Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 6, 1902)
The Commoner. WILLIAil J, BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR. i' Vol. 2. No. .20. Lincoln, Nebraska, June 6, 1902. Whole No. 72. To President Roosevelt Your attention is respectfully called to that portion of the Sherman anti-trust law which de clares criminal any conspiracy in restraint of trade and names a penalty therefor. You will notice that the law reads: "Every person who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or per- . sons to monopolize any part of the trade- or com merce among the several states or with foreign nations, shall (not MAY) be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall bo punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by im prisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." You are the chief executive of this nation and as such are not only empowered, but are required, to enforce the law. By commencing a civil ac tion against the members of the beef trust you declare that the members of that trust are in your opinion guilty of a violation of the law. Why do you hesitate to commence a criminal action? The penalty fixed in the statute is insignificant com- . pared with the penalty prescribed for a violation of less important statutes. When a man violates the internal revenue laws there is no hesitation about prosecution, although the license rfee 'is""1 small and the fine for selling without license heavy In proportion to the crime. If the members of the beef trust have raised the price of meat one cent per pound, they have laid a tax of millions of dollars upon the people of the United States, and it means an enormous profit to themselves. A fine of $5,000 is insignificant, and a year in the peni tentiary would be 'small punishment compared with that which is given -to a man who steals a horse or a hundred dollars. Why do the members of the beef trust escape criminal punishment? is it because of their respectability? If the doctrine of equal vights to all and special privileges to none applies to the administration of justice, there can , be no such thing as respectability among thoso guilty of a violation of the laws of the country. Does their wealth shield them? Certainly, no one will justify the mild treatment of a rich criminal and the harsh treatment of a poor one. Are they favored because of the political influence they exert? Surely the republican party has fallen from its first estate if rich trust magnates can violate the law with Impunity and defy the author ity of the United States. Imperialists have placed the dollar above the rights of the Filipinos, but will your administra tion show partiality in the enforcement of tho law in the United States because of the business interests or political contributions of thoso who conspire against the welfare of the public? ' It Is publicly stated that some of the capital ists have condemned you for attempting to enforce the anti-trust law even by civil process; it is even hinted that they threaten to oppose your re-nomination if you show the strenuousness in this di rection that -you have shown toward the Filipinos, but can you bo scared by such threats? You havo shown physical courage and bravery upon the bat-tlefield-r-you were not afraid of bullets when any one pfi them might have taken you life; will you now fear to face concentrated wealth? Civil suits may annoy the ''captains of industry," but if you are going to "shackle cunning" you will havo to shackle it with criminal laws. A prison cell will prove more effective in the prevention of monop oly than judgments or decrees for the payment of money. You have a chance to show that you were in earnest when you made that Minneapolis speech so far you have not convinced oven your friends. The section of the federal statute quoted above has already been referred to in The Com moner, and is reproduced for emphasis. It will be reproduced again and again, not only that you may know the law, for you are presumed to know it, but that the people may be reminded of it also. They have no reason for feeling more kindly to ward the members of the beef trust than they do toward other violators of tho law, and they will not accept any excuse which you may give for dealing tenderly with a few rich packers who con Bpire against the whole people. JJJ TO THE BANKERS WHO ARE FRIGHTENED AT THE BANKING TRUST PROPOSED BY THE FOWLER BILL: Why have you not been frightened at the ?tiust8 propose!!" in "other industries? Is there -any reason why a banker should bo in favor of squeezing out the small manufacturer or salesman "and yet protest against being squeezed out him self? Come, bo consistent, and oppose tho prin ciple of private monopoly everywhere, or take your medicine like men. JJJ The Reason Why. Why is it that the advocates of "harmony" aro unable to find among the millions who conscien tiously believe in the principles set forth in tho Chicago and Kansas City platforms a single per son whom they would support for a presidential nomination? Why is it that their only idea of harmony is to select some one whose views repre sent the views of a minority instead of the views of a majority of the party? The answer is easy. It is because they do not want harmony. , JJJ TWO PICTURES In Cuba you have got the Eternal 'Grati tude of a Free People. In the Philippines yeu have got the hatred and 5ullen submis sion of a subjugated people. TJiese are the pictwres to wMcli George JP, Hoax, a republican sen ator, mvited the attention of the American jpeqple in his speech of May22d. ' ; '" A Bishop's Blasphemy Bishop Thoburn, who has charge of the work of his church in India, rccontly gave testimony be fore tho Philippine committco of tho senate, and in tho course of his remarks declared that God waB responsible for tho acquisition of the Phlllp "pino Islands by tho United- States, and that our continued occupancy of tho islands is necessary to carry out tho plans of tho Almighty. Tho bishop is a brave man to assume, without bettor evidence than ho has produced, that ho J the authorized interpreter of tho Divine will. Ha has taken upon himself a'tremcndous responsibil ity when ho commends or defonds tho shedding of human blood in the name of tho Creator. Tha press dispatches do not give tho croBS-examlna-tion, but the report of the hearings will contain no more interesting pages than thoso which rocord tho questions put to him and his answers. Ha represents a type of which every generation pre sents a few odious oxamples men who hide be hind religion and attempt to throw upon God tha blame for things which thoy want done but ara not able to defend. The man who is guilty of pro fanity and stakes tho name of his God in vain in not guilty, of.,. blasphemy half , so wicked as ara-. those who place Him in the attitude of Inspiring slaughter in order to give one nation a chance to make money out of tho government of another nation. To repudiate the authority of men liko Bishop Thoburn it Is not necessary to deny tho in fluence of Providence in the affairs of men and or nations; it is rather to condemn tho Bacrilege of thoso who, instead of seeking tho divine attri butes and searching for tho divine law, make for themselves a god fashioned in their own Imago and clothe him with Jtheir own weaknesses and frailties. Unless his testimony misrepresents him, "Bish op Thoburn deserves a high place among thoso whose philosophy constructs society from the top and makes tho masses the helpless wards of self appointed and self-controlled trustees. If he ia consistent in his ideas ho cannot condemn Ahab for taking tho vineyard of Naboth; but must con demn Naboth for not gladly surrendering tha vlneyard''to his king. If he were to preach from that text he would probably expatiate upon Ahab's superior knowledge of agriculture and of the benevolence of his assimilation of all tha vineyards in sight. If the bishop wore discussing Dives and Lazarus ho would doubtless con-i gratulato tho latter upon being near enough to Dives to secure crumbs from tho table. Bishop Thoburn would find congenial companionship, among those, all too numerous, who praise tha possession of wealth without inquiring into tha methods employed in its acquisition and attributa all poverty and misfortune to the lack of wisdom and energy. It is a complacent theory and soothe the conscience of thoso who take much from so ciety and give little to society in return. The bishop not only apologizes for, but even commends English rule in India and Hong Kong, declaring that the law is better enforced there than In self-governing Chicago. Ho has lived under tha protection of the English flag long enough to be come completely weaned from American Institu tions, and his testimony ought to be accepted an ' -.- -