Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 25, 1909)
The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR 1s v 'ft VOL. 9, NO. 24 Lincoln, Nebraska, June 25, 1909 Whole Number 440 Who Are the Culprits? The St. Louis Globe-Democrat, In a recent Issue, speaking as If inspired from Washington, declared that "there will be no veto." It says: "But if the bill retains any of its objectionable features when it reaches him, he will undoubt edly sign It, and let the culprit shoulder the responsibility." This is the concluding sentence of an edi torial, nearly a column long, in which there is a labored effort to justify the president in re fusing to interpose a veto to protect the con sumers of the country from increased tariff taxation. The Globe-Democrat quotes the president aa having advocated a "thorough revision" and an "honest rovision;" as saying that "the rates generally, or most of them, are too high;" and as asserting that "the revision, therefore, will probably be downward." And yet with the prospect, if not the certainty, of an increase in the average rate, the Globe-Democrat informs us, and does so as if speaking with authority that the president will "undoubtedly" sign the bill, even if the objectionable features are re tained. He is going to do it and then let the "culprit shoulder the responsibility." But, who are the culprits? According to the constitution the law-making power is vested In the house, senate and presi dent; neither can act without the other and the president's part in law-making is so im portant that he can, by his veto, prevent the passage of any bill unless two-thirds -ofbothnew the tariftV-revWejagltatlon, and .bring the publicans that he regarded it as ax promise of REDUCTION. Is ho keoplng faith with the west ern republicans when he signs a bill INCREAS ING the tariff? The Globe-Democrat cays that "Mr. Cleveland disliked the Gorman changes In the Wilson tariff bill as much as Mr. Taft does those which Mr. Aldrich has made In the Payno measure," but that Mr. Cleveland did not veto the bill. The Globe-Democrat neglects to state, however, that the Wilson bill made a reduction, while the now tariff bill is going to make an increaso in the tariff. If the Payne-Aldrlch bill made a material reduction, the president might bo justified in signing it, even though it did not make a3 much of a reduction as ho desired, but no manipulation of language can furnish the president an excuse for INCREAS ING tariff taxes when ho cultivated among west ern republicans a belief that they wore to have a REDUCTION in tariff. And what reason doe3 the Globe-Democrat give in support of the president's decision to sign the bill? It says: "Yet Mr. Taft will not take the re sponsibility of vetoing a' bill which will not meet his views In overy respect, and thus hamper his party in the coming session, render all the work of the extra session vain, and put the party on the defensive in the congressional campaign next year. A veto would do all this, and It would also check the trade rally, and seriously disappoint the country. A veto of the Payne Aldrlch bill woujd, of course, leave the DIngloy law intact, and the country which lived under It for twelve years could stand it for a few years longer. But a veto would instantly re houses favor the measure. Can the president escape his share of tho responsibility, after as suring the people that the revision would prob ably be downward? Can he justify the sign ing of a bill which raises the tariff rates? The republican party promised "unequivo cally" to revise the tariff "immediately." Why promise "unequivocally" if an increase was In tended? Was an increase so urgently desired as to justify an , unequivocal promise to make the raise; and was the 'increase so imperatively necessary that it should be made "immediate ly?" Were the people so anxious to have their taxes increased that they could not wait until the regular session cf congress? Mr. Aldrich and some of his high tariff asso ciates insist that the republican party did not promise a reduction, but no one can read the platform without recognizing that those who wrote it INTENDED to make the republicans BELIEVE that a DOWNWARD revision was contemplated. Mr. Taft not only ran upon the platform, but so construed it as to convince the western re- CONTENTS TAX WHO ARE THE CULPRITS? - LORIMER DEMOCRATS GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S TONNAGE VETO THE TARIFF IN THE SENATE EDUCATIONAL . SEMES GOVERNMENTAL REFORMS4 IN UNITED" STATES 'FOR 1909 TO MRS. CLEVELAND, DEBTOR FROM THE TARIFF DEBATE . CARNEGIE . PENSION COME HOME TO ROOST PRACTICAL TARIFF TALKS THE TARIFF AND THE JEWELERS CURRENT TOPICS MR. BRYAN NOT A CANDIDATE LETTERS' .FROM THE PEOPLE - SENATOR SIMJOjNS OF NORTH CAROLINA - HOME DEPARTMENT , WHETHER COMMON ,QR; NOT " :-. ityEWS J3F, THE WEEK jt.;. question up in a more acute form than It had before.. Congress would be obliged to iriakean attempt to revise It either by" prolonging the extra session into the fall and winter, or elso to take the matter up In the regular session which begins in December. In either of these alternatives the suspense would be prolonged many months, the prosperity which every one expected to see sbon would be postponed." It will be noticed that the Globe-Democrat justifies the signing of the bill even though the bill be bad on several grounds. First and foremost, is the partisan reason that It would "put the party on the defensive in the