Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 21, 1910)
f i - nfurrjg irf vj?,vy &"? v rfP""V i-w t , , t 'v- ixrwpg ! The Commoner. WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR VOL. 10, NO. 2 Lincoln, Nebraska, January 21, 1910 Whole Number 470 Ship Subsidies ' The corporation papers now teem with edito rials and articles in favor of a ship subsidy. Papers that for years have insisted that the people should be taxed through a high tariff to keep out goods are now clamoring for a' tax upon the people to subsidize ships to bring goods to our ports. There are three arguments made in favor of a subsidy. First, that it will increase our for eign trade; second, that it will furnish a new employment for American capital, and third, that it will enable our country to train American seamen. To answer the first argument it need only be said that a reduction of the tariff will accom plish more in increasing trade than can be ac complished by subsidizing ships. The subsidy plan imposes an additional tax to overcome the tax already collected; the democratic plan re duces the present tax. Can any one doubt which plan is best for the taxpayers? Or why not encourage American shipping by giving a reduc tion of the tariff on goods brought to our ports In American bottoms? This would help the 'American ship owners without increasing the burden of the people. Our tariff on all that enters into ships and our law prohibiting the purchase of foreign made ships both of these have operated against our shipping; why not allow the purchase of ships? The second reason for the subsidy is equally unsound. To turn American capital into ship ping we must make shipping more profitable -thftn-dbnietlc' industry. The-protectiveyste'm" has brought such large profits to capitalists that shipping has been .left to foreigners. The trusts have still further increased the profits of capi tal. How much of a subsidy would it require to make shipping as profitable to ship owners as the iron business has been to Carnegie or the oil business has been to Rockefeller? No sub sidy that any one would dare propose would bring the shipping industry into competition with the trusts as a money -maker. And as to the third argument, why waste money on subsidies when the same end can be accomplished so much more cheaply in another way? Instead of putting so much money into battleships why not build a few transports and then use the transports in time of peace to es tablish trade routes? The government can bor row money at half the rate charged to private individuals and need not make any profit at all. Its battleships are a continual expense; the gov ernment could save money if it rented out its transports for nothing. If it had a fleet of transports it could select the routes it wanted developed, fix the terms so as to insure the training of seamen and lease the ships to the highest bidders. As it would require less capi tal to conduct business with leased ships than It would require to own ships there would be more competition. This plan would give the government ships for use in time of war; it would enable it to train seamen; it would give it its choice of trade routes; it would bo cheaper; and, not least in importance, it could suspend the policy at any time, while the beneficiaries of a ship subsidy would never be ready to let go. A subsidy once granted would create a "vested interest" that would protest against any withdrawal of the subsidy. This plan of leased government ships would do more than a subsidy to extend American ship ping, but it has one defect a fatal one, in the eyes of the advocates of a ship subsidy, namely, it does NOT enable a favored few to get their hands into the treasury; it does NOT create a new privileged class. CONTENTS SHIP SUBSIDIES TIME FOR REVOLT HUMAN NATURE A FACTOR PRIVILEGE WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SIXTH MISSOURI DISTRICT "JUST REPUBLICAN" EDUCATIONAL SERIES DEMOCRATIC POSITION ON THE TARIFF FRANKLIN PIERCE ON "KEEPING STILL" INCOME TAX CHEAT CURRENT TOPICS WHETHER COMMON OR NOT HOME DEPARTMENT NEWS OF THE WEEK WASHINGTON NEWS 0 WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR Write to your senator and to your member of congress and ask them how they stand upon this tariff platform as proposed by Mr. Bryan: 1. A platform is a pledge, given by the candidate to the voters, and when ratified at the polls becomes a contract between the official and his constituents. To violate it, in letter or in spirit, is not only undemocratic, but repugnant to the principles of representative government, and constitutes an embezzlement of power. 2. We denounce the despotism known as Cannonism and favor such an amend- . . ment.to-thrulftf-tk'natiosal- house of representatives as will restore popular government in that body and insure the rule of the majority on every question. 