Krf y --y-vw
The Commoner.
. r
FEBRUARY 9, 1906
-
current carries or reject a message from homo
because we must employ an idea which sprang
from another's brain? Ho is stupid who rejects
truth, no matter from what source it comes; that
nation is blind which does not welcome light
from anywhere and everywhere. It is to the
glory, not to the shame, of the land of the Rising
Sun that her people have been quick to obey the
injunction, "Prove all things; hold fast that
which is good."
Copyright
JJJ
"HONEST" OPPOSITION
The New York World demands: "Can there be
honest dissent from an administration policy, or
is everybody who questions the expediency of one
of the prpsident's measures a corporation hire
ling? We wish we knew."
The World is moved to say these thinga be
cause it is hurt by the remarks of some of the
advocates of railway rate regulation. Having,
doubtless, in view its own position with re
spect vto the railway rate question the World
says:
"But is it not barely possible that there
may be a few honest skeptics in the country
and even in Congress?
"We can conceive of a human being who
is capable of believing that government rate
making is an experiment of doubtful value;
that the evils it will create are greater than
those it will destroy; that the obstacles in
the way of effective rate regulation are too
great to be overcome, and that in the long
run the country will be better off if the gov
ernment restricts its activities to the destruc
tion of rebates and discriminations. Mistaken
beliefs, perhaps, but conceivably honest."
Of course it is unnecessary to say that there
may be honest dissent from an administration
policy. The senator or representative who blunt
ly announces that he is in favor of whatever the
administration desires places himself in a very
unenviable position. And that man stands not
upon solid ground who seeks to make it appear
that everyone who opposes his position, or that
of his friends, is controlled by impure motives.
Even when it comes to the question of regu
lation of corporations by governmental authority
and the protection of the people from corporate
imposition there may be honest differences of
opinion. Some may honestly oppose one particu
lar form of regulation because of what they re
gard its impracticability. Others may hon
estly oppose-government control because of their
opposition to the government exercising control
in such affairs. And there are some men in this
country who honestly, too oppose any regula
tion of corporations or any interference with the
ingenious schemes of men whom they regard as
"captains of industry" to the manor born. These
men might prefer a king. They Delieve that the
happiness of the people depends upon the free
dom . with which these money-making geniuses
employ their talents; and they believe also and
honestly, toothat the best possible government
in nation or in state is obtained when what they
call "the business interests of the country" but
which, being interpreted, means the corporations,
wield a controlling voice in public affairs.
In these classes, of course, are not included
the men whose direct personal interests control
their position. Nor are. newspaper editors, whose
editorial comment seems ever to be governed by
a button in the corporation headquarters, included
in these classes.
National bankers as a class beneficiaries
of a high protective tariff, organizers of trusts
enjoying special privileges within the law, and
without the law, and other men who, because of
their anxiety to maintain special privileges for
themselves and to obtain more of such privileges,
are ever found advocating special privi
lege sought by other classes, and opposing pro
posed legislation designed for the relief of the
people these are not to be included in the class
of men who honestly oppose a proposed reform
when directed at monopoly.
The New York World would very quickly
protest should any one undertake to place it
among the latter named classes, and we particu
larly disclaim any intention of putting it in that
list. But a- great many of the readers jot the
World will be curious to kn&w where that news
paper stands. The World objects to the proposed
railway rate regulation and we know that it is
opposed to government ownership. It professes,
also to be in favor of protecting the people from
corporate imposition. What, then, is this New
York paper's plan? While objecting to the de
tails of Mr. Roosevelt's plan, has it nothing by
way of improvement to offer? Or would it have
the people submit to continued impositions and
confess that though the corporation is the.creat-
ure of the law the people are presumed to make
they aro powerless to protect themselves from
the impositions of their creature?'
Sifted down, the World's position on tho
railroad question seems to be of the "lot well
enough alone" order. And from what we have
been able to gather, the reasons advanced by tho
World in opposition to railway rate regulation aro
not dissimilar to those advanced by the tariff
barons against whosjs special privileges tho World
has vigorously protested, or those of tho public
utility monopolists in the city of Now York
whose overthrow the World has repeatedly de
manded. JJJ
FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY
John P. Dryden who receives $5,000 as a Uni
ted States senator from New Jersey, and $65,000
as president of an insurance company, is the au
thor of a measure which, according to Mr. Dry
den, is designed to protect the public Interests'
by placing the insurance business under federal
control. This is no time for mincing words, and
it may as well be said that any plan devised
by Senator-President Dryden will not give relief
to the public or interfere with tho odious mothods
of the insurance magnates.
The disclosures before the insurance commit
tee has lead, to the discussion of remedies, and the
advocates of centralization in general and the in
surance magnates In particular have seized upon
this agitation as an excuse for legislation which
Will take the business of life insurance out of the
hands of tho authorities of the various states.
Democrats draw a distinct line between fed
eral legislation which is supplemental to -state
legislation, and that form of federal legislation
which would substitute a national for a state
remedy. No national charter should be granted
to an insurance company, and no federal super
vision should interfere with the exercise of tho
power now vested in the states to supervise com
panies doing business in such states.
The democrat would not take from the fed
eral government any power necessary to the per
formance of its legitimate duties but ho recog
nizes that the consolidation of all government at
Washington would be a menace to the safety of
the nation and would endanger the perpetuity of
the republic. He believes in the preservation of
the power of both state and federal governments,
recognizing in the constitutional division of those
powers the strength of free government. Tho
advocate of centralization is always optimistic
when the dangers of centralization aro pointed
out. He is not afraid that any harm can como
to the American people, and yet no enthusiastic
advocate of centralization can talk long without
betraying his distrust of the people. Instead of
accepting the theory that the people should think
for themselves and then select representatives
to carry out those thoughts, he Relieves that rep
resentatives are selected to think for the people
and he does not hesitate to build barriers be
tween the government and the voters. While
the advocate of centralization is urging legisla
tion which obliterates state lines and removes
the government from the control of the voters,
the monopolist may, on the other hand, "hide be
hind the democratic theory of self government
and use this theory to prevent national legisla
tion which may be necessary. The democrat who
believes in democratic principles and who wants
to preserve the dual character of our government
must be on his guard against both.
There are certain things which the locality
can do for itself, and there are certain things
which only the federal government can' do
neither the federal government nor the local gov
ernment should be sacrificed to the other.
So in devising a remedy for the trusts, tho
democratic party should resolutely oppose any
and every attempt to authorize a national incor
poration or chartering trading or manufacturing
enterprises. Congress has control over interstate
commerce and it is the only body that can deal
effectively and efficiently 'with interstate com
merce, but to control interstate commerce it is
not necessary that it should create corporations
or over-ride state laws. The democratic national
platform of 1900 proposed a national remedy for
the trusts entirely consistent with the preserva
tion of state remedies. It suggested a license
system the license to permit a corporation to do
business outside of the state of Its origin upon
compliance with the conditions of the license, but
the license would not permit it to do business
in any other state except upon compliance with
the conditions provided by the state. In other
words, it would be such a license as is now
granted for the sale of liquor. When a federal
license is issued for 'the sale of liquor, it does
not carry with it any immunity from the laws
of the state in which the licensee lives. The
same reasoning should be applied to the insur-
J
anco question and to all other questions which
involve remedial legislation.
No advocate of centralization should bo per
mitted to Impair tho power of the, various states
over business done within their borders under
tho pretenso that it is necessary to transfer tho
power to tho national capltol, and no democrat
should oppose necessary foderal legislation when
the powers of tho several states aro properly
safeguarded. It is possible to preservo in full
forco tho power of both tho federal government
and tho state government. It' is only necessary
that the legitimate functions of tho two govern
ments shall bo clearly recognized and their
spheres duly respected.
JJJ
DON'T FORGET OTHER PARAGRAPHS
Those republican newspapers that arei sup
porting Mr. Roosevelt on the railway rate propos
ition are just now quoting conspicuously one state
ment made at Chicago by President A. B. Stlck
ney of the Chicago Great Western road as
follows:
"It is my conclusion that, because tho
railways have assumed tho common law obli
gation of common carriers, and because they
aro public highways, it is fair and right to
control their rates by law, and that, because
railways are monopolies, the law of self
preservation, as well as fairness and justice,
demands that the people, through the gov
ernment, should control railway rates by
law."
Now, The Commoner would like to have somo
of these newspapers quote another paragraph
from that same speech.
Mr. Stlckney declared that tho rebate evil
had by no means been abolished and ho alBo said
something about that fearfully and wonderfully
made affair known as the protective tariff.
Thus:
"It is a notorious and undisputed fact
that most of the great trade monopolies of
this country are founded and sustained by
the rebate in connection with tho protective
tariff, which has, In effect, taxed the people
hundred? of mlllidns of dollars, not to produce
revenue for tho government, but to enrich ,
trade monopolies."
When a republican editor quotes Mr. Stlck
ney on the railway rato proposition, it might
be well for democrats to ask him why ho does
not quote Mr. Stlckney on the rebate and protec
tive tariff propositions.
JJJ
"DIRECTORS" WHO DON'T DIRECT
Stuyvesant Fish, president of the Illinois
Central road, recently delivered a speech at
Louisville, Kentucky. On that occasion Mr. Fish
said that one of the evils in the management of
corporations was that a small number of men had
undertaken tg manage too many corporations.
For instance, Mr. Fish said:
"A year ago these three companies had, as
shown in the "Directory of Directors," pub
lished by the Audit company of New York,
92 trustees or directors who lived in New
York. Of them, one was a member of 73
boards, another of 58, another of 54, another
of 53, another of 49, another of 47, another
of 43, and another of 41. And to sum up, those
92 gentlemen held 1,439 directorships in cor
porations which were sufficiently well known
to be, recorded In the directory above referred
to."
Referring to Mr. Fish's statement, the Spring
field (Mass.) Republican says: ""There will be
no dissent from this conclusion of whore the
trouble chiefly lies respecting the management
of our corporations. They are directed by direc
tors who do not and can not direct."
But tho fact must not be overlooked that it
is not intended that these directors shall direct.
The "directing" is done by an even smaller coterie
of men, who select their "directors" not because
of any particular ability they may possess, but
largely because of the fact that they could not
if they would exercise a .close scrutiny over the
corporation's affairs.
Without in any way criticizing the anthra
cite coal miners for their proposition to donate
a car of coal to Congressman Longworth and his
bride-to-be, Miss Roosevelt, we are impelled to
suggest that there are several hundred charitable
organizations in this country that could use it
to much better advantage.
The report that President Roosevelt took a
hear dog with him when he went rabbit hunting
in Virginia reminds us of the fact that-he has
been taking some rabbit dogs along on his bear
hunts in the trust domains.
!
1
t
i
,A
aMh ffrtftrfW