't i pwpwjmj'll?PWV
i
-t.
4
The Commoner.
VOLUME 7, NUMBER 33
.rf
..
&&
V
A
,
ir
6 f fi
m H.n
!ii
IP
t .
:
!!
H" 1
kk
, r ii
' '
Washington Letter
, ,' Washington, D. C, September 30. The As
sociated Press has never been accused of lack
of political influence. Nor has it ever failed to
uso this influence in behalf of the party in power.
It was cheerfully democratic when Cleveland was
president, and at all other times has been en
thusiastically republican.
The American Newspaper Publishers' As
sociation has not been quite so avowedly parti
san. It is more of a democratic association,
using the word "democratic" in its proper sense
as meaning an organization governed by all of
its members instead of by a small clique.
However these two associations at a meet
ing in New York a few days ago took up the
question of the enormous increase in the price
of print paper due to the paper trust which is
maintained by the tariff on wood pulp. The
newspaper owners who voted were men who
control republican and democratic papers both,
and they adopted the following resolution:
"Resolved, That it is the sense of this meet
ing that the duty on printing paper, wood pulp
and all material entering into the manufacture
of printing paper, be immediately repealed."
Republican publishers voted as enthusiasti
cally for this resolution as did democratic or in
dependent publishers. But what are the repub
lican editors going to do? They can make it
very hot for republican representatives ranging
from the newest member of the Sixtieth congress
to "Uncle .Toe" Cannon, chief of all the stand
patters, with their bitter outcry for free wood
pulp and everything used by them. If the re
publicans do grant to the newspapers of their
own party faith concessions of this sort, why
shouldn't they grant like concessions to the
farmer who has to buy agricultural machinery
at a greatly increased price, owing to a trust
buttressed by the tariff? If great papers of this
country say of the tariff, "Let well enough
alone," what right have they got to go before
congress and plead that where the tariff is not
well enough for them it must he amended? Why
has not the New York Tribune, or the Chicago
Record-Herald, or the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
or the Cincinnati Tribune pointed out in the
interests of their readers and of their adver
tisers that the tariff breeds trusts and despoils
ho people? These republican papers have been
eager enough to break down that part of the
tariff that affects their own pocket books, but
have nothing to say in de'fense of the interests
of the masses of the people.
It is. so easy to apply to the argument of
the republican press, in which the democratic
press joins with perfect consistency based on
its past record, its earlier utterances and the
argument of its idols, like Cannon and Foraker,
Tjift, the late Dlngley, Fairbanks, Beveridge
and the rest, that to touch any part of this
sainted tariff means to destroy the entire sys
tem. Moreover it should be borne in mind that
if there is a tariff on wood pulp, and other art
icles entering into the manufacture of paper,
it enables the paper trust to pay high wages to
its employes, who thereby are provided with
funds to spend in the busy marts of trade. There
isn't a bit of difference between free pulp, or
free coal, or free wool, or free hides. The only
difference is that the owners and editors of
great republican newspapers seem to be per
fectly willing that the people should be taxed
on everything for which they have use in order
to protect tho industries involved, but do not
ininic mat tney, mo publishers, should bo taxed
on anything that enters into their own manu
facturing business.
Tho owners of democratic newspapers who
stand for tariff reform have no reason to do
anything except rejoice that the shoo is be
ginning to pinch their republican associates, but
how tho editor of a high tariff paper can demand
as two score of them did, that the tariff on
articles which he used in his business should
be reduced, while tho tariff on everything that
men and their families wear from shoes to hats
and everything that they put into their houses'
from a furnace to the shingles on the roof'
should bo maintained at its present figure, will
bo something they will have to explain in the
next congress.
The most .remarkable feature about the
government suit ,to dissolve the oil trust, now
being pressed in New York, is not that this
corporation was able by more than questionable
methods to make a profit of upwards of a bil
lion dollars in twenty-five years, over b-Uf of
which has been earned during President Roose
velt's occupancy of the "White House; not that
John D. Rockefeller has made about sixteen
million dollars yearly in profits and coined
money at the rate of over $21 a minute as the
heaviest stockholder in this company; but that
any such unrighteous industrial practices as tho
oil trust has indulged in should have been
allowed to continue unhampered as long as they
have. The billion dollar profit that the Stand
ard points to with such pride, the $21 John D.
Rockefeller gets every time the minute hand on
his clock ticks, are not after all as great an in
dictment against the oil combine as against the
government that has so long allowed such a
condition of affairs to exist.
The vices of the oil trust is an ancient tale.
Its methods were investigated by congress as
far back as 1888, and practices then charged
and proved, for which the oil trust has only now,
twenty years later, been called to account. Henry
Demarest Lloyd wrote his "Wealth Against
Comomitfwealth" over a decade and a half ago,
setting forth an impeachment of the Standard
Oil methods far more convincing than the re
cent report of Commissioner Smith of the bureau
of corporations. Over three years ago Miss
Tarbell published her two-volume "History of
the Standard Oil Company" which contained
the old charges of Lloyd and supported them
with much new data. Much of Miss Tarbell's
information was actually news at the time it
appeared, but Commissioner Smith's report
while an able document, added really nothing
new either to the charges or the facts against
the oil monopoly. The report of Mr. Smith,
the fine of Judge Landis, and the present suit
to dissolve the trust are really indictments
against every administration since that of Har
rison until the present time. No matter who
was in power such a huge and unconscionable
monopoly should never have been permitted to
have grown up in this country with the Sher
man law on the statute books.
Within two days remarkable interviews
have appeared with regard to the present and
future attitude of the United States toward the
Philippines, one from Admiral Dewey, and one
from former Senator Charles A. Towne. These
interviews differ in but one important respect.
