ff rswT
'rTpnajr'- w--" ? .
JULY 7, 1905
benefits. Tho' 'American, does not expect to go
to tho Philippine islands to live. If all of tho
Filipinos were killed off, tho country would not
ho colonized by Americans as North America
was. colonized by Europe. Ahab had a far better
excuse for wanting the land of Naboth than wo
have for wanting tho Philippine islands. Na
both's land joined tho land of Ahab and tho taking
of it enlarged the land that he cultivated, and
yet the Bible tells us that Naboth's right to hold
tho land was vindicated. Who will vindicate our
right to conquer the Filipinos in order to hold
land thatm ust be worked through overseers and
protected by an alien government and an army?
The right of the Filipino to hold his property
rests upon the same basis that our right to hold
property does, and wo can not ignore his property
rights without endangering our own.
Every attempt to legislate in the interests
of the laboring men is met with the declaration
that it is an interference with the rights of prop
erty. How would property be created but for
labor? And who will say that the man who fur
nishes the capital should be permitted to decido
without appeal the conditions upon which prop
erty shall bo created by those who labor for
him? We often hear it asked by the manu
facturer: "Have I not the right to manage my
own business?" That is not the question. If tho
manufacturer will set himself to work to pro
duce something with his own hands, nobody will
question his right to control his own business.
But something more is implied by his question.
If he would put the question fairly he would
ask, not "Have I not the right to manage my
own business?" but rather "Have I not the right,
in managing my business, to regulate the lives,
the liberty, the hopes, the .happiness of those
whom I employ?" But to ask the question in
this form would be to suggest a negative answer,
while he demands an affirmative answer.
Those who claim the right to arbitrarily de
termine the hours, the wages .and the conditions
of labor demand the right to arbitrarily deter
mine the status of the laboring man and to fix
tho conditions that are to surround him and his
poster.lty. Is it an interference with property
rights to demand that the laboring man shall
have a fair share of the proceeds of his own toil
a fair share of tho property which he creates?
His right to accumulate property should not bo
ignored. Not only should he be allowed to ac
cumulate property, but he should have leisure
to enable him to enjoy communion with iHs own
family and to fit himself for intelligent partici
pation in the affairs of his government. By what
authority will the capitalist put his claim to larger
dividends above the rights of the wage earners,
and the welfare of the wage earner's children?
Just now the trust magnates are hurling epi
thets at those who seek to destroy tho trusts.
They assume to be the special custodians of
property rights, and charge anti-monopolists with
communistic, socialistic and anarchistic designs
upon "the thrifty and the successful." As a mat
ter of fact the reformer has never been more
grossly misrepresented than he is now by the
monopolists. It is the trust magnate, not tho
opponents of the trust, who is striking at property
rights. He trespasses upon the property rights
of the small manufacturer and the retailer, and
heartlessly drives him into bankruptcy. He tres
passes upon the property rights of the consumers,
who have a right to purchase what they need
in a free market at a reasonable price. The
monopolist simply appropriates the property of
others. The trust magnate often trespasses the
property rights of the employe, whose skill and
muscle he utilizes. He encourages the employe
to invest in a home and then ho sacrifices that
home if he engages in a war with his laborers
or finds it profitable to dismantle his plant. Even
the property interests of tfhe stockholders are
not safe in the hands of the trust magnate, for
he has been known to depress the market for the
purpose of freezing out his associates or in order
to buy more stock at a low price. Those who, be
lieving that "a private monopoly is indefensible
and intolerable," are laboring to restore competi
tion and to protect the. small producer, the con
sumer, the merchant; and the .Bkilled laborer
these, not the trust magnates, are the real de
fenders of property rights.
