wr
The Commoner.
3
MAKOH 8, 1907
V '
IV
A
v-
A
m
fc
..
present session opened and It broke out today.
Judge Birdsall, like Mr. Hinshaw, is on the mer
chant marine committee, which reported the sub
sidy bill. Birdsall devoted himself to a reply to
some caustic observations of Grosvenor, who had
spoken for the bill. 'The gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Grosvenor,' he said, 'impugns not "only the
motives but the Intelligence of Congressman Hin
shaw. He impugns likewise the intelligence of
all that membership of the house which represents
what is called the cornileld constituencies of the
country. He went further to threaten some of us
with defeat because of our attitude toward this
bill; to threaten our defeat because some of us
upon tliis committee have seen fit to disagree with
the gentleman from Ohio yes, and with the presi
dent, if you please upon this question. Is it
possible that because these ship subsidy people
have failed to corrupt him by the tender of a
liberal donation to his campaign fund, which he
indignantly spurned, that they now propose to fol
low him out to Ills district and defeat him for re
nomination or at the polls? I like patriotism that
is void of greed and that is not measured by the
liberality of graft from the public treasury.'
Judge Birdsall's speech created the sensation of
the day. The charge of attempted bribery had
been carefully kept out of public view so much as
possible till the time when the explosion would
do the most good. Mr. Hinshaw would not dis
cuss the details' of the iriatter in which his name
had been used, further than to admit that Bird
sail knew what he was talking about and was
warranted in saying what he said."
Messrs. Birdsall and Hinshaw are republicans.
It will be well for every member who voted for the
ship subsidy bill to prepare for his constituents
a defense of his vote and an explanation, also, of
the charges made by Mr. Birdsall.
oooo
AMERICAN BEAUTY" SYSTEM IN
EDUCATION
The Commoner has already reproduced from
the New York 'Jribune, the New York Evening
Telegram and other publications articles showing
that the purpose of the gene'ral education board,
having in charge the Rockefeller donation, is to
gradually weed out those educational institutions
which in the opinion of the managers of the
Rockefeller fund ought to go out of business. The
Manufacturers' Record published at Baltimore Is
seeking to arouse the people of the south to what
. It calls "the menace to America emphasized by
the enormity of the latest $32,000,000 accretion to
that phase of the slowly-forming Educational
Trust known as the General Education Board of
New York."
The Record quotes from a number of newspa
pers some of which are partisans of the Rocke
feller "educational movement" to prove its point.
For instance, the Outlook of New York, to which
the Record refers as "one of the unfailing sup
porters of the tendency popularly called the Ogdon
(Rockefeller) movement" is quoted as saying:
"With this financial power In its control, the Gen
eral Education Board is in position to do what
no other body in this country can, at present, even
attempt. It can determine largely what institu
tions shall grow, and, in some measure, what
shall stand still of decay. It can look over the
territory of the nation, note the places where
there is a famine of learning, and start new edu
cational plants of any species it chooses, or revive
old ones. It can do in many ways what the gov
ernment does for education in France or Germany.
Its power will be enormous; it seems as if It mlht
be able really to determine the character of Amer
ican education. The funds it holds represent only
a fraction of the amounts which it will really con
trol by giving a sum to an institution on condi
tion that the institution raise an equal or a
greater amount, it will be able to direct much
larger amounts than it possesses."
Another earnest advocate of piis movement is
the Brooklyn Eagle, which says: "There are
some 400 colleges placed in small country towns.
That is the policy which the General Education
Board will reverse. It will establish colleges in
many considerable cities and centers of popula
tion which now have none, and it will enlarge the
facilities of colleges in centers of population like
Brooklyn, where the local institutions are entirely
Inadequate to the needs of population."
