The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, August 24, 1906, Page 3, Image 3

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

    - 1 "B f
The Commoner.
AUGUST 24, 190C
While some republican editorial writers are
gneoring at "the quantitative theory" here wo
have the editor of Moody's Magazine and the edi
tor of the Wall Street Journal actually quarrol
ing good-naturedly, of courseas to the ques
tion, which' of the two 13 the original "quantita
tive man." The editor of Moody's Magazine
"If there 1b one thing more than another
on which the editor of Moody's Magazine
may felicitate himself, It Is tho conversion
of that able and thoroughly practical finan
cial publication, the Wall Street Journal, to
the theory that a superfluity of gold, Instead
of making money cheap and the prices of
bonds high, as many suppose, operated to
cause higher interest rates and lower prices
for bonds."
To this the, editor of the Wall Street Journal
"For the benefit of Moody's Magazine,
the Wall Street Journal says: It has always
accepted the quantitative theory of money..
It has always believed that the great produc
tion of gold had a powerful influence on
prices, tending to advance tho prices of cori
modltles and stocks, and tending to depress
the prices of bonds having fixed rates of iOc
terest. It has frequently, during the past
few years, given expression to this belief
and has therefore devoted much space to tho
gold production as one of the vital facts
of the financial situation. It discussed this
subject from this point of view long before
Moody's Magazine was born. It is not, there
fore, a 'convert.'"
Can a democrat be blamed if. he becomes a
bit dizzy these days when he sees men who, in
1896, sneered at democratic doctrine, hurry to
plant themselves upon the Qhicago platform?
Moody's Magazine claiming the credit lor the
conversion of the Wall Street Journal to the bi
metallsm foundation argument! And the Journal
hotly retorting that it is not a convert but has
"always accepted the quantitative theory of
' - Well!1 Well!! Well!!.!
i i
. The Wall Street Journal admits that in "Tho
Housewife's Complaint" the republican leaders
are confronted, with a serious problem. The
journal declares that the housewife complains:
"Haven't prices advanced shamefully since Roose
velt became president, so that r positively can't
make both ends meet on my allowance?" The
Journal says:
"That's the political economy of the average
housewife. You may smile at it. You may, wlth
inflnite patience, try to explain that there Is no
connection between Roosevelt and prices except,
perhaps, so far as the tariff is concerned and con
gress is chiefly responsible for that; that the in
creased cost of living is due to gold production
and prosperity This makes no impression
URon her; she simply points to last month's bills
for household supplies, and to her empty pocket
.book; while the political economist opens his
records of statistics and figures outthat from
July 1, 1901, to July 1, 1906, the prices of com
modities, entering into the immediate cost of
living have increased sixteen per cent. This is
a kind of fact that it is hard to explain away and
It is responsible for much of the discontent that
exists today. It is a vital factor in the political
situation and in the business situation and the
question is: What are we going to do about it?"
Although the Journal consumes -considerable
space in the effort to solve the problem, -it clear
ly shows that it- has -not even the faintest idea as
to an adequate answer to; "What are we going to
do about it?"
In the case of Ogdens (Limited) vs. Wein
berg, the judicial committee of the house of lords,
the final court of appeal in Great Britain, has
handed down its decision. The first hearing of
the case was on August 10, 1905, by the court of
King's Bench., Tho case went to the court of
appeals, where the master of the rolls and two
other judges gave their decisions on November
14, 1905, while the final decision was rendered
July 26, 1906.
Referring to this case the Wall Street Jour
nal says; "It will be seen that the case was
.carried 'through three courts in less- than twelve
months. Ogdens is a pnrt of the British end of
tho tobacco trust, a wealthy corporation able to
avail Itself of all the resources of legal proced
ure. The case was complicated by a now and
unusual form of contract, tho bankruptcy of tho
beneficiary under its terms, and tho necessity
of settling new points under tho joint stock act,
tho laws relating to contracts, and tho bank
ruptcy' acts. How long would such a case havo
taken for decision In this country and especially,
as in this case, when the decision was against a
wealthy corporation? The chances uro that tho
resources of the victor In this case would have
been oxhausted by 'every subterfuge and unfair
delay, and that at tho end of a long litigation the
cause would bo set back for retrial on some
technicality. One of tho urgent reforms in tho
future In this country is needed for that dilator
court procedure which amounts to a denial of
Does tho Journal mean to crlticlso the courts?
Does it mean to intimate that the fact that a
litigant is "a wealthy corporation" has any boar
ing upon tho case? Tho Journal must havo a -care
else it will lose Ite- certificate as a member
of tho republican party.
Speaking before the congressional commit
tee, March 4, 1906, Samuel Gompers, president
of tho American Federation of Labor, said: "I
-think that all through history you pan find that
same appeal and plea made by everyone who
profited by the unjuBt conditions which obtained
at that time. Those who profit by Injustice, those
who profit by nml-administratlon, those who profit
by unjust laws, those who profited by human sla
very, in all cases and In all ages have urged those
In whose power it was to make a change, to
maintain the existing conditions.' It has boon
tho repudiation of such claims that has made for
the progress of tho world, and that has estab
lished even the republic of our country. Every
corrupt politician, every overweening boss, every
greedy corporation, every discriminating railroad,
every trust, every man who profits from a .wrong
ful condition of affairs will "rge the advantage
of maintaining existing conditions."
