"-r t
SnwnnwHWMIIIWfUW imMJUMmnn..
iMMWttMIM'ttimAMM!
I
Commoner.
1 '" ' ' ' ' "., '..
FH. m, Ire
iV. ' V
iv
It.
mm
K ''. ' . lit
" V.
?T . si ' - ; r -- :
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
vjs!,,x ': '.j.ifflf --
YOL. 7N0. 51
f:
amci.
vrrii
WTENTS
,&..
WAiRIinrif-HBLP OR HINDRANCE?
A If ORD TQ STATE BANKERS
THilCOUNTRY NEWSPAPER
t
THE WISE AGE
PiJlTIiOlITY TO WALL STREET
GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE OP DEPOSITS
h '-V-Si'';
. ,, i j.
l",i ,k. . - . i . " i
i
1 5 wwrJ
I ''
II ' 1 J ICVWHk
r . jn. xigvtika:
THBDUMPING ARGUMENT
PLANNTNG?;FpR THE GREAT CONTEST OP
& 190,8
WASHINGTON LETTER
(J- Vji -
' :- UUMMJSJNT UW UUKitiiiT TUiMUS
HOME DEPARTMENT
ETHER COMMON OR NOT
-;;
NEWS OP THE WEEK
. 'v'j-iiL'KJ
..p
BIG DIVIDENDS
orl disnatch to the ChlcaSro Rec-
:ord-Herald"H(rrtr "That one jobbing firm
affilufcisd. ftli'i',tho American Tobacco company
;l 4BS4JT butiiiSws of $13,000,000 a year in Now
Tork , City' affd Yonkers was brought out today
'"Wifcifcfcitflfir of the government's action against
. .edwiiJiliiybefore United States CommisBion-
itffRliitidsI , Adolph D. Bendeim, president of the
, Mtropolitui tobacco company, so testified with
reference; to 'this concern. Over Beventy-flve per
cent of thto jobbing business of New York City
WMconjkrolted by the Metropolitan, Mr. Ben-
deim jcdatinued. It bought out twenty smaller
jobbtni. " 3. W. Reed, president of the Amster-
r. dam Supply company, organized to purchase
uppli for the American Tobacco company and
' Bubjiidiariwf, said the supply company recently
earned' enough to declare a stock dividend of
ixty : jp.aif ceift."
. r'vi'this a good or a bad trust?
&':iW OOOO
ri
PRINT THE TESTIMONY
The Saturday Evening Post of December 7
containgan article by John D. Archbold in de
fenseiofthe Standard Oil company. The fact
that MrTohn D. Archbold draws a handsome
lncomtach year from the Standard Oil company
. giyiHim a bias in favor of the company, and
th'Uilu' being known to the readers of tho
',&turday Evening Post, will lessen the weight
ofo article. That its readers may be cor-
-rtctl informed, it might, be well for the Post
tb:rjpredht some of the testimony taken In the
various suits against the standard uu company.
i. Vfft'JW'i. .
T'MHBR.' OOOO
DEMOCRATIO NEWS SERVICE
&:Mv. Willis J. Abbot is conducting a news
Mrfee which can be relied upon. His own
-lMwliiy' to democratic principles, his acquaint
a&swith public men and his knowledge of pub-
$.:.: , MCifalfairs all enable him to present to the demo-
,oiratlc standpoint. Editors desirlnginformation
''osSgublic questions ought to write to Mr. Ab
l5tffior he is In a position to tell them what ifl
going on.
OOOO
NEW POSTAL RULING
b The postmaster general has Issued an order
'iAvwKective January 1, 1908, which requires pub-
, $jpjBHers of weekly papers to drop from their
' fJabscription lists the names of all subscribers
'$l$wlyhose subscriptions are twelve months or more
"'4a arrears. Cancellation of the paper's second-
A-s??t.'w9teliacj moll nflvllop'n ia tTh nonnlfv frr fnlliirA
'in comnlv with the above rule.
i.1
tf
'
-w
Lincoln, Nebraska, January 3, 1908
Whole Number 363
' "" - i ii m, tmmmmmm M M
I STOCK EXCHANGE
5- jfWrinrrer
"I 'Hi'' Mi
v3 sag5j-T5r-Sjtfsr?gj?i!-iJ!sjrfs--rr J
f l WP " I I imlllil 1 1
Jrpf.f gamBLh
As to Panics The Ounce of Prevention
Tariff Help or Hindrance?
Senator Beveridge's article entitled "Revi
sion Necessary by Commission," and printed
in the Reader Magazine, is a frank confession
that the Import duties which wo now collect
are indefensible; but while he admits that re
vision is necessary, he is as unreliable as other
champions of protection in tho arguments pre
sented and as much at sea as they in propos
ing a remedy. In the first place, he assumes
that tho principle of protection has been es
tablished throughout the world. He quotes Mr.
Balfour, of England, as saying that Great
Britain Is "on tho evo of abandoning that 'anti
quated and moth-eaten system,' " referring to
a tariff for revenue only. He ought to havo
explained that Mr. Balfour is an ex-premier,
and that the prefix "ex" was attached with un
usual emphasis because he went before the
country on the protection issue. The defeat
which the high tariff idea received In Great
Britain was especially significant. The move
ment for protection was headed by Mr. Cham
berlain just at the close of tho Boer war, when
he was enjoying a vast amount of popularity
because he had conducted the war for the over
throw of two republics in South Africa. He
made a canvass of Great Britain and rallied to
his support a large number of manufacturers,
who, like the manufacturers of this country,
furnished him with the necessary campaign
funds. As a result of the contest the liberal
party won the greatest victory that has been
credited to it in recent years, and the protective
idea received a staggering blow. Of course,
Senator Beverldge can pVophesy a reversal of
public sentiment and a future victory for his
pet theory, but prophecies aro not history and
predictions aro not arguments. Tho fact that
Germany is wedded to a high tariff Is not con
clusive proof that it Is wise. If tho tariff sys
tem is good, it must stand upon its own merits,,
not upon tho fact that in some other nation
those in power manifest a willingness to tax
the whole country for tho benefit of a part of
the country. Our manufacturers, however, aro
more afraid of the competition of England than
they are of the competition of Germany, and
yet Germany has the protective system, whllo
England refuses to adopt it, and England, with
a low tariff, pays higher wages tfian Germany
with a high tariff. We pay higher wages than
cither Germany or England, and yet we can
send into foreign countries tho goods made by
high-priced labor and, without any protection,
compete successfully. No system of logic has
been devised which can prove that we need a
high tariff to hold our own markets when we
can conquer othermarkets in open competiton
with tho world.
Senator Beverldge now wants a tariff whv-i
will, first, "raise as much revenue as possible; ,
second, encourage our home industries; and ft
third, open foreign markets to our surplus pro-'
ducts," and the last he declares to be the "prob
lem for the American producers to solve." The
first and second propositions are difficult to
reconcile. In proportion as a tariff really in
creases a home industry, it fails as a revenue
measure. If, for Instance, we consume ten mil
lion dollars' worth of a certain product, of which
there is no domestic manufacture, and we put
on a fifty per cent duty in order to encourage
i
i
I
i.l
3
m
1
"BT- "-
iMrfS