Now read what is said by two great news
papers whose editors have not failed to recognize
fiie menace in the Rockefeller "educational move-
ment"
The Springfield, Massachusetts Republican
says
"There are those who still hold the idea that
but for these great individual fortunes and their
benefactions society would be worse off than it Is
in educational and philanthropic work. Such a
theory is wholly untenable that the people gen
erally cannot be trusted properly to appreciate the
importance of education and other effort for the
elevation of the race and the amelioration of the
general conditions of living or to contribute ade
quately to their support It is only true that the
people will be laggard In support of such efforts
when a comparatively few towering fortunes ex
ist, able and willing to be leaned upon for these
needs. Then wo may expect communities and in
stitutions to develop a mendicant attitude and
turn from self-help to help from beyond which
flows down as if from some superior source that
is to be held in worshipful consideration. How
socially demoralizing this must be no one can fall
to understand."
The New York Journal of Commerce says:
"A system of giving which has its own rules
and customs, which Is governed by principles of
selection laid down in the beginning, which ram
ifies throughout the country and embraces espe
cially those smaller institutions that are hampered
by narrow means, is an infinitely more powerful
force in the shaping of opinion than any single
capitalist who makes separate and often uncon
ditional gifts to be controlled and Invested by the
institutions themselves could ever be. As a mech
anism for controlling academic opinion, there has
perhaps never been anything In the history of edu
cation that would compare with the board system
of subsidizing learning. Gifts to, education are
like campaign contributions in that they are best
made In relatively small amounts and from many
sources. Under such circumstances they are
likely to leave the recipients in position to choose
their own course in matters of opinion and teach
ing. If they must be large, It requires greater
force of character to maintain independence of
thought and action. .Such freedom has been lack
ing in too many quarters. The spectacle of a uni
versity president preaching the maintenance of
some of the worst abuses of capitalism and an
other meekly bowing the knee to receive the
money offered by those for whose acts he had but
lately suggested social ostracism as a penalty is
not edifying. Instances can be given In abund
ance where the mere prospect of an immediate
gift has changed the whole current of a college
administrator's thought and made him trim ui.-t
sails on an entirely new tack to catch the favoring
breezes of prosperity. The craze and competition
for large numbers of students has greatly crip
pled those who would uphold the older traditions
of Independent economic thinking. Increasing
numbers mean increasing expense In college ad
ministration and lead to growing dependence on
wealth of doubtful origin. Tills, among other rea
sons, is ground for thinking that the enormous
benefactions of the past few years, whether as
pensions, endowments or annual gifts to colleges,
may put our academic thinkers into a moral
strait-jacket at the same time that they are freed
from the cramping Influences of limited means."
0500
FINE SARCASM
Richard H. Edmonds, editor of the Manufac
turers' Record, published at Baltimore, recently
gave to Andrew Carnegie some data about the
development of the south, at the same time asking
Mr. Carnegie for an expression on the outlook for
steel. Mr. Carnegie wrote to Mr. Edmonds tills
letter:
The Cottage, Duugeness,
Fernandlna, Fla., February 7, 1007.
Many thanks, my dear Mr. Edmonds, for pa
pers sent me, of which I shall make use.
The south is to have her day sure. The sun
has already risen upon her. Where to get labor
Is already being asked, but this will come.
Having retired from steel, I cannot trust my
self (to) open the subject. I saw what was coming
thirty years ago and acted accordingly, and might
have been a rich man if I hadn't resolved not to
spend an old age in the pursuit With renewed
thanks, truly yours, ANDREW CARNEGIE.
Commenting upon this communication the
Manufacturers' Record indulges in this bit of
fine sarcasm: "What a pity it is that Mr. Car
negie did not remain in the steel business, and
thus become a rich man! How hard it must be
for him In his present poverty to realize what
great wealth he missed by not continuing as a
world-leader in Iron and steell"
OOOO
THE GOOD ROADS QUESTION
An expert statistician has figured that bad
roads cost the people of the United States $500,
000,000 annually. ' If this is true it is high time
the question receive proper attention. For many
years men have becii agitating the better building
of roads, but even those who would be most ben
efited thereby have been prone to dub these agi
tators "cranks." But the agitation received a
great impetus with the advent of the bicycle, and
when the automobile came additional energy was
generated. But the farmers, the ones most In
terested from a financial viewpoint, have been
slow to join tiie crusade. It is estimated by men
of experience in road building that a macadamized
roadway, eighteen feet wide, may be built for an
average cost of ',000 per mile the country over.
