Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 22, 1907)
wpvpr ittt" "" I w FEBRUARY 22, 1907 HERO OR LAWBREAKER? 5 Because Jolin D. Rockefeller gave thirty-two lltnlld in ie ".nlicm nf ,-.!...... ! .... . - fj P.llf. 'Who OVW flnnhfofl Afr Tfr.rl.-.-ff..ioi.'ci ,1r. termination to ,)ut aside all thought of self? Some may even, think It an insult to intelligence that the Tribune deems it necessary to remind its renders of Mr. Rockefeller's disposition to forget himself in his anxiety to provide for the welfare of his, fellows. But the Tribune throws some light on Mr. Rockefeller's latest contribution when it says: "We doubt very much whether the Gallic war or the Russian campaign was conducted with one-half, the thoroughness that marks the operations which Mr. Rockefeller carries on through the general education board. Many persons may feel that the strategies of the boavd, some of which will presumably force weak and ill placed schools to the wall, are cruel, but no -wise educator will share that feeling. The country is overrun with petty, inefficient colleges granting worthless degrees and deluding their sti.aonts into thinking ,,r.niKnlvos cultured. There i& fHiri.trni wn,- of money and effort due to lack oc intelligent vl.t.-. itn.Aitv ti.a4-?4tl4l.ri,C3 T?rt eo-opeuiuuu untune luoiuuuuuo. jjlvo very long even the bereaved friends of the cxv.v,u. inn toi pnllncroN will reioice that a great iu dustrial captain was willing to spend a for- tune in bringing order out ol cnaos. So, then, Mr. Rockefeller is to apply to educa tional institutions the same system he has applied to business institutions, a system described by John D. Rockefeller, jr., in his more or less fa mous "American bqauty" illustration. According to John D. jr. in order to produce one beautiful rose it is necessary to pinch off all the. smaller roses. And now according to the New York Tri bune Mr. Rockefeller, intends through his millions contributed to the general education board, to eradicate the smaller colleges and to confine the pursuits of higher education to those larger insti tutions that are to be strengthened with the Rocke feller millions. And right here it is important to remember that one of the conditions of the Rocke feller gift is that John i. Rockefeller, sr., and John D. Rockefeller,- jr., are to control in the dis tribution of the Jtockefeller funds. Does any one imagine that any institution will share in this hind If the members -of its faculty make bold to criticize the system whereby Rocke feller's accumulations were made possible? Is it not reasonable -to believe that the teachers in the colleges which are aided through this Rockefeller fund will refrain from criticizing the Rockefeller methods? Is it not reasonable to believe that the young men and young women who attend, these colleges and hear the name of Rockefeller lauded because of his keen anxiety for -the "cause of edu cation," his "great love for his fellow's" and his "determination to seek the greatest good to the greatest number" will conclude that John D. Rockefeller is a good citizen and that his life was devoted to, the service of society? Yet only a few months ago this mighty patron of education was skulking through the highways and the byways of unknown regions hiding from officers of the law who were anxious, to serve upon Tilm .writs commanding him to appear in a court of justice and tell the truth! The sum of thirty-two million dollars must be enormous; indeed it is so "great that the minds of men cannot comprehend it. But with all of its immensity, it ought not be large enough to cover the multitude of sins for which the man who gives it to the "cause of education" is responsible, and ivith all of its power it ought not be strong enoug'j to Soy the living fact that civilization will have failed Whenever vice can be transformed Into virtue by the contribution of money and the habitual law breaker is lost sight of in the lionized hero because he has poured into the laps of edu cators part of the enormous sums of gold he has taken from a people whose laws he has brazen y defied and whose- substance he has systematically plundered. oooo NO TARIFF REVISION The fact that it seems to be generally agreed that there will be no tariff revision ,at this session of congress should provide food for those repub- (rllcans who, having no ax to grind are chiefly 'concerned n the public welfare. Why are ve ' not to have tariff revision? Is It because public interests or public sentiment does not demand it? There is abundant testimony, even for one who does not take the democratic view of the tariff question, to show that public interests demand tariff revision, while the very earnest and renewed appeals made by republicans all over the country . , in favor of revision of the tariff ought to convince ft- . anUi