They both admit the strategic and commercial
importance of the islands. They both admit
that the islands are in themselves a great finan
cial and moral burden to our nation, but Ad
miral Dewey says: "I do not believe our coun
try should or will ever abandon the Philippines,"
while Mr. Towne says, "Under no circumstances
am J in favor of the indefinite retention of the'
islands as a dependency of a the United States."
In declaring for permanent occupation of
the Philippines, Admiral Dewey does not state
the position of either of our political parties
on this question. The republican party lias
never had the courage to declare for a per
manent occupation of the archipelago. Both
in its national platform of 1900 and 1904 the
republican party was content to remain silent
on the question of the ultimate independence
of the Filipinos. Its policy is one of indefinite
occupation of the islands without any promise
as to the ultimate object of that occupation.
No one knows whether the republican party in
tends to ultimately treat the Philippines as we
have treated Cuba, or whether it intends to
embark this country upon a policy of colo
nialism similar to that of England.
As against this indefinite attitude the demo
cratic party takes a firm stand against our na
tion becoming a colonial empire, and contends
that both to quiet Filipino fears and dissatis
faction on account of continued American occu
pation of the islands, and to supply the Filipino
with the best incentive to rapid improvement
that our nation at once definitely state that our
ultimate object in the islands is to secure for
her people a stable government and give them
independence as soon as they evince the ability
to undertake its responsibilities.
Mr. Towne's interview should also clear
away many erroneous impressions that have
been industriously engendered by republican
spellbinders in many minds concerning the at
titude of the democratic party and many of its
leaders toward the Philippine problem. I
should like to quote Mr. Towne at length, but
lack of space forces me to briefly summarize
his statements. He is not in favor of our nation
selling its wai'ds to any other power, especially
Japan. He Is not In favor of our "vacating the
islands and leaving them to their own devices
without provision touching the maintenance of
their .national independence and the preserva
tion of their domestic order." He would "abso
lutely defend the islands against any aggres-
sion from any source to the limit." He "would
favor, provided we could not neutralize the inl
ands internationally, the retention of a naval
and commercial strategic base in the archipelago
as the best guarantee that no" other nation on
earth should ever dominate the Philippine "
He would at once do simple justice to the r .
pino by giving him free access to the America!
market for his chief products, because we fr r-. -fully
took away the Spanish markets he had jim.i
then under a republican tariff law shut ht-n
out from our markets, a law the republi -,n
party has constantly refused to repeal. mV
Towne says that by doing this, "we will gho
the Filipino convincing proof of our desire to
be just to him, and of our capacity to be wiso
in our mutual interests." But lastly, but not
least, Mr. Towne says: "It is perhaps unneces
sary for me to add that under no circumstanopg
am I in favor of the indefinite retention of the
islands as a dependency of the United States "
WILLIS J. ABBOT.
Letters From the People :
F. M. Hall, Danvers, 111. I wish to submit
a proposition to the readers of The Commoner.
It is this, that every subscriber donate The
Commoner one year to some . conservative re
publican of his acquaintance. Believing it is
for the good of our party, I send you the name
and money with this letter.
H. H. Schenk, Memphis, Mo. I wish to
make a suggestion. Would it not be well to
devote a page in your paper to the readers' use
to contribute articles on the general subjects
of the day. Invite them to contribute.
James N. Symons, St. Louis, Itfo. Will
you kindly permit me a few lines of space in
your "letters from the people" department?
In your issue of the 26th, Mr. J. W. Thornton,
Douglas, . Arizona, writes under a wrong im
pression when he says that no political econo
mist has ever explained the phenomena of per
iodical depression in trade that occur with more
or less regularity in all commercially active
countries. I do not wish to intrude Upon your
space with an explanation in my own language,
but would like to be permitted to call our
friend's attention to a very clear and convinc
ing explanation offered of the phenomena in
question contained in Henry George's "Progress
and Poverty," book 5, chapter 1, "The primary
cause of recurring paroxysms of industrial op
pression," Doubleday & McClure Co. Edition
page 257. Possibly this will prove of interest
to others as well as Mr. Thornton. In fact I
would strongly urge a close study of the whole
book referred to above for the simple reason
that the writer believes Mr. George to have
there set forth the best and most democratic
democracy of modern times.
George Watkins, Verdon, Neb. In The
Commoner of April 5, under the head "Current
Topics," I see quoted from the Houston (Tex.)
Post this statement: "The total estimated
value of the national wealth in 1904 was $107,
104,192,410." The Post correspondent says:
"This represents an increase in the four year
period from 1900 ,to 1904 of $18,580,885,G35.
This advance in national wealth has no parallel
in the history of the United States, except the
decade from 1850 to 1860. In 1860, when the
first estimate of the national wealth was made
the figures were only $7,135,780,228." If you
will take the trouble to compute a little bit you
will see that the increase of national wealth
from 1900 to 19 Qd was less than 5 per cent
simple interest, or almost exactly 3. per cent
compounded annually. Let us take it by de
cades since 1850. In 1860 our national wealth
had increased to $16,159,616,068, or at tho
rate of 12 per cent simple interest, or about
9 per cent compounded annually. By 1870 our
national wealth was $24,054,814,056, specie
value, or an increase of a little less than 5 per
cent per annum. By 1880 our wealth was $43,
642,000,000, an increase of almost exactly 8
per cent per annum. In 1890 our wealth had
increased to $65,037,091,197, or a little less
than 5 per cent per annum. By 1900 our wealth
was $88,514,306,775, an increase for the decade
from 1890 to 1900 of 3 per cent per annum.
Comment is not necessary except to say when
we old pops used to call attention to this matter
we were called all kinds of bad names. In the
Omaha Bee of February 9, 1907, under the
Ji', n. s4
J';fcaMtJth rfAfclS
