w WWWfCSBBjt-Trr f
The Commoner.
JUNE 26, 190S
1WllipW)Bppwwp.wWi'p'i'''w i p m)mvmmim'tmm
assumption that his only interest is in the
suffrage laws of the south. No republican speak
er discusses economic questions before a colored
audience, and yet the negro is interested in every
economic question that affects the white man.
With most of the negroes raising cotton and
scarcely any employed in factories a' high tariff
would be hard to justify before a negro audience.
It is"an insult to his intelligence as well as to
his patriotism to suggest, as the republican lead
ers constantly do, that ho thinks of no questions
except those that arise between the races.
The republican platform deals with the
tariff question in a way that closes the door of
hope to the tariff reformer. It authorizes "a
revision of the tariff by a special session of con
gress to be held immediately following the in
auguration of the next president." Revision
does not necessarily mean reduction. In fact,
Secretary Taft has himself said that he thought
some of the schedules were too high and others
too low. There is nothing in the republican
platform to give any assurance that the average
tariff will not be higher after revision than be
fore. An attempt is made to lay down the prin
ciple upon which the revision will be conducted,
but the principle is not a new one, it is merely
a restatement of the principle upon which the
present high duties were established. When has
the republican party asked for more than "the
difference between the cost of production at
home and abroad?" That is all that it has
asked for for ten or fifteen years, and yet while
it only asked for that it has built up
prohibitory duties. The new platform not
only asks for a tariff sufficient to recover the
difference in cost of production at homo and
abroad, but it also asks for "a reasonable profit
to American industries." If, on the pretense that
they were giving us a tariff only sufficient to
cover the difference in cost of production, the
republicans make it high enough to cover the
entire cost of labor twice over, how much more
will they add to satisfy this new demand for "a
reasonable profit to American industries?" The
trouble is that they start out with the proposi
tion that we must have a protective tariff and
then they ask the manufacturers how much they
need and, as the manufacturers accompany the
answer with a campaign contribution, the ordi
nary taxpayer gets little consideration. The gov
ernment has been made a private asset by the
protected interests and they have capitalized
their ability to control, the law making power.
The fat has been fried out of the beneficiaries of
the high tariff and the beneficiaries have then
been given a chance to recoup themselves out of
the pockets of the people. Public opinion has
been corrupted by the studious circulation of the
idea that the taxing power can be farmed out to
a comparatively small fraction of the population
and that the rest of the population must pay
constant tribute to the few.
The plan for a maximum and a minimum
tariff is delusive. Senator Dolliver has testified
that the Dingley law. according to the confession
of the author of the lav, fixed the rates unneces
sarily high in order that they might be used to
secure reciprocal agreements with other nations.
But having been secured, they were maintained
for the benefit of the protected industries.
It is a fact worthy of notice that while the
convention wants to give the president power
to retaliate against foreigners who discriminate,
no complaint is made of the American manufac
turers who discriminate against Americans and
sell to foreigners at lower prices than they sell
at home.
As usual, the advocates of a high tariff in
sist that the wage-earners are "the most direct
beneficiaries of the protective system." And
yet these very advocates of the high tariff show
their disregard of the wage-earners whenever
the wage-earners present a petition or ask for a
reform.
The platform endorses one proposition that
has not before found a place in a republican
national platform,, namely, the postal savings
bank. This is a good plank, yet this
proposition is in a platform that declares
that the "trend of democracy is toward
socialism while the republican party stands
for a wise and regulated individualism."
What greater extension of the power of the gov
ernment have we had in recent years than that
proposed in the establishment of the postal
savings bank? The postal savings bank is de
manded because the republican party has failed
to regulate the national banks. The democratic
party has insisted upon regulation that would
increase the' security of depositors and thus re
store confidence. The minority leader in the
senate and the minority leader in the house pro
posed systems for securing depositors against ,
loss. These systems left tho banking business
in tho hands of tho banks, but gave to the dopofii
tors assurance that their money could bo wiffli
drawn at any time. This plan is less socialistic
than the republican plan, and yet after tho re
publicans refused the less socialistic system, tho
republican platform accuses tho democrats of
socialism while endorsing the plan that more
largely extends the sphere of governmental act
ivity. The democrats believe that tho depositors
in both state and national banks should bo
guaranteed against loss and they favor the postal
savings bank if security can not be secured in
any other way, but the democrats prefer a sys
tem, such as that adopted in Oklahoma, which
leaves the banking business in the hands of tho
banks, and compols the banks to assume tho
duty of protecting depositors.
The Philippine question is given a Httlo
more than an inch of space, and none of that
space is devoted to a statement of tho policy
of the republican party. Strange that so many
inches of space can bo given to a boastful exag
eration of what the republican party has dono
and no space given to a statement of the purpose
of the party in dealing with eight millions of
people who are denied the guarantees of tho
constitution, taxed without representation and
governed without regard to tho principles set
forth in the declaration of independence.
Nowhere in tho platform does partisan
bias show itself more clearly than in the attempt
ed enumeration of the differences between tho
two parties. The platform says that democracy
"stood for debased currency," the republican
party "for honest currency;" "tho one for free
silver, the other for sound money." It is not
true that the democratic party stood for a de
based currency or that the republican party
stood for an honest currency, nor is it true that
the republican party stood for a currency more,
sound than that advocated by the democratic,
party. In 1896 both stood for bimetallism, but1
the republican party was pledged to interna-
tional bimetallism, while the democratic PArty
was pledged to independent bimetallism. The1
republican party used the pledge of internatiorial'
bimetallism to deceive westorn republicans and
abandoned its efforts to secure an international
agreement soon after the election. Unexpectedly
to republicans, as well as to democrats, an in
crease in the production of gold has removed the
money question from the arena of politics, but
the beneficial results that have followed an in
crease in the volume1 of money have vindicated
the democratic position rather than tho republi
can position. And it was not) tho republican!
party, but these unlooked for discoveries of i tho
yellow metal that gave the high prices which
have followed an Increase ini the volume - of
money.
The platform says that tho democratic
party stands for "free trade and the other for
protection." Tho democratic party does not
stand for free trade. It stands for a material
reduction of the tariff, and wants- it imme
diately. No party proposes the abolition
of. the customs house, and those who wrote tho
republican platform were compelled to misrep
resent the democratic position because they could
not successfully assail it. To have stated the
subject honestly, the platform ought to have said,
"the democratic party stands for a reduction of
the tariff, the . republican party for revision,"
but as the plaform does not say whether revision
is to be up or down an honest state
ment of the real difference between the parties
would have been embarrassing to the republi
cans. The platform says that the democratic
party stands "for contraction of the American
influence, tho other for its expansion." That
is palpably untrue. The democratic party be
lieves in the expansion of American influence,
but it does not believe In carrying the flag to
any place where the constitution can not accom
pany it. Why did notthe platform writers say
that the democratic ft&rty opposed colonialism
and that the republican party favored colonial
ism? Why did they not use language that cor
rectly states the difference between the positions
of the parties? But here Is the choicest contrast:
"tho one (the democratic party ) has been forced
to abandon every position taken on the great
issues before the people, the other (the republi
can party) has held and vindicated all." Three
republican congresses have declared in favor
of the election of the United States senators by
the people. Has the republican party held and
vindicated that?. For answer read the vote of
seven to one in the republican convention by
which this reform was repudiated. The dem
ocratic , party has not abandoned its position' Ih
favor of tariff reform, but it lute compelled1 thq
republican party to advocate tariff roform during
this campaign, even if there Is cvory indication
that tho republican leadors have no intontlon of
fulfilling 'tho promise. Has tho democratic party
abandonod its position on tho trust question?
On the contrary It has forced tho republican
party to admit that tho trust is an evil. Has
tho democratic party abandoned Its position on
imperialism? On the contrary its position has
been so vindicated that tho republican party
does not dare to announce Its purpose to main
tain a colonial system. Has the democratic
party abandoned the position that It has long
taken in denouncing favoritism and privilege as
tho sources of great injustice? On tho contrary,
it has forced a republican president to recognizo
the danger of swollen fortunes and to cry out
against them. It can oven congratulate itself
upon the endorsement of the income tax, a dem
ocratic doctrine, by a republican president.
Here is another piece of rhetoric in which
tho convention indulged: "In experience tho
difference between democracy and republican
ism is that one means adversity while tho other
means prosperity; one means low wagos tho
other means high; one means doubt and debt,
the other means confidence and thrift." Wo
might have expected tho republican party to
avoid the panic question. At least, wo might
have expected it to sing low on prosperity with
tho memory of tho recent panic still fresh in
the minds of the people and the discussion of
high wages ought not to become boisterous
While wases are being reduced In the east. And
why speak of "doubt" and "debt," and "confi
dence" and "thrift," when doubt on tho part of
depositors who are the debtors of the bonks has
provoked the republican party to advocate a
postal savings bank as a means of restoring con
fidence among those thrifty onough to havo
something to deposit.
Here is another specimen: "In principles,
the difference between democracy and republi
canism is that one stands for vacillation and
timidity in government, the other for strongth
and purpose; one stands for obstruction' the
other for construction; tho one promises, tho
other performs." Again the writers of thto
platform sacrifice truth to phrase-making.
"Vacillation and timidity" are characteristic of
the conservative, and the republican ' party Is s
conservative In that it obstructs progress. '
"Strength and purpose," on the contrary, aro the
characteristics of the reformer and the demo
cratic narty stands for reform. The demo
cratic party in defeat ha"sbeen strong enough
to coerce the republican parlylnio Cl&B&mja
advocacy of some remedial legislation. The doin-f
ocratic party has had a purpose strong onough to
furnish inspiration for whatever reforms tho
president has tempted. Tho republican rarty
has been the obstructionist and the democratic
party has been the constructive party. The re
publican prfrty has been long on promises while
the democratic party, even while in a minority,
has supported the president In the reforms that
he has accomplished and urged him on to others.
The platform attempts to make tho repub
lican party the champion of Individualism and
the democratic party the advocate of-socialism.
It says: "The present tendencies of the two
parties are even more marked by Inherent differ
ences. The trend of democracy Is toward social
ism, while the republican party stands for a
wise and regulated individualism. Socialism
would destroy wealth, republicanism would pre
vent its abuse. Socialism would give to each
an equal right to take; republicanism would
give to each an equal right to earn. Socialism
would offer an equality of possession which
would soon leave no one anything to possess;
republicanism would, give equality of opportu
nity which would assure to each his share of a
constantly increasing sum of possessions. In
line with this tendency, the democratic party
of today believes in government ownership, while
the republican party believes in government reg
ulation. Ultimately, democracy would have tho
nation own the people, while republicanism
would have the people own the nation."
During what years did socialism show the
greatest growth? During the four years that
intervened between 1900 and 1904. So great
was the growth of socialism during those four
years that the actual numerical increase in the
socialist party was greater than the in
crease in the strength of the republican party.
Betveen 1900 and 1904 the socialist party
gained more votes than the republican party
did, and that, too, in spite of the fact that the
republican party boasted of its great victory-in
(Continued on Page 6)
m