- M 1jbtj vs"t! &x ? i , t1 wrTT?' "V 'fcrv. Jv-y'- '""
4
If
I.
F-
The Commoner. , '
ISSUED WEEKLY.
Entered nt tho Postofflco r.t Lincoln, Nobraaka,
as second-class matter.
WltMAM J. Buyan
Editor nnd Proprietor
Richard I Metcatfb
ABKodnto Editor
Chaiujis W. Diiyan
Fubllshor
Editorial Rooms and Business
Ofllco 324-330 South 12th Street
One Ycnr 91.00
Six Months .GO
In Clubs of Five or
more, per year... .75
Three Ifnntha .25
SIiikIc Copy 05
Samplo Copies Free.
Foreign Post. 5c Extra.
SUBSCRIPTIONS can bo sent direct to Tho Com
moner. They can also bo sent through newspapers
which havo advertised a clubbing rate, or through
local agents, hero sub-agents have been appoint
ed. All remittances should bo sent by postomce
Ynoncy order, express order, or by bank draft on
Now York or Chicago. Do not send individual
checks, stamps or money. ,
DISCONTINUANCES It is found that a largo
majority of our subscribers prefer not to havo
their subscriptions interrupted and their flies
broken In caso they fail to remit before expiration.
It is therefore assumed that continuance Is desired
unless subscribers order discontinuance, either
when subscribing or at any time during tho year.
PRESENTATION COPIES Many persons sub
scribe for friends, intending that tho paper shall
stop at the end of the year. If instructions aro
given to that offect they will receive attention at
tho proper time
RENEWALS Tho date on your wrapped shows
tho time to which your subscription is paid. Thus
January 21, '09, means that payment has been re
ceived to and including tho last issue of January,
1909. Two weeks aro required after money has
boon received beforo tho dato on wrapper can bo
changed.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting
a chango of address must glvo old as well as new
address.
ADVERTISING Rates will bo furnished upon
application.
Address all communications to '
THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Neb.
ENGLAND'S GREAT STRUGGLE
For the next six weeks the eyes of the civil
ized world will be fixed on the political struggle
going on in Great Britain. Tho house' of lords
has rejected the budget and the house of c6m
mons, declaring that it is a violation of the con
stitution, appeals to the country. It is more
than a parliamentary battle it Involves two
Issues, one between popular government and
hereditary privilege and the other between land
lordism and the disinherited classes. Either
issue would invest the contest with vast Inter
est, both together make It of world wide im
portance. If an heriditary body like the house of lords
can veto the acts of a representative body, like
tho house of commons, government by the con
sent of the governed becomes a farce. And to
aggravate the controversy landlordism, with all
of its oppressiveness, steps in and becomes spon
sor for the assumption of power by the house
of lords In fact it is an attempt by the land
lord peers to use the house of lords to resist just
taxation of their estates.
The people of Great Britain may decide to hit,
if not kill, two birds with one stone landlord
ism and hereditary government. It remains to
be seen whether the masses are ready for a
victory. That a victory will come sooner or
later is sure. We shall know within two months
whether democracy wins now or whether it must
wait, for a more convenient season but win it
will some day EVERYWHERE.
The Commoner. -
SENATOR CULBERSON'S STATEMENT
Tho protectionist democrats, of Texas who
have been misled into believing that there Is a
"higher law" for the official than the platform
upon which he was elected will not get any com
fort from the statement issued by Senator Cul
berson when he reached home. Tho statement,
as printed in the Houston Chronicle, will be
found on another page. On the subject of plat
form pledges, he says:
"My views of the binding force of. party plat
forms on matters of policy were formed early
in my official career. In my two inaugural ad
dresses as governor and in several messages tho
subject was emphasized, and so obligatory did
I regard the platform pledges that extra sessions
of tho legislature were called to meet and re
deem them. I have followed this course in the
senate, and am, therefore, thoroughly committed
to it."