JXiobi iX Mlam conven- their platforms plank"' "Y,1111" oiieu of the tariff scheduVdu""11 a,,- ,mm- i nrcvnnt llmlr'fifl'nrfliiiir W1 mnv ,)0 re" to motion- The Commoner. oven those who are usually non-observing that such revision would be clearly in line with present day public sentiment. The republican party must certainly bo a well disciplined organization else the stand-patters of this period would not advance a proposition widen, we make bold to say, is controverted not only by the opinion of the rank and file of republicans but lias been publicly repudiated by some of the most distinguished republican statesmen and editors. In this day the trusts find in the tariff larger shelter than they ever before enjoyed, and the American public feels more keenly than at anv other time in history the impositions due to uii enormously high protective tariff. Even the men who framed (lie present tariff law had no Idea that the American people would long tamely submit to those rates, and we have it on the authority of benator Dolllver of Iowa that Mr. Dlnglev ex plained that many of the rates in his tariff bill were purposely placed high in order that thev in ght be used in bringing about reciprocity wit'h other countries. But now republican leaders re fuse to make any serious moves In behalf of re ciprocity, and at the same time they Insist upon maintaining the exorbitant rates. In 1888 John Sherman, then a member of the United States senate, said: "Whenever this free competition is evaded or avoided by combination of individuals or corporations the duty should lie reduced and foreign competition promptly invited." In 1891 Seuator Plumb of Kansas objected to the McKinlev tariff bill Iiopmuhp. n mp umm "There are dozens of lines of manufactures cov- 7;.eu oy tne terms of this bill, which are con- Hii7U)y tr,,ste" ind Senator Plumb added that: ovnpfinnVu-v "to start out trying to reduce The ho s,, i wiS.ilrusts" wa t( "ct down the shelter 'ists are created." tion in ification niih'Pfl t( nlf M lil ri ! iy. . i-4-t .. 4' at iinttillil Ul.V. 1KUU 111 vjuiiuv.-ui.hjul U It'WUUIlt tion Held several years ago ueciareu -ir-";" schedule import duties are found that have lmy notoriously perverted from their true purpose IV' the inordinate enrichment of corporations, monop olistic in fact or in tendency, we look 4o a repub lican congress to apply In its wisdom the needed corrective without impairing the principle of pro tection." . The late Governor Mount of Indiana In a pub lic speech delivered in 1899 expressed similar views. Former Seuator, Washburn gave .out hi 1899 a number of newspaper interviews in which he said tha,t republicans who had the welfare of their party and their country at heart must call a halt upon tlvsir party's tendency to connect itself with trusts and must insist that the tariff shelter enjoyed by the trusts be destroyed. The Chicago Record-Herald, the Minneapolis Journal, the New York Commercial Advertiser, the Portland Oregonian, the Hartford Courant, the Dubuque (Iowa) Times, the Philadelphia Ledger, the St. Paul Pioneer-Press, the Rockford (111.) Republican, the Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City, the Indianapolis News and the Chicago Tribune all republican papers long ago and repeatedly demanded the removal of tariff .duties from com modities controlled by trusts. In 1901 Representative Babcock of Wisconsin delivered a number of public speeches and gave out a number of newspaper interviews in all of wOUch he said that the consumers must be pro tected; that it was impossible to defend a tariff policy which simply inures to the benefit of those who may secure the cnotrol of a commodity, and that the Interests of the party as well as the in terests of the public demanded the destruction of the shelter which the trusts find in the tariff. The Chicago Tribune went so far as to say that the most of the fortune amassed by Andrew Carnegie "came out of the pockets of his country men through the operation of unequal laws," and that Mr. Carnegie should never forget that ha made his money "through the undue favoritism of the government of the United States." Such opinions as these were long ago and re peatedly expressed by. republican statesmen ami republican editors. It is true that "wise men change their views," but will any one seriously contend that in the light of present day conditions the views of these gentlemen have been changed' Would any of them care to explicitly repudiate the sentiments they expressed as hereinbefore out lined'' We know they would not We know that the conditions against which they indignantly protested ten, fifteen and twenty years ago have so multiplied that they have become well nigh un bearable; we know that the sentiment, twen among the rank and file of the republican party, is so pronouncedly in favor ,of tariff revision that a number of republican politicians who have never been charged with an undue disregard for their own political fortunes have made bold to demand tariff revision, at least to the extent of destroying the shelter which the trusts find In the republican tariff law. "iet in the face of these facts we are told that there Ife no, probability whatever that there will be tariff revision. What Is the explana tion? It is that the rank and file of the republican party have lost all control over their organization; that the special interests which republican party leaders have so long and so faithfully served have secured such perfect control over the party that no amount of publicly expressed Indignation can disturb that control. It means that the republi can party is wedded to its idols. OOOO ,THE CHICAGO PLATFORM Recently The Commoner said that "the radi calism of t8D0 has become the conservatism of 1907," and added: "The Chicago platform, de nounced and laughed at by many, has so grown in favor that a republican president has won his greatest popularity by the adoption of principles and policies described in that platform." Commenting upon this statement (he Sioux City, Iowa, Journal, a republican paper, says: "Mr. Bryan on numerous occasions has manifested his desire to advance himself in good society, but it Is still doubtful whether President Roosevelt Is willing to admit the association as broadly as Mr. Bryan chooses to declare. To say that the radicalism of 1890 has become the conservatism of 1907 is on the whole an exaggeration; and so far as the attitude o'f the democratic party in 1890 is concerned, as a matter of fact, It Is disposed of with a sneer, for oven Mr. Bryan himself, the calamity cry being unseasonable, Is disposed to take hold of something new. "Everybody remembers, whose memory ex tends to that peiiod, that the Chicago platform of 1890 declared the money question to be paramount to all others at that time. The plausibility of the declaration was supported by the scarcity of money, induced by the prostration of all business enterprises and the fear induced by democratic threats against the stability of all values reckoned In money. Whatever else was mentioned In the plat tluTi nn(1 subordinate place. It is unlikely 0pei.ftsident Roosevelt, or the congress co cue In tiie'1'1 nIn nils at uny time found a Bryan's cnnipilfo platform of 1890. Mr. against all forms U that year was directed ' reached conclusion tHflvency, and lie readily bankruptcy or Individua&idustrles opt of were antagonistic to the weliiJIke fortune mon people." nZ ihQ om' The Journal does not accurately descrim the Chicago platform or the campaign wagel1'-1' the men who defended that platform. It spea!ft the republican language of 1890 when, so we were then told, the voice of the republican orator was the call-of national honor, but as we have sinco learned1, was-xsomething else. . The democratic campaign was not directed against "all forms o'f solvency;" it was directed against the moral bankruptcy for which republi can leadership stood sponsor; it was directed against the forces of monopoly of whose con tinued and enlarged impositions even thosewho were apologists in 1890 are now making grievous complaint. It is true the Chicago platform did say the money question was, at the time, paramount; but that statement or that fact did not and does not lesson the importance of other principles and pol icies to which ihe platform was committed. During the campaign of 1890 the republicans sought to give the impression' that all there was to the democratic platform was an Impossible proposition described and disposed of by the phrase, given with a sneer, "10 to 1." Through out the campaign the republican leaders sought systematically to keep the money question from becoming paramount in the public mind and to give prominence to "the 10 to 1 question" which, as interpreted by republican leaders, meant what ever the ignorant or poorly informed man might conceive, provided it meant a vote with the party whose campaign fund was derived from the mo nopolists. Just as the Journal and other republican papers sought to convey the Impression that "10 to -1" was the alpha and omega of the democratic plat form in 1890, so now they are quite willing to leave the inference that the Chicago platform in its essentials dealt with the money question. Even so, and the Chicago platform's critic is likely to be embarrassed. The logic of the platform was the quantitative theory of money and today well informed men of all political parties, even many scholarly gentlemen who went to great pains to secure argument against the quantitative theory In 189G, admit the correctness of that theory. Nor can we forget that the proposition to create ai f II vB 1 - Mmi!)"B arKger"J'.7sg7'-; '