This presents a good opportunity for some com
parative figures. The country loses $500,000,000
a year because of bad roads. In round numbers
$200,000,000 has been appropriated for the army
and navy. At $3,000 a mile the money appro
priated for the military arm of the government
would build 70,000 miles of macadamized roads
within the next two years. In ten years 750,000
miles of such roadway could be built, and in an
other four years the money saved Would give ns
more for the army and navy than would have
been appropriated in the fourteen years and we
would also have the macadamized roads. Sta
tistics are mighty Interesting things when one gets
started on them.
OOOO
WHAT ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES?
The New York Evening Post is printing a
series of interesting articles relating to the cost of
the Philippine islands. These articles are written
by the Post's Washington correspondent They
show that It Is the purpose of republican leaders
to conceal from the American people the real truth
concerning our "white elephant" in the Orient
Following is an extract from the Post's article:
1 ho cost of the Philippines is a question that a
great many peonle have been trying to solve since
the treaty of Paris was signed and the archi
pelago came into our possession. 'What has been
the total cost of the islands to the people of ihe
United Stales?' 'What is the annual cost of the
islands to the taxpayers of the United States'."
These are two questions that the administration
does not purpose to have answered definitely and.
authoritatively. Senator (May of Georgia intro
duced in the senate the other day a resolution of
Inquiry calling upon the government to answer
them. His resolution has been shelved, and he
has been flatly told by administration champions
in the senate chamber that it is not the purpose
at this time to allow those questions to he put
officially nor to answer them. When Senator Clay
Introduced ills resolution, Senator Lodge at once
objected, saying that the information was in the
published reports, and was accessible to anybody
who cared to hunt It up. This is not strictly true.
What Information there Is accessible about the
cost of the Philippines is so scattered and so In
complete that jt Is a task of almost impossible
dimensions to ferret it all out and assemble it in
an orderly, telling perspective. One finds an item
here and an item there, and undoubtedly there
are other items of expense that are not disclosed,
no matter how patient and searching the investi
gation may be. The Itureau of Insular Affairs of
the war department, which is charged with the
duty of collecting intelligence and disseminating
Information about the Philippines, has never made
any estimate of either the total or annual cost of
the islands. Senator Lodge succeeded in having
referred to his committee Senator Clay's resolu
tion of inquiry. It is safe to prophesy that It will
never see the light again. Senator Clay has been
endeavoring to collect a sufficient amount of in
formation about the cost of the Philippines to em
body in a speech, urging that his resolution be
acted upon by the senate. He has found the ut
most difficulty in getting at the facts. Ills pres
ent estimate is that the islands are costing us
between fifty-five and sixty million dollars a
year. These figures are as good as those of any
body else until they are disproved."
In the same article the Post's correspondent
says: "In his speech of Acceptance, ex-.Tifdge
Parker stated that the expense to which the
United States had been put in the acquisition and
retention of the Philippine Islands amounted to"
$G50,000,000. Richard Olney, secretary of state In
Mr. Cleveland's cabinet, declared that the expense
was $700,000,000. Edward Atkfnson of Boston
made an estimate placing the figures at $1,200,
000,000. Secretary Taft in a speech delivered at
Newark, N. J., on October 25, 100-1, analyzed and
ridiculed these figures. He estimated that the to
tal cost of the Philippines to the United States
down to that date had been about $20-1,000,000.
In computing this amount the secretiry of war
allowed $180,000,000 chargeable to the support of
the army; $1,000,000 for the extra expenses In the
navy department; $3,000,000 appropriated in 1903
to relieve suffering from threatened famine, and
$20,000,000 to cover the amount paid under the
treaty of Parjs. In analyzing Judge Parker's
figures Mr. Taft said: 'The first item in the cost
is the $20,000,000 paid under the treaty, and this,
I may add, is the only correct item in the state
ment' It is the present contention of the Bureau
of Insular Affairs that even this item is not prop
erly chargeable to the cost of the Philippines. It
is defined officially by that bureau as 'the com
promise settlement in lieu of our refusal to rec
ognize the bonded obligations of the Philippine
Islands before our acquisition of them."
In another article the Post's correspondent says: