The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, August 15, 1902, Page 2, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    V." -? . .-.' !, ft
l.W -Ti r-t IKM rjllJTBV ..
ni wwWKjr "
J iv;mv' '
1 " . ".".
The Commoner.
Vol. -a, No. 3o.
.if i
1 i1rww&m Wr$!Ww$
announcoa that ho will "in his county convention
opposo a general Indorsement of the Kansas City
platform and Insist upon specific declarations on
each subjoct Included In the platform. He ought
to bo accommodated, for the friends of tho Kansas
City platform aro not dodgers.
A general Indorsement of tho national plat
form iswusually sufllclont in a county convention
bocauso It covors all national Issues and a reitera
tion of each plank, added to the declarations on
state and county matters, would make tho plat
form unnecessarily long; but If any Hopkins man
thinks ho can. prevent a roforohco to tho money
question by-demanding a specific plank ho should
bo answered by a demand for tho specific indorse
ment of evory plank in tho platform. If he objects
to the wording of any plank, lot him present his
substitute. If ho opposes bimetallism, let him
present a plank indorsing tho gold standard. If ho
objects to 16 to 1, lot him name some other ratio
at which ho favors free coinage. If ho is opposed
to tho plank condemning banks of issue, lot him
prepare a substitute favoring banks of issue and
stating whethor notes should be issued on bonds
or assets. If ho wants specific declarations ho
ahould havo his deslro fully and completely satis
fied and ho should bo compelled to meet honesty
with honesty. If tho democratic party is to in
dorse tho gold standard for which, republican
leaders plotted secretly for twenty years and which
they now dofond by arguments which they dis
puted six years ago if the democratic party is
going to indorse this policy, it ought to buy a
ticket and enter tho republican tent In a dignified
"way and not crawl in under the canvas when
Hanna and our strenuous president aro not
Republicans and the Tariff.
Representative Tawney of Minnesota is a
member of the ways and means committee. Mr.
Tawney is a candidate for re-election. The ropub-
Hcajvsof Minnesota in their state platform indi-
Eed a desire for tariff revision and Mr. Tawney
has issued a statement in which he declares that
he is favorable to revision, reciprocity, the elec
tion of senators by the people, and the enactment
of legislation for the regulation and control of
trusts. Mr. Tawney points out that at the last
session ho cast two votes Jin favor of rovislon of
the tariff; one for the. Babcock bill creating a re
duction in the duties on the products of the steel
trust, the other in favor of the amendment to the
so-called Cuban reciprocity bill removing the duty
on refined sugar, the product of the sugar trust.
Mr. Tawney then says that ho heartily in
dorses every principle and declaration contained
in the Minnesota republican platform and that he
adheres to and favors every principle or policy
of the national republican platform adopted in,
1900. He promises not only that he will work for
tariff revision along the line of reduction of du
ties, including reduction of duties on lumber, but
he adds: "I will say to you that if the republi
cans control the 58th congress, thore will be such
revision of the tariff."
Perhaps Mr. Tawney means woll, oven though
he assumes the somewhat inconsistent attitude
of giving cordial indorsement to the Minnesota
platform of 1902 while at tho same time he
indorses the republican national platform of 1900.
His statement indicates that he appreciates the
strength of the popular demand for tariff revi-
slon, and yet It is difficult to understand what au
thority Mr. "Tawney has for giving his people, tho
assurance that if republicans control the 68th
congress, there will be a revision of tho tariff. Tho
republicans had the opportunity to revise the tariff
( at the last session, but they neglected it, They
had the opportunity of passing tho Babcock bill,
and thus reducing the duty on the products of the
great steel trust, but they neglected this oppor
tunity. And now even Mr, Babcock, the father
of that measure, has abandoned his position, while
there is nothing in the attitude of republican lead-
era generally to give encouragement to the" ad-
vocatcs of tariff revision.
Tho campaign book recently issued, by. tho
republican congressional committee, of which com
mittee Mr. Babcock is the chairman, devotes con
siderable spaco in an effort to show that the so
called "protective" system of the republican party
has benefited the country; there is, however, in
this book nothing to give encouragement, to the
hopo held out by Mr. Tawney.
At its last session the republican congress
failed to provide tariff revision, reciprocity, tho
election of senators by the people, or the enact
ment of legislation for the regulation and control
of tho trusts, four accomplishments which Mr..
Tawney would have his people believe they may
expect at the hands of tho republican party.
Failure in these respects was not mere oversight,
for the republican congress deliberately defeated
measures introducd for the purpose of accom
plishing these results.
The republican state convention of Minnesota
and the republican state convention of Iowa were
conspicuous because of the position taken by these
two conventions on the tariff question, a position
that was in marked contrast with that of other re
publican conventions.
Do these republican leaders expect that tho
people of Minnesota and the people of Iowa will
,elect republicans to congress in the hopo of ob
taining tariff revision, while the people of other
states will elect republicans to congress in tho
hope of preventing tariff revision? Manifestly
they do, and it may be that the republican major
ities in these two states are so large that repub
lican leaders have good reason for the faith that
is within them. But some time in the not dis
tant future there will be a change. It will occur
when the people of these two states and the people
of other states learn what they should have
learned long ago, that republican, platforms are
not made to stand on, but are, .made to get in
on; when they learn that there is nothing in the
creed of present day republicanism that prevents a
republican candidate in New York from making
one pledge in behalf of his party, while a re
publican candidate in Minnesota and in Iowa
makes a wholly different pledge in behalf of the
same party. Some time there will be a day of
A Simple Statement.
The Chicago Tribune, republican, in. an edi
torial declares:
It Is a notorious fact that some of the
tariff schedules do afford shelter to monopoly.
That Is, they permit certain trusts or com
bines to exact from domestic consumers un
reasonably high prices for their products
prices higher than could bo exacted if tho
tariff afforded no more protection than is nec
essary to enable the American producers to
compete on even terms with their foreign
As some trusts make an illegitimate use
of the protection they enjoy, why should tho
republicans of Iowa and of the United States
hesitate to say so? Why should not they
promise to deprive the trusts of a shelter they
are abusing? The language used in the Iowa
platform is not a confession that the tariff
is the parent of trusts. There are trusts in
free trade England. The language is a simple
statement that the party which made tho tariff
will change the tariff whenever it appears a
wrongful use is being made of any of tho
duties levied by it.
If it was proper for the republicans of Iowa
to admit that some trusts make an illegitimate
use of the protection they enjoy, why was it not
proper for the republicans, of Illinois to make the
same admission? Why did the Illinois republicans
fail to make that admission in their platform?
Why did tho republicans, in national convention
assembled, fail to make similar acknowledgement
of the truth?
If it is a. notorious fact that some of the tariff
schedules do afford shelter to monopolies, why .
wait for' convention resolutions? Why did -tho re
publican congress at its last session refuse to
adopt the bill Introduced by tho democrats, pro
' viding for tho reduction of tho tariff duties on
trust-made products? Why did they shelve tho -Babcock
bill, a measure introduced by a republi
can, providing for the reduction on the products
of the steel trust?
If it is a notorious fact that some of the tariff
schedules permit trusts or combinations to exact
from domestic, consumers unreasonably high prices
for their products, why did the republican con
gress, adjourn without providing a remedy for' the
consumers of the country?
Of what value is "a simple statement" that tho
party which made the tariff will change the tariff
whenever it appears a wrongful use Is being made
of any of the duties levied by it, in the presence
of tho fact that the party which made the tariff
derives its campaign funds from the great cor
porations that thrive by the tariff and imposo
upon the people through the privileges obtained
under tho tariff?
Of what benefit Is this "simple statement" in
the presence of the fact that the party which
made the tariff, although being in control of tho
White house, the senate, and the house of repre
sentatives, failed to change the tariff even though
Its candid party papers and leaders are required to
confess that it is "a notorious fact that some tariff
schedules do afford shelter to monopoly."
Legislative Twins. ;
That eminent republican newspaper, the New
York Sun, does not appear to take kindly to tho
tariff plank in the Iowa republican convention.
The Sun directs attention to house bill No. i5109.
This bill was introduced by a democrat, Mr. Ricti
ardson of Tennessee. The bill was as follows": ' '
, Be it enacted, etc., That, when, it is s.ho'wjiV
to the satisfaction of the president and sec-
retary of the treasury thai articles and com!-?
modifies are manufactured and controlled or
produced in the United States by a trust or
trusts, the importation of such articles and
commodities from foreign countries shall be'
free of duty until, in the opinion of the presi
dent and secretary of the treasury, such manu
facture, control or production shall have.
Sec. 2. That when It Is shown to the sat
isfaction of the president and secretary of
the treasury that any article or commodity
which is manufactured in the United States
is sold in a foreign country more cheaply than. .
the price at which the same article or com
modity Is sold in the United States, the rate
of duty on such article or commodity shall be
reduced by the president and secretary of the
treasury 50 per centum of tho present rate, ,
or to such extent as to prerent the continu
ance of such irregularity and injustice, and
remove the indirect tariff bounty which pro
motes the same.
The Sun declares that this bill is in line with
the tariff plank in the Iowa republican convention,
which plank Indorses "any modification of tariff
schedules that may be required to prevent their
affording shelter to monopoly." The Sun points
out, however, that neither of the senators and no
member of congress representing Iowa, either in
troduced such a bill or gave any support to the
measure; and the Sun refers to the Richardson bill
as "the practical legislative twin of the theoreti
cal suggestion advanced by tho Iowa republicans"
Tho Sun goes to considerable trouble to
prove, what every one must know, that democrats
object to affording shelter to monopoly in any
legislative act relating, to the tariff or other
Ten years ago the editor of The Commoner in
troduced in the house a bill similar to the one in
troduced by Mr. Richardson. This' bill provided
ttfat whenever any federal circuit court should
find that a trust or conspiracy in restraint of trade
existed, in respect to any article upon which
any duties wore laid, by the existing tariff law of
the United States, it should bo the court's duty tQ