" nmiwpfe m'tmy wwwhpimjvirw'rif'x
tnrv'wy Hf-nc' -
ffUNB 16, 1905
protest indicates progress, as it most surely does,
tkea the time is likely to come wlien those who
grow rich by immoral methods will bo denied tho
prestige which some now secure by ostentatious
liberality.
Greed for gain has raged like a fever, but
there are signs of abatement. The standard of
measurement has' too often been wealth no mat
ter how secured but there is evidence of a return
to higher ideals. Many have been "hoodwinked
into believing" that what Carlyle calls "loyalty
to tho money-bag" is a noble loyalty, but ho
speaks the verdict of history when ho says:
"Mammon, cries the generous heart out .of
all ages and countries, is the basest of known
gods, even of known devils. In him what glory
is there, that ye should worship him? No glory
discernible fc not even terror; at best detestability,
ill-matched with despicability!"
And in the days to come may they draw
near! wo shall learn unew that "thought is
stronger than artillery parks," and that "the be
ginning of all thought worthy of the name is
Love."
JJJ .
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS
Walter Williams, writing with the force and
clearness characteristic of his utterances, has the
following to say in the Columbia (Mo.) Herald
on the railroad auestlon:
The conservative who hesitates at having
the government take decided steps toward reg
ulation of railways may well ponder what re
fusal to take such steps would bring about.
There are three possible results of the pres
ent railroad situation. Tho railroads may own
the government, tho government may own
the railroads or the government may regulate
the railroads. It may be assumed that the first
possibility, while it may bo claimed by" the.
pessimist as most likely to occur, will not
bo satisfactory. It may, therefore, be dis
missed from consideration. Only two possible
results remain: Government ownership or
government control. The timid individual who
shrinks from a struggle for governmental con
trol will learn that government ownership is
the only alternative. If he prefers to have
the government own and operate the railway3, .
well and good. He must not be frightened
away; from government control because it is
too radical and not realize that it is the less
radical than the only alternative remaining.
Tho time has gone by, if it ever was, when
public service corporations, created by tho
state and dependent upon the general public
for existence, can conduct their own business
independently of the interests of the public
or without regard for public law. The creat
tion of a public service corporation is that it
may serve the public. The public which cre
ated it and endowed it with certain privileges
for certain ends has moral and legal right
to put such safeguards and regulations upon
tho business of the corporation as will make
It best serve the end for which it was created.
It might have been true in the elder- Vander
bilf's day that the public could be damned but
It is not true now. In all that relates to tho
public interests the public service corporation,
particularly the railroad which is the largest
and most important, is a proper subject of
public control.
Between government regulation and gov
ernment ownership is a question of policy.
Which is better from the standpoint of tho
- public? The government may properly do.
either. If it can own and operate a postal
system which carries small packages it can
own and operate an express system which
carries large packages. If it can own and.
care for dirt roads and gravel roads and turn
pikes because the interest of the public ia
thus best subserved it can own and operate
steam and electric roads"for the same sound,
economic reason. As to whether the interest
of the public may be prompted by ownership
better than by control is a matter for debate.
As to' whether the people, acting in their or
ganized capacity as state or nation, can either
own or control as they prefer is not a ques
tion for debate.
JJJ
THE QUEERNESS OF REPUBLICAN LOGIC
During reconstruction days in the south,
when northern carpet-baggers descended in
hordes upon tho seceding states like the locusts
upon stricken Egypt, immense bond-issues wero
made by the hungry officials. The proceeds of
these bonds, issued ostensibly for public improve-
The Commoner
ments, found their way into tho pockets of tho
venal carpetbag officials, and tho taxpayers never
recolved a penny's bonoflt therefrom. When tho
south escaped as by a miracle from carpetbag
rule, tho bonds wero repudiated, and tho south
erners proceeded to pay taxes into tho treasury
for tho purpose of building up their shattered
communities.
llecently the owner of a block of tho repudiat
ed bonds gave the bonds to the stato of South
Dakota 'for educational purposes. Suit was
brought to colloct, and tho supreme court decided
that tho bonds, under tho circumstances, must
bo paid. Now an association has been formed
in New York City and is advertising for similar
bonds, tho purpose being to threaten tho states
. issuing ithem that unless they step forward and
make a, compromise the bonds will be given to
stato educational institutions aud.paymont of prin-
t ciplo and interest in full compelled by legal man
date. Referring to this peculiar state of affairs,
the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal, a republican organ,
,. says;
If the men of the south could have fore
seen the consequences, they might not have
rushed headlong into rebellion Us thoy did In
1801. But they did not see what they were
doing, and brought upon themselves tho war
and' ail its horrors, the reconstruction era
with all its atrocities, and now their children
must carry the burden of millions of bonds
issued by irresponsible stato governments in
the decade following the closo of tho war.
Tho north carries few wounds from the war
compared with tho dreadful marks still
shown by tho south.
This is a characteristically partisan and sec
tional view to take of the case. Because, they
"rushed headlong into rebellion," as tho Lincoln
Journal puts it, the men of tho south .should make
no objections to paying for the rottenness and
corruption forced upon thom by the selfish and
dishonest carpetbaggers who robbed them with
out conipunction and were upheld in their nefar
ious work instead of being promptly incarcerated
like other common robbers and malofactors.
The men of the north and south who met
and fought upon many a field havo long since
clasped hands across the blood chasm. Tho
momory of the war still lives, It is true, but its
animosities are all but forgotten. But tho crimes
committed against a conquered and a ruined peo
ple by the carpetbag regime foisted upon them by
designing politicians who followed in tho wake
of the conquering armies are not so easily erased
from memory.
Doubtless in something less than forty years
fro. i now republican organs will be taunting the
Filipinos and telling them that if they had not
had the temerity to cherish the idea of liberty
the might not be called upon to pay tho enor
mous debts saddled upon the. i by carpetbag
politicians and political adventurers. If it comes
to pass it will not be the first time, by any means,
that history has repeated itself.
JJJ
A "TAINTED MONEY" PRECEDENT
Some of the ministers who defend the accept
ance of the money from Rockefeller insist that
the church cannot inquire into the methods em
ployed in obtaining the money or refuse the giver
the right to contribute to Christian work. Whilo
there are few precedents which can be accepted
as authoritative, there is one scriptural incident
upon which the anti-Rockefeller ministers can
rely, for it proves conclusively that the church
can inquire into the source from which the money
comes, and can refuse to use tainted money for
the advancement of church work. The precedent
will be found in the twenty-soventh chapter of
Matthew, verses three to eight. It reads as
follows:
"Then Judas, which had betrayed him,
when he saw that he was condemned, repent
ed himself, and brought again the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and eld
ers, saying, I have sinned in that I havo
betrayed the innocent blood. And they said,
What is that to us? See thou to that. And he
cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
and departed, and went and Iianged himself.
And the chief priests took the silver pieces,
and said, It is not lawful for to put them
into the treasury, because it is the price of
blood. And they took counsel, and bought
with them tho potter's field to bury strangers
in. Wherefore that field was called, The
field of blood unto this day."
It will be seen from the above that "the chief
priests and elders" not only exercised the right
to close the treasury to snch money, but cited a
law saying, "It is not lawful for to put them
(tho silver pieces received by Judas) Into (h'
treasury because it is tho price of blood." Thoy
rofused to accept tho money for tho treasury,
oven ihougt Judas camo repentant saying, "I
havo sinned, in that I havo betrayed tho innocent
blood."
But Mr. Rockefeller might find somo con
solation In tho fact that, whilo tho chief priests
and cldors would not accept tho money for tho
treasury thoy did agree, after ho had left it with
them, to put it to some good use. Thoy took
counsel and used the monoy to buy a potter's
field to bury strangers In. Now tho potter's flold
Js tho placo whero tho podr are burled thoao
who leave so little that the family cannot buy a
lot iri tho cemetery. Mr. Robort Hunter In his
book on "Poverty" pr6aents statistics to show that
sometimes as many as 10 por cent of those who
die in tho city of Now York arc burled In tho
pottor's field.
This Is the best precedent that has been .found
for dealing with tho Rockefeller contribution, al
though in tho Rockofellor case tho element of
repentance Is lacking. But possibly tho religious
boards might overlook tho absence of ropentanco
and agree to use for tho purchase of potters'
fields whatever monoy Mr. 'Rockefeller desires
to give to tho church. Having aided in making
a great many people poor, it might bo somo
consolation to him to furnish them a last rest
ing place. And if the term "potter's field" seems
harsh, why not call tho fields bought with his
money "Rosobods," for did not his son comparo
tho methods of the trust with tho plucking of
tho weaker rosebuds, that tho remaining rose
buds might enjoy the strength that naturo intend
ed for all of thorn?
Until somo ono finds a more authoritative
precedent lot tainted monoy bo used for tho pur
chase of potter's fields, or rosobeds.
JJJ
A TRUST'S VIEW OF TRUSTS
The Shareholder, published In Now York; has
an interesting comment upon tho last session
of congress. Tho editor of the Shareholder Is
afraid that the president "listens too much to
popular clamor In his efforts to curb tho trusts,"
although It seems to think that he is not going
to bo able to injure the trusts much. In fact,
the editor ventures to say that "tho peoplo know
loss abtiut tho way to-handlo trusts than thoy did,
six months ago," and that tho remedy for tho
trusts is actually farther off than it has beoa
for sometime. Ho declares that "tho movomonb
to curb the trust evil, to uko a homely phrase,
has been flabborgasted."
Tho editor of the Shareholder then goes on to
explain that nothing has been done because "our;
moneyed men are opposed to any change in ex
isting conditions. Tho very moment any measure
is proposed they set all the machinery at thoin
command against it, and at once that particular
measure Is doomed. This thing has so frequently
happened that closo observers of affairs almost
despair of over accomplishing anything in tho
way of curbing trust evils."
Tho editor of the Shareholder thinks that
tho best policy Is to favor the trusts and to ask;
no concession from them unless it can bo showa
that it is positively to their advantage to grant
it. The position -of our great corporation is to?
be made better rather than wo.se. This Is thej
remedy of tho Shareholder. It presents the viowa
of those who are defending the trusts; but tho
work of education goes on, and tho day of redemp
tion from trust rule dra rs nearer.
JJJ
A LAWYER'S CONSCIENCE
When the people of Philadelphia wanted a.
lawyer to fight the gas company they found all
the leading attorneys of the city retained by tho
company. This raises a question: To what ex
tent is tho lawyer justified in accepting a fee
from tho corrupt corporations which dominate
city politics? Has a lawyer's conscience any
thing to do with his professional conduct? or can
tho word "lawyer" be used like charity and,
cover "a multitude of sins?" A lawyer can not
conscientiously help another to do what he couldl
not conscientiously do himself. There can be no
double standard of morality, ono for the man in
his personal relations and the other controlling
him in his capacity as an attorney. If the re
spectable lawyers .would refuse to assist in job-
bery, the corporations would soon havo to give up
their corrupt practices, but as long as lawyers
of standing accept retainers from the franchise
holding corporations it will be difficult for the
people to protect themselves. Whenever the law
yer's conscience becomes stronger than his de
sire for a fee he will find no difficulty in drawing
the line accurately between the lawyer's duty and
the lawyer's opportunity.
i
l.Jlhi:mjSaKi4tf2i JHftrt,w,ujjj&gb -