congres sional campaign next year." That is, ho Is to put the Interests of the party above the welfare of the country. The tariff barons have taken the party by the throat and compelled it to raise the tariff instead of lowering it and yet, the Globe-Democrat tells us that Mr. Taft will not interfere with the outrage for fear It would put Its party on the defensive, in the congres sional campaign next year. Will not the sign ing of the bill put the party on the defensive? How Is the country to secure reform If a re publican president is afraid to use his veto to prevent an Increase in the taxes? And then are the republican voters compelled to elect another republican congress to "support the president?" If the president signs the bill the republican leaders will contend that the bill fulfills the party's promise and then the voters will be asked to ratify the action of congress. If they do so, the now republican congress will consider itself bound by the vote and will not attempt a reduction, especially In the prosenco of another campaign, and then the same game can be played again in If 12 provided, of course, tbe, people, are willing to be fooled again. .Is this the only hope of revision that the re publican party can offer? The Globe-Democrat gives as a second reason, namely, that a veto would "check the trade rally and seriously disappoint the country." Here Is that old fraudulent argument again. Last fall we were to .have a trade revival as a result of a republican victory. The revival has been a little slpw about reviving, and we are now told that the president must sign a bill increasing the .tariff or the trade "rally" will be checked. The Globe-Democrat believes that . the country can stand the Dingley law a few years longer, and so do tho beneficiaries of pro tection, but what of tho consumers? Tho third reason given by tho Globe-Democrat for tho signing of tho bill Is that "a veto would instantly renew tho tariff revision agita tion, and bring tho question up In a more acute form than it had boforo," "Congress would bo obliged to mako an attempt to roviso It by pro longing tho extra session Into tho fall and win tor or olso take tho matter up In tho regular session which begins in Decombor." Tho logic of this is very plain. Tho people wore deceived last fall, but they must not mako any outcry or seek to punish those who deceived them. The tariff agitation which led tho republicans to mako tho promise of revision, must bo regarded as ended and tho enorgios of Uio republican party must now bo devoted to tho suppression of any now, or further agitation. Will this pro gram please the tariff reform republicans? If not, what are they going to do about it? And again, who are tho culprits? Will tho tariff roform republicans support this bill when they find that it will increaso tho tariff? And tho papers; can papers like tho Globo Domocrat escape condemnation? Did they not help along tho deception which was practiced in tho last campaign? Did they not construe tho platform to mean downward revision? Did they not assure tho voters that tho republican party could bo relied upon to' reduce tho tariff? And havo they not applied epithets to Aldrich and to Payno? Was it all a part of tho play? Was tho noiso that they havo made merely stage thunder? Can they make a scape-goat of the high tariff senators and members and throw all tho blamo upon them? This courso may satisfy a partisan newspaper, but it will hardly satisfy tho Jionestrepublican who belioves that a narty ought txi .keep faf tikt'' 'With thtr pcoplo, and who rognrJ CHO Obligation " of a party to its membors, as oven more sacred than the obligation of tho members of the party to tho party organization. Tho republican voters are likely to havo their own opinion on tho subject of culprits, and they will not be apt to forgive the president who can, by his veto, prevent an increase in tho. taxes; or the republican papers which promised tariff revision when they had every reason to know that tho republican leaders had no intention of keeping the promise. Who are the culprits? LORIMER DEMOCRATS Democracy as defined by tho democrats in tho Illinois legislature is about as loathsome an ar ticle as ono can Imagine. A republican boss has been sent to the United States senate by tho aid of democratic votes. If tho democratic members of tho legislature had voted for Hop kins objectionable as he was they might have pleaded as an excuse that he had received a plurality In the primary of the dominant party; If they had found the selection of some clean and upright republican they might have justified their act, but to Join In the selection of Speaker Cannon's right hand man is indefensible wheth er considered from the standpoint of party or from the standpoint of patriotism. Why did they do it? Well, you can not judge from tho reasons given publicly. Watch the democrats who voted for him and you may be able to discover from their movements what led them to so grossly abuse the authority, vested in them. FOLLOW THE ASTRONOMERS When astronomers find an eccentricity In a planet's orbit, they look in that direction until they find the heavenly body that draws tho planet out of Its orbit. If the consumers of lumber will follow the example of the astrono mers they may find that an earthly body named .Wayerhaeuser, who abounds in stumpage, has caused the" eccentricity in the political orbit of those senators and members of the house who votedagainst free lumber. . t -ruT,