funston asks. No nation ever welcomed a foreign master and no ono can estimate how long It will take to subdue those who love liberty better than life. Neither can any ono tell how often the fight must bo renewed. If criticism is not to be tolerated while the war is in progress, is it to be tolerated when, though the war is over, it is likely to stir up another insurrec tion? General Funston is sensible enough to see and frank enough to admit that free speech is in consistent with the doctrine of empire. When President Schurman made his recent speech in Boston, General Wheaton at once announced that the distinguished educator would not be permitted to make such a speech in the Philippines, but General Funston is even more radical. He says: "There are many men in the United States who did more with their mouths and minds to aid the insurgents than did men with Krag-Jorgenson rifles and I would rather see these men hanged for treason than see one of our soldiers dead on the field of battle." He not only attempts to shift the blame for the death of our soldiers from those who urge a war of conquest to those who oppose such a war, but he, shows his contempt for free speech and a free press. Some might think him entitled to the first place on the ticket, but in view of the fact that the senate is now the only delibera tive part of the national congress it would be especially fitting that Gen. Funston should (if his views are indorsed by the people) be placed in position to throttle discussion in the senate. If imperialism is to be the issue, let it be made as plain as possible, and nothing would contribute more to this end than the selection of Beveridgo and Funston or Funston and Beveridge as re publican standard-bearers. JJJ That "Captains' Fight." It will be remembered that in his opinion on the Schley case, President Roosevelt said that the Santiago battle was a captains' fight. Tho Chica go Chronicle is moved to reply, "Why Is it that the captains have not had the prize money?" Accord ing to the Chronicle, the record discloses that tho score of the various officers was something like this: Captains absent and not engaged W. T. Sampson, acting rear admiral. .$25,797.44 F. B. Chadwlck of the New York 14,026.08 Captains present and engaged W. S. Schley 3,334.00 F. A. Cook 2,190.32 It. Evans " 2,166.40 C. E. Clark 1,989.60 J. W. Philip .....,". 1,740.28 ' H. C. Taylor 2,152.89 It will be seen, that the total amount distri buted to officers was $53,397.01. Of this amount Schley, Cook, Clark, Evans, Philip and Taylor, who were present and engaged in the fight, re ceived $13,573.49. Sampson and Chadwlck, who were absent and therefore did not participate in the fight, received $39,823.52. Thus it will be seen that the two men who were not engaged in the fight received $26,250.03 more than the entire amount paid to the six officers who were engaged in the fight. If it were indeed a captains' fight, there is something radically wrong in our method of distributing the honors. JJJ The Tariff on Wool. A South Dakota subscriber asks why wool is 60 low under the present high tariff law. As in the case of other things, the price of wool is prob ably the resultant of several forces, no one alono entirely controlling the situation. Some of the wool growers have complained that an increased tise of shoddy is responsible for the low price of -wool, but this Increased use of shoddy may be, .and probably is, the result of the high tariff on wcolens. The customer not being able to pay for .good goods is compelled to buy an inferior qual ity. It is also probable that tho combination formed among wool manufacturers whereby com petition in tho purchase of wool Is lessened, has had something to do with lowering tho price. Then, too, as imported wool isofton mixed with domestic wool in tho manufacture of woolens, an increased price In the foreign wool may under certain circumstances compel a reduction in tho price of the domestic wool, in order to prevent too great. an Increase In tho price of the joint prod uct. In case we export the product, the tariff! on tho imported wool is a direct Injury to the Ameri can wool grower. The wool situation shows how difficult It Is to plan legislative aid to any ono class with tho as surance that even that class will get tho benefit of it. The editor of The Commoner has never be lieved that the farmers who raise other products should bo taxed on woolens to aid a small per centage of the farmers who raiso sheep, and he has never believed that a high tariff on wool could in the long run bo beneficial to the country. Many wool growers" have, however, favored a high tariff! on wool regardless of its injustice to other farmers, and its Injustice to the country gen erally. The present wool market furnishes an argu ment that may convince those who have besn willing to advocate high tariff so long as they en joyed a pecuniary benefit therefrom, but who will abandon a high tariff if they see that there 13 nothing in it for themselves. JJJ A Foul Deed. A London cablegram to the Chicago Tribune, under date of March 11, quotes a British soldier who formed one of the hollow squares, enclosed in which Commandant Scheepers met his doom. Tho Tribune's story is as follows: Commandant Scheepers was shot at 3 o'clock. They brought him from town in an ambulance van with a band playing and the firing party