Tt't -'iSiitLMMlMMjmiiMamamtmSSSmmmmlKM
W l
fc. .
L
Wrl
I,
r.
ir. ,
M
7JM1
2
In a democratic platform. Do they think the vot
ers fools and unable to understand the purpose
of tho financiers? Of course, the goldites will
conccdo a few words about wanting a sufficient
volume of money, but they construe that to mean
that wo already have too mucn. The convention
tloserven credit for denouncing an asset currency
and the Aldrich bill, but such a condemnation
would have no influence on an oiiicial who showed
as much contempt for his platform as some of
the delegates showed for resolutions adopted by
their counties. A man who is afraid to indorse
bimetallism lest he may offond the financiers can
not bo depended upon in any contest in which
organized wealth is arrayed against the people.
. , Tho republicans are now contemplating tho
passage of a bill making some six hundred mil
lions of silver redeemable in gold a more dan
gerous proposition even than the Aldrich bill or
tho asset currency, and yet the Iowa reorganizes
did not have tho courage to mention it
Tho anti-trust plank is not nearly so strong
or explicit as the Kansas City platform plank on
this subject. Here is a question of vital import
ance a quostlon which involves the rights and
, interests of tho people of tho whole country and
y the reorganizers aro impotent to bring any relief
because the same financiers who threatened a
panic if silver was restored are now threatening
! a pnnic if the trusts are interfered with.
No wonder tho reorganizers were unwilling to
risk one of their own men on such a platform.
If they had nominated one of their own kind his
candidacy on such a platform would have aroused
widespread protest, but instead of that thoy place
the party standard in the hands of Hon. J. B.
Sullivan, ono of tho ablest and staunchest of the
silver democrats whoso county and congressional
district made a gallant fight for reaffirmation.
Judge Caldwell and the other nominees were also
faithful to tho party in 1896. The democrats of
Iowa have therefore to choose between a good
ticket on a cowardly platform partly good and a
republican ticket running. on as bad a platform as
could well bo conceived.
What should they do?
Vote for Sullivan and his associates on the
ticket, but continue to fight for Kansas City plat
form principles. The real contest will come next
year when national delegates aro selected.
Let the loyal democrats, by considering the
unfairness shown by the reorganizers this year,
learn what to expect in' case the party goes back
Into the control of tho Cloveland crowd, and let
tho defeat suffered by the friends of the Kansas
City platform in the late convention arouse them
to a battle royal for the preservation of tho in
tegrity of "the party. If those who are earnestly
against plutocracy will attend the primaries and
conventions and then instruct all delegates they
will be spared the humiliation which thoy have
just suffered in Iowa.
Tho fight for the reaffirmation of the last
national platform and the building of a new plat
form in line with it is on and must continue un
- til a complete victory is won.
The Iowa Republicans.
Tho Iowa republicans in convention assem
bled, at Des Moines, July 1, renominated A B.
Cummins for governor. After all tho promises
made by the champions of tho Iowa idea to tho
effect that they would never yield, the conven
tion adopted a platform in which the plank that
appeared in the republican platforms for 1901
and 1902 and was presumed to represent the so
called Iowa idea is conspicuous by its absence.
In tho Iowa platform for 1901 and for 1902
it was said: "We favor any modification of the
tariff schedules that may be required to prevent
their affording a shelter to monopoly." It will
bo seen that this is clear and explicit.
It often requires tho use of more words in the
effort to dodge a question than in the attempt to
make one's self clearly understood; and so for
the plank just quoted, the republicans substituted,
in their 1903 platform, the following: uwwut
"Tariff rates enacted to carry this policy
. into effect should bo just, fair and impartial,
equally opposed to foreign control and do
mestic monopoly, to sectional discrimination
and individual favoritism, must from time to
time be changed to. meet the varying condition
incident to the progress of our industries and
their changing relations in our foreign and
domestic commerce. Duties that are too low
should ho increased, and duties that are too
high should be reduced."