No one will hereafter quote the senator as
a supporter of tho bunco game theory that a
candidate can use a platform to secure votes
and then discard it after election and "conscien
tiously," of course, misrepresent his constituents.
Senator Culberson also delivers a staggering
blow to those who have been advocating the tax
on iron ore. We ought to hear no more of that
nonsense in Texas. The facts presented by Sen
ator Culberson in his statement were presented
by him in the senate, and no democrat can be
excused for not understanding the subject.
Those who are anxious to have a debate between
democrats have a good chance here to secure an
interesting discussion. Let them find someone
who is willing to defend the steel trust's right
to a tariff on iron ore and put him up against
Senator Culberson.
On the subject of raw material also the sen
ator gives very little consolation to the men who
have been trying to secure local protection un
der the guise of advocating the revenue tariff.
While he endorses the Texas platform of 1896
the more's the pity his endorsement contains
a qualification that reconciles his position with
the position taken by the advocates of free raw
material. He admits that there are exceptions
to the rule, and as he states his position, it is
that "raw material shall not be put on the free
list IN ORDER to maintain a' protective duty
on manufactured goods."
That is entirely different from the doctrine
now advanced by the protectionist democrats,
that there must be a tariff on raw materialAS
LONG AS THERE IS A TARIFF ON THE FIN
ISHED PRODUCT. Free raw material is de
manded NOT "in order to maintain a' protective
tariff on manufactured products" but THAT
DUTIES ON MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS
MAY BE LARGELY REDUCED. The doctrine
.of taxed raw material is firmly imbedded in the
Aldrich bill, and Mr. Aldrich is not an exponent
of democratic doctrine. Senator Culberson can
consistently favor every plank in the platform
proposed by Mr. Bryan at Dallas.
To whom will- the advocates of the doctrine
that raw material should be PROTECTED turn
now? The more they study the question, the
more clearly will it appear to them that the
attempt to put a tax on raw material is merely
an attempt to spread protection among a larger
number and that the only hope of tariff reform
is to be found in opposing the protective prin
ciple wherever it appears.
"WAITING"
The Philadelphia North American, that simple
minded old republican sheet, is waiting not
hopefully, of course, but waiting nevertheless
for Mr. Taft to do something to show his an
tagonism to(the special interests.' Commenting
upon his message the Philadelphia North Ameri
can says:
"In other words, this message leaves the
American people exactly where they have been
for nine weary months in their fruitless en
deavor to discover what sort of president they
elected in November, ia08. Once more they are
asked to 'suspend judgment. But even the
patience of friends has a limit. The people still
havo those 'special messages' to hope for. But
hope too long deferred not only 'maketh the
heart sick,' but has a tendency to transform dis
appointment into disgust. Not for much longer
will there be suspension of judgment of the
president who put forth the spineless message,
the best commentary on which Is that it. has
the unqualified approval of Speaker Cannon and
the members of the Now York stock exchange."
TARIFF AND TRUSTS -FURNISH THE
ANSWER
When President Taft cites the increased prices
of farm products to prove that high tariff is not
responsible for any considerable share of the
increased cost of living, let him turn to James
J. Hill for his answer.
There is a reason, a natural reason, for the
mounting prices of food products. That reason
is given by Mr. Hill clearly, cogently, convinc
ingly. But there Is no sufficient reason for the
enormous prices of manufactured products, ex
cept as It Is found in such artificial causes as a
protective tariff which eliminates competition
from abroad, and trust agreements which elimi
nate domestic competition.