The railroad presidents are also very much
concerned now lest their particular form of
property will be Injured by legislation, and they
are quick to describe as demagogic all arguments
that are intended to Inform the public intelli
gence and to arouse the public conscience on the
railroad question. What is the position taken by
. the railroad presidents? They deny the right
of the public, acting through government officials,
to fix rates, or they deny that these officials aro
The Commoner.
competent to fix rates. As to tho right there can
be no question. Tho rates charged by a railroad
to a largo extent determine tho valuo of tho
land contiguous to the railroad. When a railroad
manager materially increases tho rato on an im
portant article of commerce ho increases tho
revenues of tho road, and in increased roveniio
increases tho price of tho stock. Ho thorofosro
has it in his power to increase tho valuo of tho
railroad property, but when he increases tho
railroad property by increasing the transporta
tion rate, ho lessens tho returns of tho farmer
and, in so doing, lessens tho valuo of tho farm,
which necessarily depends upon tho valuo of tho
product.
Can any ono seriously question tho right of
the patrons of the railroads to protect their own'
property? Or Is railroad- property tho only prop
erty to bo considered? Because comparatively
few persons enjoy tho benefits of an increaso in
the value of railroad stock while tho ovil effect
of exhorbitant rates is distributed over a largo
territory, many seem to think only of the bene
ficiaries. But in the discussion of property rights
we aro not at liberty to ignore a small loss
brought to each of a large number of people and
think only of the considerable 'gain secured by a
few.
Neither do the railroad presidents take a
.tenable position when they insist that only rail
road officials are cpmpetent to fix rates. If they
would but apply to this question the rule which
they apply to other questions, they would know
that the railroad managers, instead of being es
pecially fitted to arbitrarily fix rates, are in
reality specially unfitted -for tho work. Tho bias
caused by pecuniary interest Is everywhere
recognized. A judge is not permitted to sit in
his own case, and a juror is excused if he has
tho slightest pecuniary interest in tho result of
the trial. And yet railroad managers impudently
assert that those who have the largest pecuniary
interest in the fixing of the rates are just tho
ones to be trusted with this important task.
If competition was free to work in tho fixing
of railroad rates, the patrons of tho road could
protect themselves, but there is no competition
at all between intermediate points, and the rates
aro often fixed by agreement at competing points.
It is as absurd to say that the patrons should
depend upon the railroad managers for justice in
rates, as it would be to say that a plaintiff should
submit his case to a jury made up of defendants
in the case.
And so, no matter what question is under
consideration, the reformer is always misrepre
sented by those who find a profit in the existing
conditions.
Not only is tho reformer the real defender
of property rights, but he is tho best friend of tho
very persons who abuse him. Just as that physi
cian is the best one who points out to his patient
the dangers of the disease from which ho suffers
and proposes the best remedy, no matter how
severe, -so those aro the best friends of tho rich
who attempt to restrain excesses and to correct
abuses.
Jefferson in his first inaugural address de
scribes the right of election by the people as "a
mild and safe corrective of abuses, which aro
lopped off by the sword of revolution where peace
ful remedies are unprovided." The reformer
seeks by peaceful means to correct abuses which,
if not reformed by legislation, aro sure sooner or
later to lead, first, to bitterness between tho
classes and finally to violence. Dickens in his
"Tale of Two Cities" gives his readers a picture
of the French revolution and points out that tho
horrors of the revolution were but the natural
result of the cruelties which the massa previous
ly suffered at tho hands of the aristocracy. This
in his language:
"Along the Paris streets, the death carts
rumble, hollow and harsh. Six tumbrils
carry the day's wine to La Guillotine. All
the devouring and insatiate monsters Imag
ined since imagination could record itself,
are fused in the one realization, Guillotine.
And yet there is not In France, with Its rich
': variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf) a
r root, a sprig, a peppercorn, which will grow
to maturity under conditions more certain
than tho,e that have produced this horror.
Crush humanity out of shape once more, un
der similar hammers, and it will twist Itself
into the same tortured forms. Sow the same
seed of rapacious license and oppression ever
again, and it will surely yield the same fruit '
according to its kind.
"SIx tumbrils roll along the streets.
Change these back again to what they were,
thou powerful enchanter, Time, and they shall
i 7
ho soon to b"o tho carriages of absoluto mon
archs, the oqulpagos of feudal nobles, tho
toilettes of flaring Jozabols, tho churches that
aro not my father's house but deng of thiovos,
tho huts of millions of starving poasants."
