' '" .""' , fWif"
AUGUST 9, 1107
The Commoner.
3
required some courage on the part of a republi
can president to repudiate his own platform and
borrow from the platforms of his opponents and
he Is entitled to credit for it. Some of the so
called democratic papers refuse to say a good
word for the president because these papers do
not believe In railroad regulation, trust prosecu
tion, the income tax and arbitration, but nearly
all democrats do, and by commending the presi
dent on these subjects they help to convince re
publicans that democratic Ideas have virtue in
them.
What democratic speaker has converted as
many republicans to-democracy as tho president
has? If the democrats abandoned democratic
reforms merely because the president endorsed
them they would simply turn over the demo
cratic platform to the opposition. The president
has made It impossible for republicans to op-
pose the democratic party on railroad regulation,
trust prosecution, Income tax and arbitration,
and it would be ungenerous to refuse to recog
nize tho great service he has rendered.
But in commending the president when ho
is democratic, Mr. Bryan does not overlook the
bad things' said and done. His military spirit,
his desire for a large navy, his leanings toward
centralization, his silence on tariff reform, his
refusal to urge tho direct election of senators,
and his failure to make railroad regulation and
trust prosecution effective all these have been
criticized.
Peter Cartright was once asked If ho was
sanctified and he replied "yes, in spots." Tho
president is democratic in spots and, while tho
spots are not large enqugh'or numerous enough,
democrats are justified in calling attention to
the spots and admiring them. The popularity
which the president has won has been won by
his democratic spots and this popularity ought to
be a lesson to both democrats and republicans.
It ought to convince democrats of the folly of
running away from radical democracy, and it
ought to teach thousands of young republicans
the wisdom of taking the people's side on public
questions.
oooo
'A BILLION DOLLAR ASSET
" -'During the month of August, 1902, the
Washington correspondent for the . Chicago
Record-Herald (republican) sent to his news
paper this dispatch:
"It was not a democratic campaigner,
but a western republican who said to your
correspondent: 'I see President Schwab of
the steel trust has made public an estimate,
of the value of the various assets of that,
great corporation, $700,000,000 for ore
mines, $300,000,000 for steel plants, $200,
000,000 for transportation facilities, etc.
But I am surprised that Mr. Schwab with his
keen Msiness acumen, should fail to in-.
elude one of the most valuable of all the' '
assets of tho United States steel corpora-
tion. This is a device which shuts out all '
foreign competition. It' is a scheme which
compels foreign manufacturers of steel and
iron who want to sell goods in the American'
market-to stand a handicap of 40 per cent
before they can do so. How much this,
asset is worth to the steel trust it would '
be very difficult for an outsider to estimate,
and for that reason I should like to see (
President Schwab's figures. I venture the
assertien that he would not rate it a penny
less than $1,000,000,000. Probably the
fact that this asset is on' the federal stat
ute books under the name of the Dingley
law led Mr. Schwab to leave it out of his
long, imposing list of the property and re
sources of his corporation.' "
What party provided this trust with this
valuable asset, an asset that Mr. "Schwab would
probably not rate a penny less than one billion
dollars? The republican party.
What has the republican party received in
return for the maintenance of this valuable as
set? Generous campaign contributions.
If this valuable asset is worth not a penny
less them $1,000,000,000, from whose pockets
does this immense sum come? From the pockets
of the people.
This Record-Herald dispatch attracted, at
the time, general attention; there was then in
the republican party considerable tariff revision
sentiment. Nearly five years have elapsed, but
in the meantime nothing has been done to inter
fere with' the steel trust's Billion Dollar Asset,
alias The Dingley Bill. " .s
Why should a statesman like Senator Hop
kins have the eff rontry to promise revision' "after
tho presidential election?" Why should news
paper editors who know tho hollowncss of that
promlso parado it, as worthy of consideration,
beforo their oft deluded readers?
Why should tho American people givo their
votes to a party that would provido so valuablo
an asset as tariff shelter to a handful of men
and at tho expenso of the peoplo?
OOOO
HOPKINS ON THE DINGLEY RATES
Senator Hopkins of Illinois recently held
a conference with Mr. Roosevelt at Oystor Bay.
After that conference Senator Hopkins an
nounced that "the conclusion was reached that
no tariff revision should be undertaken until
after tho next presidential election."
"It would be suicidal to the republican
party," tho senator added, "to undortako a re
vision of the tariff during the next congress.
After the presidential election I 'believe it will
be the duty of the republican party to revlso
the tariff and that it will be done."
Mr. Hopkins remarked that ho believed
such an argument would appeal to and "bo ac
cepted by tho republican revisionists In all parJ.3
of the country.
In this connection an editorial which ap
peared during July, 1905, in the Ohio Stato
Journal (republican) will be interesting. Tho
Boston Transcript had referred to Congressman
Lawrence of Massachusetts saying: "Ho is on
record in favor of tariff revision and yet Is a
good protectionist." The Ohio Stato Journal
added:
"Revision and protection are not in
compatible terms. Tho New York Tribune,
'founded by Horace Greeley,' strongly ad
vocates revision. Tho Dingley act was
passed eight years ago, and the country has 1
outgrown it. SENATOR HOPKINS, WHO :,
WAS ON THE WAYS AND MEANS COM- '
MITTEE OF THE HOUSE, WHICH RE- !