& ..-' r th,Q Inform had been adopted Gov-
wmwuui- uiumms saw tnat ho adhere fn M,n i.
The Commoner
ions he had frequently expressed with respect to
tho tariff question. He said: "I believe that some
of tho tariff rates are too hih and that thoy
should be reduced and I find in the platform tho
warrant for my position. I believe that monop
olies are intolerable and that all the just powers
of the gpvernment should be unceasingly exerted
to prevent and overthrow them; and I find in tho
platform that tariff schedules must be opposed to
domestic monopoly as well as foreign control."
Congressman Lacoy, who has always opposed
tho "Iowa idea," In his address to the convention,
said: "I am a stand-patter from Standpatville.
My interpretation of the platform will leave mo
free to record myself against any changes of tho
present tariff, at least until after tho next presi
dential election."
Tho staff correspondent of the Omaha Bee
who reported the convention for that paper, per
haps describes the situation in a nutshell when
he says: "The platform leaves the way open for
both sides of the Iowa idea contention to hold
fast by their positions."
However accommodating the platform builders
may have been to "both sides of the Iowa idea
contention," one important fact is that in 1901
and in 1902 the republicans of Iowa showed prog
ress in the direction of popular government and
public welfare when they declared: "We favor
any modification of the tariff schedules that may
bo required to prevent their affording a shelter
to monopoly." Another important fact is that in
their 1903 platform, tho Iowa republicans omitted
this explicit declaration. The nearest approach
to clearness In that platform is the declaration
that "duties that are too low should be increased
and duties that are too high should be reduced."
What an inspiring declaration. Men who be
lieve in the "Iowa idea" think that any duty that
provides shelter to monopoly is TOO high; and
tho "standpatters from Standpatville," like Con
gressman Lacey, believe that any duty that will
not provide adequate shelter to a trust is TOO
low. And yet who will dispute the proposition
that "duties that are TOO low should be increased
and duties that are TOO high should be reduced?"
The point of difference is as to what is "too
low" and what is "too high." In 1901 and in 1902
the Iowa republicans said that any tariff schedule
that afforded a shelter to monopoly was "too
high;" and in 1903 the Iowa republicans have
abandoned that clearly defined position and have
adopted a declaration that among the Laceys may
be interpreted as a "stand pat" platform, while
among the men who have grown weary of trust
imposition it may be interpreted as an "Iowa
idea" platform.
The rest of the platform is quite like the tar
iff plank.
Tho trusts are not to be killed, but to be reg
ulated, and by whom? The platform does not say,
but any one who has watched the republican par
ty would add "by the officials selected for that
work by the trusts themselves." Reciprocity is
to be employed wherever it will not interfere with
protection that means that there can be no rec-"
Iprocity at all, for if the tarili! rates are bo ad
justed as to give just exactly the protection which
protectionists believe to bo necessary, how can
the rates be lowered to aid reciprocity without in
juring the protective system? The Philippine
plank is equally obscure. It commends the "prog
ress made in the preparation of the Philippine
people for the fullest practicable degree of self
government." The word "practical" is a sort of
turn-table word and can be used to point the
plank in any direction. It makes the platform
to FS? t0R S0 Wh think te t SSdSSS .
wiJfrfi any self-sovernmont at all as to those
who believe it practical to grant complete self
government coupled with independence.
the,mst acuto Phases of the money ques
tl riG P atfornJ is enroly silent It indorses
the republican platform of 1896 (which favored
19oSP?wn w bimetallism) and thT pJatform of
1900 (which favored the gold standard), but it did
not mention the Aldrich bill, the asset currency,
vor lZCh ba,nks or the Ppositlon to make sil-
redeemable in gold. Why this evasion
of vital and pending questions?
Thp platform Is likewise silent on the ques
tion of railroad taxation. Instead of promising
the farmer an equalization of burdens of govern
ment, it congratulates him on his ability to bear
up under present conditions.