Tho French aristocrats who showed their
contempt for human rights wore very solicitous
about proporty rights, ami yet thoy were in fact
tho deadliest enemies of property" nnd proporty
rights, bocauso their wantonness provokod tho
attacks which followed.
Tho situation in this country today is not
what it was in France prior to tho revolution.
Tho extremes of society aro not ho far apart
nor have the ovlls now complained of been car
ried so far. And yet no ono who ban studied tho
situation can be blind to tho fact that tho arrog
anco of our financiers, and greed of our railroad
magnates and tho avarice of our monopolist aro
croaling a gulf between productive wealth and
prodatory wealth between the very poor and tho
very rich. Tho longer rem Mnl legislation is
delayed tho wider tho gulf gis, and the wider
the gulf, tho greater tho dangor. Tho longer a
needed reform is delayed the more radical tho
remedy Is likely to bo and tho more danger that
tho spirit of retaliation will make itself manifest.
It is time to call a halt. It is time to dis
place the corporate influences that now havo such
a powerful hold upon politics, and to return to a
government "of the people, by tho people, and
for tho people," in which tho property of the poor
as well as tho proporty of tho rich, tho llfo of
theobscure as well as the life of the conspicuous,
and tho liberty of all shall be protected by law.
Thoy aro tho best friends of botli human and
proporty rights who labor most earnestly and
most intelligently to correct Injustice In govern
ment wherever found; they are tho most danger
ous enemies of property rights as well as of
'human rights who cither turn tho instrumentali
ties of government to private gain or who, for
pecuniary advantago, resist needed remedial
legislation.
JJJ
POSTMA8TERS AND POLITIC3
Tho Nebraska Postmasters association met
at Lincoln, June 14 and 15. Although that meet
ing was presumed' to bo "for tho good of tho
service" and had been given official recognition,
there were several interesting and significant po
litical events.
Mr. Pollard, who is tho republicai candidate
for congress before a special election to tako
place in July In the First Nebraska district, was
invited to address the convention. Mr. Pollard
is not a postmaster. The Lincoln, (Nebr.) Jour
nal, a republican paper, referring to Mr. Pollard's
address, said; "After thanking tho convention
for inviting him to speak, he began a discussion
of tho principles laid down in tho Falls City
platform."
The "Falls City Platform" is the platform up
on which Mr. Pollard is running for congress.
Just what that has to do with "tho good of the
service" is not entirely clear. But Mr. Pollard
delivered to these postmasters a political speech
and wo are told that "his position was approved
with applause."
Congressman Hlnshaw addressed tho asso
ciation on the subject, "Politics in the Postofflce."
Ho declared that there should be no politics in
the postofflces and advised postmasters to bo
"diplomatic in their political actions." While
saying this Mr. Hlnshaw also said that he did
not believe in placing tho postoffices under tho
civil service. He thought this would be for tho
betterment of the service.
When Senator Burkett came to address tho
association, he made it plain that he did not
agree' with Congressman Hlnshaw. According
to the Lincoln Journal, "Senator Burkett said ho
would not give a cent for the postmasters who
were not good political workers and that while
Congressman Hlnshaw told them to be diplomatic
and not to pay too much attention to politics, ho
really meant 'get in, boys, get in "
In this statement Senator Burkett was not
very complimentary to Mr. Hlnshaw; yet ho
doubtless reflected the sentiments of that class
of politicians whose representatives have been
in the habit of "holding the word of promise to tho
ear to break it to the hope, and who have been
trained to believe that ."one great use of words '
is to hide our thoughts."
'JJJ
The United States has contracted for 11,000
pounds of Ice per senator for the ensuing fiscal
year. The senators should quit traveling such a
hot pace and settle down to doing something
for the people.
fllirtitofcairtTi ii i ijfr i I'UimMii !.--
, tt-.yU,J. ,, ma. & J A. 1-
tjfciaww a.4-4 i 'I - - iMut & -h sxm w fr j i i