PORTED THE BILL, SAYS THAT IT :
WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
DINGLEY DUTIES WERE MADE HIGHER '
THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BE- 1
CAUSE IT WAS EXPECTED THAT RECI- '
PROCITY ..TREATIES WOULD REDUCE '
THEM. The New York Tribune sustains '
this view by declaring that 'the law was" '
faulty from the beginning With such au
thorities testifying to the Inherent faults of
the act, tho persistency in opposing a re
vision on some items is unfriendly to the
cause of protection Itself. Revision does
not call for one step backward. It enly In
sists upon carrying out the principle upon
which the Dingley bill was enacted, viz.,
that some of the duties were fixed high In
order to reduce them In the attainment of
reciprocity. That reciprocity did not mater
ialize, in the way anticipated, does not les
sen the duty contemplated by the framers
of the law. They fixed some rates high 'In
order to reduce them. That was eight years
ago. All hope that congress, at the coming
session, will enact the proper revision, and
thus fulfill the purpose of the law, and sus
tain the views of President Roosevelt."
So it will be seen that in July, 1905, tho
Ohio State Journal said: "All hope that con
gress at the coming session will enact the proper
revision."
"The coming session" began in December,
1905, but nothing was done.
Another session began December, 190C, but' -nothing
was done.
k And now we are Informed that nothing
will be done at tho session to begin in 1907, be
cause to do anything in the way of tariff revi
sion then would be "suicidal to the republican
party."
Yet the Ohio State Journal tells us that
this same Senator Hopkins, who, while a mem
ber of the lower house was on the ways and
means committee, which reported the Dingley
bill, declared that "it was well understood 'that .
the Dingley. duties were made higher than should
have been, because It was expected that reel- .
proclty treaties would reduce them."
But the republican party has dodged reci
procity even as it has dodged tariff revision;
and the enormous rates provided In the Dingley
bill admittedly "higher than they should have
been" are to remain undisturbed because it
would be "suicidal to the republican party" for
congress to do justice to the consumers of the
United States by revising the tariff at least to
the end -that the shelter provided by the trusts
be destroyed.
And according tp the New York ""Tribune
tho Dingley law was faulty from tho begin
ning;" but it will not do for this act of Injustlco
to bo remedied because to remedy It would bo
"suicidal to tho republican party!"
And why suicidal?
Would tho people complain If the republi
can party should destroy tho shelter which tho
trusts find In tho tariff?
Would tho people complain if the republican
party reduced tho tariff at lenst to tho. point
which In tho opinion of ultra-protcctlonlstH Hko
Nelson Dingley, Senator Dolllver of Iowa and
Senator Hopkins of Illinois Is tho limit of pro
tection enacted with any Idea apart from tho
cold-blooded purposo of using tho tnxlng power
of the government to filch from the pockets of
tho people In ordor to put monoy In tho purno
of men who provido campaign funds for tho
republican party?
If to revlso tho tariff before the olectlon
would bo "suicidal to tho republican party" why
not suicidal after tho election?
The republican party will not revise tho
tariff before olectlon because Its leaders want
tho money and tho Influonco of tho tnrlff barons
in tho effort to elect a republican president In
1908. And after tho election, should the repub
lican party bo victorious, some ono will bo de
ceived. Tho party will fool olthor tho trusta or
tho peoplo. Did unyone cvor hear of a generous
contributor to republican campaign funds being
a victim of misplaced confidence? . Even Harrl
man after all tho noise and bombast that was
made has been given an Immunity bath; and
even Harrlman'a $250,000 contribution to tho
republican party was not given in vain.
OOOO
SIMPLE
The Baltimore Sun gives tho American clt
zen something to think about when it says:
"The' president has been 'trust-busting' for soven
years, and If any private citizen In this whole
broad land has received any benefit from his
exertions If the price of any one trust-mado
article has been reduced by tho 'trust-busting'
which has so dollghted tho country then the
markot reports do not disclose the fact. $aa
man, the Syrian, rejected the proplfot'B receipt
for curing h'ls leprosy because It was too simple.
It was only to wash and be clean. Ho demanded
something spectacular. He wanted Elsha to
come out to him and stand and call upon tho
name of tho Lord and strike his hand over tho
place. And so the real cure of the monopoly
that Is afllicting tho country Is too: simple to
impress the public. What Is monopoly? It la
the absence of competition. Then why not, in
the name of reason and common sense, tako
down the bars and let competition enter? A!
great fine may bo Imposed upon the Standard
Oil company. But what will that avail? It
will simply result In a higher price for oil, and
so the peoplo will lose Instead of finding relief
-in that kind of 'trust-busting.' If the sugar
trust is exacting an unfair pr'ce for sugar, why
not let tho German refineries compete with
them? If tho tobacco trust maintains high prices
why not let Cuba compote with it? This Is not
only too simple, but It would be too effective.
The peopje who are standing pat on the tariff
do not want the trusts curbed."
! , oooo
' A COMPLAINT
' Thread six cents? O, my; O, my;
Everything is awful hih,
And the things you have to buy
Cost the most.
. 'Papers tell of bargains great; V
Seems like almost tempting fato -J,
Nof to buy them at such rate.
As they boast.
Vegetables, steaks and fruit,
Any price that it may suit
They may charge, we'll not dispute. v
But for thread! '. .
Wo shoujd rise up in o.iir might, t
Wonfen should, and make a fight .,
For what, we' consider" right,
jtv vy.v. vj num.
V
t
i
of
j
-
j
Never did' we want to.te; '
Never, 'never did we quojte
Those who did, or everi'nbto
Thplr desire. ' '
But when they our rights defy . ,
: Those' who make threa'tf prices high
Then we've got to, or they'll fly
Them up higher.
St. Louis Globe-Democrat.
VI
V II
w -$r
gwwgt, '
WA u-C
t -vLi- (4-i