We are told that this is a good description
of the "stand pat" doctrine. So It is, but The
Commoner insists that tho best definition of
'stand pat" was given by the Lincoln (Neb.) Jour
nal, a republican paper, when, in a recent issue,
it said: "Thus it tjomes to pass that a 'standpat
ter' in Iowa and in other states as well is now
generally understood to be a man who opposes
any radical change in existing institutions. Be
cause of inertia, or ingrained conservatism, or his
personal relations, ho is willing to allow interests
with a cinch to nold on to their advantage in
definitely." . JJJ
Republicans should not forget that a call
has been made for dollar subscriptions to the re
publican campaign fund. Republicans who de
sire that their "party . should not obtain its cam
paign funds from the corporations should encour
age the dollar fund plan.
And while encouraging such a plan for tho
present campaign, it might be well to arrange
for a "Dollar-Put-It-Back-Fund," tho same to be
used in restoring to the insurance policyholders
the money stolen from insurance company treas
uries and traced to the republican national com
mittee. Certainly republican leaders have overlooked
.the fact that several hundred thousand dollars
of money belonging to policyholders was used
by tho republican national committee, anjl has
nott so far, been repaid else they would be more
ready to respond to The Commoner's suggestion
that a "Dollar-Put-It-Back-Fund" be created.
A- great many people were surprised when tho
Inter-state Commerce commission undertook to
give Paul Morton another "vindication." The
New York Press, a republican paper, points out
that the defense of Mr. Morton on the ground
that there was no "criminal Intent" is similar
to that contended for by Mr. Jerome in behalf
of' the insurance crooks. The Press adds:
"Mr. Morton never 'intended' to violate tho
law; ho only patriotically intended to develop
the languishing coal industry of New Mexico.
That the Santa Fe should Incidentally profit, and
that in "another case of the same kind Brother
Joy Morton should gain an unlawful advantage,
by Inference was boyond his control. Lawyer
who mako a specialty of criminal law should con
sldor this precedent and that of tho Insurance
cases. If a man let fire to a housd and some one
is burned to death, ho may escapo punishment
becauso ho novor intended to havo anything hap
pen but the burning of tho liouso which, in his
view, was justifiable because tho welfare of the
community required Its destruction. Any one who
will find fault with tho reasoning of this plea
is a quibbler -who will dony tho conquering
logic of .the wholo tissue of casuistry which en
velops 'tho Morton case. Such a scoffof, too,
would quarrel oven with tho conclusions of the
Interstate commerce commission, which, after
justifying the act of tho individuals in tho Santa,
Fo cases to its own satisfaction, points trium
phantly to tho collection of half a million dol
lars from tho Santa Fc road by tho competitor
that wore the victims of the Morton policy of
doveloping tho Now Mexico coal Industry. Tho
commission clinches Its argument by observing
that 'now hos followed tho convictions as above
stated of the railway company and tho fuel and
iron company.' At least wo can agree onthuslas- a
tlcally with the commission in its statement that '
while many obstnclcs prevent, the conviction of
railroad officers for giving rebates, 'on tho other
hand, It Is not difficult to prosecute tho corpora
tions themselves.' This reminds us of tho Jud-son-Harmon
theory that it is tho corporations
which slip out of bed o' nights and grant the
rebates while the officers are asleep. Wo may
also commend the prudenco of the interstate
commerco commission in qualifying Its assertion
that this 'closes tho incident' with the word
'probably.' It is an Incident which, we fearj will
not stay closed."
Upon the very spot where Captain Dreyfus
stood and had his epaulettes removed and his
sword broken, Franco wlpod tho blot from her
own name by making Dreyfus a major and con
ferring upon him tho Cross of the Legion of
Honor. Major Dreyfus was not vindicated hy
his restoration to rank and the receipt of tho
coveted order. Thero has not been a moment
during all those bitter years when the world at
large did not look upon him as an innocent main,
and the French nation tile yictim of tlie .w4!x '
and schemes of a handfulof cunning' and unscrup
ulous mon. Franco owed it to horadlf, not to
Major Droyfus, to mako amends;' And wlion
France ritood boforo tho world and admitted the
cruel injustice to a brave and faithful Soldier, that
republic gained a hlghor place in tho esteem of
tho world. The lesson has been a bitter one to
tho French republic, but it will be a lasting one.
.In the future the army will be tho servant of tho
republic, not Its master.
JJJ ' v
A very popular Russian cartoon Is one depict
ing a peasant at work In the fields, while sur
rounding him are seven spoons held out for him
to supply. Each spoon is labeled, the seven be
ing merchant, priest, officer, milady, Jew, stu
dent and beggar. Tho thought plainly ex
pressed the one peasant must, toll that the seven
may live from the products of that toll, leaving
the producer but one-eighth of his product. Tho
cartoon has had a wide circulation and tho peas
ants have been wonderfully impressed thereby.
So deep is their unrest that the ruling powers
havo decided that it would be well for them to
make concessions to the peasants small con
cessions in tho way of land grants that will ap
pease the farmers and blind them to other and
greater exactions by the ruling powers. This
scheme has often been worked to advantage by
selfish schemers in countrjes much more enlight
ened than Russia. Hero in the United States
many a tariff-pampered trust owes Its huge suc
cess to its ability to blind the people by throwing
them the merest scrap from the trust table.
Long ago the president sent W. J. Calhoun to
Venezuela for the purpose of making an inves
tigation with respect to the affairs with which
the name of Mr. Loomls was associated. Mr.
Calhoun has made his report. Won't tho presi
dent's publicity program operate on this point?
Why not publish the Calhoun report? Maybe
that report justlfie's the kind words Mr. Roosevelt
said about Mr. Loomls when the latter loft the
employ of the government. Can It be that the
administration expects to suppress the Calhoun,
report? . '