Food products are rising in value because, as
Mr. Hill graphically shows, consumption and
population are increasing bo much faster than
production. The demand is rapidly increasing,
while the supply, relatively, is diminishing at
an alarming rate. And the prices are fixed, in
an open market, by the law of supply and de
mand. In this case, since population is bound
to go on increasing, and with it the demand,
the remedy lies in increasing the supply. Mr
Hill Is the John the Baptist of that remedy, cry
ing hie religion in the wilderness. And ho is
. . '.VOLUME 9, DUMBER 49
rendering the, whole American people an inesti
mable service in his preaching of this gospel
But conditions are radically different in tho
industrial field. Our manufactures are not de
creasing, relatively, as farm products are. They
are Increasing, relatively as well as actually
While farm exports are falling off, factory ex
ports are climbing at an amazing rate. In man
ufactures, in a word, supply is increasing faster
than demand, and the energies of our business
world, and of our federal government, are in
cessantly devoted to finding and developing for
eign maTkets for the surplus products. When tho
same condition prevailed as to farm products
when not only this country but the world was
glutted with wheat and corn and other products
of the soil, prices fell to near the vanishing
point.
Why does not this same natural, logical ten
dency manifest itself now, in the case of tho
output of our mills and factories?
There is still another reason why factory
products should be cheaper, aside from that
found in a relatively increased supply. That
other reason is a lower cost of production. Most
of the processes of manufacture, formerly done
by hand, are now done by machinery, at only
a fraction of the old cost. One man, in num
berless instances, does today the work that a
dozen or a score or a hundred men were re
quired to do a generation or two past. Science
and invention, every day of the year, are bring
ing forward improvements all calculated to im
prove and cheapen and expedite manufacturing
processes. This is quite the contrary of tho
condition that governs the production of food.
As Mr. Hill shows, in ten states there Is a less
production of wheat per acre than there was
ten years ago. The same labor, the same or
better machinery, costing more money, applied
to land that costs more money, produce less
wheat rather than more wheat. Naturally,
wheat rises. But the same labor, and improved
machinery, brings forth more factory output
than was possible ten years ago. Why, then,
do. not manufactures fall in price, or at least
remain stable? Why, instead of falling, have
they actually risen, an average of about 50 per
cent?
Tariff and trusts furnish the answer.
In conformity to natural law farm products
are rising, and must continue at their high level,
until the remedy invoked by Mr. Hill is applied.
And in defiance of natural law factory products
are rising, and will continue to rise, as long as
the tariff is used to, make the American con
sumer helpless while the trusts tie him hand
and foot and go through his pockets.
Why is the steel trust paying fat dividends
on $000,000,000 or more of water?
Why is Standard Oil earning from 40 to 50
per cent on Its capitalization?
Why are the New England cotton and woolen
mills earning as high as 67 per cent annually?
Why are scores upon scores of trusts increas
ing their wealth so rapidly that multi-millionaires
have become common as flies in August?
It is because, while American genius, inven
tion, industry, favorable conditions of all kinds,
enable them to produce a constantly increasing
supply, at a cheaper cost, tariff and trust graft
ing enable them to dispose of their bigger and
cheaper supply at a higher cost.
There is the difference between rising farm
prices and rising factory prices.
James J. Hill has effectively answered William
H. Taft. Omaha World-Herald.
DEPENDS, OF COURSE
Theodore N. Vail, president of the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, testified re
cently before a New York legislative committee.
When he was asked concerning the advisa
bility of government regulation of telegraphs
and telephones, state or national, Mr. Vail re
plied simply: "That depenas on the regu
lation." To be sure. Doubtless they would be satis
fled with a "regulation" devised by the party
deriving its campaign funds from telephone and
telegraph trusts. It Is a matter of common
knowledge, too, that the tariff barons aro en
tirely satisfied with the "tariff revision" pro
vided by the political party to which the barons
made liberal contribution In the way of cam
paign funds.
J. M. Cussotis, Stewartville, Minn. Are there
no telephones in coal mines? I have not seen
any account off any. If there is not that way
of communicating, why not? I think it wouia
be well for Tho Commoner to investigate for
some protection against a repetition of the latest
horror.
. - .Vj... ,, .mjniH'-'.. '? 4
.y JwnMa8fcito.Ljfc. . fry