following behind. When they got him to his grave he begged to be allowed to stand up and face death, but they tied him down in a chair and blindfolded him. Then fifteen of the Coldstream Guards stood ten paces from him and fired. The volley almost blew one side of him away, and it was a sick ening sight. He must have been a brave man; he did not flinch or turn pale. They buried him as he was and broke up the chair upon which he had sat, throwing the pieces on top of him. When it is further added that the tune played by the band that convoyed Scheepers to death was a rollicking one and that the victim at the time was suffering from severe wounds the rage and horror excited among the Boers by the execution may be imagined. This is indeed a strange story, and, if true, it has placed a foul blot on civilization. Every friend of the Boers will echo the wish that no represen tative of the republics of South Africa will ever be guilty of so foul a deed as that said to have been perpetrated with relation to the execution of this brave Boer commandant. JJJ A Tremendous Cost. A London cable to the Chicago Record-Herald, states that the Britons are beginning to count the cost of the struggle in South Africa. The war office has issued a statement covering tho entire period of the war up to the end of last Decem ber. According to this statement there have been nearly 19,000 deaths in the Transvaal and over 64,000 officers and men have been sent home as invalids. This Is a fearful showing when it is remembered that there are only about 250,000 Boers, of whom not more than 50,000 can bo counted as of fighting age. To have killed one third as many of the enemy as they have adult men and mado invalids of more than their total number is a record scarcely if ever paralleled by patriots, and look at the cost in money! Republi cans boast that our people are worth 'thousand dollars per capita (not very equitably distributed, however). England has spent enough on tho war in South Africa to piirchaso tho Boors, men, women and children, at moro than two thousand dollars per capita or at moro than ten thousand dollars for each fighting man. When tho English soldiors burned Do Wet's homo and drove his wife and chil dren into a reconcentration camp ho sent word to them that his home had not cost him over seven Intndred pounds, but that tho burning of It would cost tho English government moro than seven million pounds. He seems to have underestimated England's expenses. What a lesson this is in Im perialism! Verily, tho Boers have shown that 'it does not pay to attempt tho overthrow of a re public Below are the statistics furnished by the Eng lish war office: Officers. Men. Killed In action 469 4,762 Died of wounds 161 1,635 Died in captivity 5 97 Accidental deaths 20 542 Died of disease 276 10,997 Total deaths In South Africa.. 931 18,033 Missing and prisoners (excluding those who have been recovered or have died in captivity)... 7 ' 435 Sent homo as invalids 2,664 61,666 Total 3,602 80,134 Total reduction of the military forces through war in South Africa: Officers. Men. Deaths In South Africa 931 18,033 Missing and prisoners 7 . 435 Invalids sent home who have died 1 . 449 Invalids sent homo who have left tho service as unfit 4,437 Total 945 23,354 . JJJ Can They be Trusted? Commenting upon the fact that the house of representatives has for tho fourth time voted to submit to the states an amendment to the consti tution providing for the election of senators by popular vote, the Chicago Tribune, republican, says: Tho senate presumably will not concur in the joint resolution for the submission of this amendment. Its members favor tho present method of electing senators. They are famil iar with It. It has put them whoro they are They are Inclined to believe that their pros pects for re-election are better under the pres ent system than they would be under that of popular election. This is undoubtedly true except an to a man of commanding ability and considerable popularity. In Henry Clay's case it would have mado no difference whether the legislature or the people elected the sena tor. It is true that in this statement the Tribuno reflects the popular notion concerning the indis position of some senators to concur- in the house lesolutipn. But a reader of The Commoner sug gests that "after all perhaps the senators who op pose the popular election plan may not be act uated by selfish motives." This reader says that in on address delivered before the students of the Baptist College at Kalamazoo, Mich., in Septem ber, 1894, Senator Burrows said: "I once thought I was in favor of electing United States senators by direct vote of the people; but I could not vote for that now, because the people cannot be tiusted." This reader adds that "perhaps other senators than Mr. Burrows have come to the con elusion that the people cannot be trusted. Afrer they have really reached that conclusion, are they not playing a patriotic part when they refuse to give the people the authority to directly select their senators?" This is an interesting view, to be sure. Per haps those senators who object to the popular elec tion plan intend that the people shall have all the privileges they are "capable of enjoying." This, cnc3 described by a distinguished republican aj "tho argument of kings," has como to be very popular now in republican circles.