Considering tho uncertainty to be found in
every plank it is strange that the Convention'
used so much elaboration In saying nothing it
might just as well have said: "The renubllonn
party always has done right and we trust all re
publican officials, whoever they may be to do
right in the future on all questions." The plat- '
yOLUME 3, NUMBER 25,
form' suggested would have been innf , L
explicit as the platform wtaallromu,
wonder the Cedar Rapids- Republic s-iiiA
on the day of the conVenUonXtit would J
be quoted or become a part of 'a national 7XLm
It was an accurate description and greatly im'
pairs Governor Cummins' reputation for m
fair-dealing; he has secured a remination 'bu
JJJ
r
Address to the Czar.
' President Ronsfvo-oif Tina riant .
the government of Russia the petition addressed
to the czar and signed by many well known Amer
ican citizens protesting against tho treatment of
the Jews in thenar's dominion. This petition
was prepared under the direction of the executive
council of the B'nai B'rith. It was submitted to
the president and he agreed to transmit the same
to the Russian government)
The Washington correspondent for the Chi
cago Record-Herald says that though the docu
ment which the American government is to send
to St. Petersburg is in the form of a petition
signed by leading citizens of the United States, its
moral effect is thatpf a protest sanctioned by this
government This correspondent explains:
"It is very unusual for one government to
transmit such a petition to another govern
ment According to precedents, if the rights
and interests of American citizens are in
volved, our government acts directly in their
, behalf. If American citizens are not directly. ,
Involved, our government ignores the case.'
In this instance, it is not pretended that
American citizens have been maltreated in
Russia and yet the American people are so
deeply concerned that our government, break-
ing precedents, consents to forward their pe
tition with what must to Russia and the world
' appear the stamp of the approval of the gov
ernment of the United States."
A copy of the petition that will he forwarded
to the iczar appears in another column of this
issue, q The president is to be congratulated upon
his determination to forward this protest. Un
questionably, "Russia and tho world" will under
stand that this petition has the approval of tho
people of the United States and it will be just as
well for "Russia and the world" to recognize tho
stamp of the approval of the United States gov
ernment If the czar is all that he pretends to he, if the
several worthy movements led by the czar and
toward a higher civilization have been under
taken with good motive, then he cannot find any
thing objectionable in the protest that is soon to
be forwarded to him by American citizens. Lov
ers of humanity have tho right to hope that "he
who led his own people and all others to tho
shrine of peace will add new luster to his reign
and fame by leading a new movement that shall
commit the whole world in opposition to religious
persecutions.'! j
' JJJ
Quick to Misrepresent.
The manner In which the republican and gold
democratic papers have seized upon and distorted
a statement made by Chancellor Andrews of the
Nebraska state university illustrates two things:
First, the proneness of the corporation press to
misrepresent, and, second, the fear that the edi
tors of these papers have of the silver question.
In a talk to the studentsin the class room the
chancellor stated that he was in error when, some
ten years ago, in common with others, he be
lieved that the yearly output of. gold would never
be much, if any, greater than it was then. Ho
added that the error now seems rather grotesque
and inexcusable, in view of tho extremely small
portion of the earth which had then or has now
been carefully prospected for the precious metals.
This statement has been twisted Into an
abandonment of his advocacy of bimetallism,
whereas it can bear no such construction. When
his attention was called to the matter the chan
cellor stated that his wordn to tho class had "only
the slightest, if any, bearing upon the subject now
or recently prominent in politics." The fact stated
by Chancellor Andrews is a fact patent to ail
namely, that the production of gold was unex
pectedly increased. This increase was anticipated
neither by the friends nor by the enemies of bi
metallism. The chancellor is also right in say
ing that the opinion held by most people that wo
had -reached the maximum of gold output was an
unfounded one, and in fact an unreasonable one
m