3. We endorse the tariff plank of the last national democratic platform and believe that the measure carrying out the promise of that platform should, among other things, provide for: Free wool, the abolition of the com- pensatory duties on woolens and a sub- stantial reduction in the ad valorem rate on woolens. Free lumber, free wood pulp and free paper. Free hides, leather, harness, boots and shoes. Free oil and products of oil. Free iron ore, free coal and low duties on all manufactures of iron and steel. Free binding twine, cotton ties and cotton bagging. Material reductions in the cotton schedules and in the tariff upon all other necessaries of life, especially upon ar- tides sold abroad more cheaply than at home, the aim being to put the lowest duty on' articles of necessity and the highest on articles of luxury. Articles coming Into competition with trust-made articles should be placed on the free list. No tariff rate should be above 50 per cent ad valorem, except upon liquor and tobacco, and all rates above 25 per cent, excepting those upon liquor and tobacco, should be reduced one-twentieth each year until a 25 per cent rate is reached, the purpose being to reduce the tariff gradually to a revenue basis and there- after to collect tariff for revenue only. ; This question should also be submit- ted to every candidate for congress. In propounding this question Mr. Bryan's outline of a platform may be used for convenience sake. It will enable you to state in a succinct way the identical points upon which you desire to be in- formed. Men who aspire to public office and men whose aspirations have been honored by the people, have no right to keep secret their views upon public questions. Their constituents have the right to catechise them and expect prompt and explicit answers. Time for Revolt One of the interesting editorials on the Taft Pinchot matter appeared in tho Philadelphia North Amorican, republican, iasuo of January 12. Tho editorial is entitled "Tho Dismissal of Pinchot." Tho editor explains this belated edi torial by saying that ho "waited almost a full week to talk about Gifford Pinchot and Taft" so that ho would be in a position to deal with tho subject in a calm, thoughtful way. Ho de clares that tho loss to tho government through Pinchot's retirement is well nigh irreparable. Then ho declares that Pinchot "has been fired from office and properly so." Ho says Mr. Taft could havo taken no other course than tho one he adopted when ho removed Mr. Pinchot from office. Then he calls those who imagino that Pinchot has been discredited "fools," and ho de clares that Pinchot will yet bo honored and "tho Ballingers" will yet be discredited. Ho pays a fine compliment to tho manner in which Messrs. Taft and Pinchot conducted themselves, saying: "And tho fine thing for patriotic Americans to consider is the way that Pinchot and Taft have faced each other and fenced and finished, with politeness and respect for each other's mo tives preserved, while respect for each other's judgment long ago had disappeared." Having said all this ho declares that tho Hill Morgan - Harrlman - Guggenheim - Standard Oil holders of illegal claims have attempted tho monopolization of Alaska in a way that will affect every citizen of Now England, .PennsyJ vahia and tho Gulf states as personaTfjT'aB it does tho taxpayers of Seattle or Lob Angeles. He charges that a whitewash of Ballinger and his allies has been deliberately planned and that an effort has been made to discredit Pinchot in order to relieve the secretary of the interior. He concludes in this way: "Gifford Pinchot is right. Ho has done well. Ho has sought official immolation as young Glavis did months ago. Both men blocked for a timo at least tho completion of a long-planned thievery of a billion dollars from tho American people. Both Pinchot and his devoted co-workers know and have known all along that there is one thing moi;e vital to tho welfare of tho country than the continuation of the work of Pinchot and that is to keep thieves from steal ing the nation's wealth in such surety as to make useless all future effort of patriots of tho Pinchot brand." This being true, what about Mr. Taft's atti tude? If tho editor of the Philadelphia North American and other ordinary citizens can see these things, what about tho man who holds tho position of chief magistrate? He is a lawyer by profession, he is a widely traveled man, ho has had large experience as a judge and served in executive capacity in tho Philippines and as secretary of war. How does It happen that ho is unable to see the evils that are so 'apparent to the editor of the Philadelphia North Ameri can? According to this authority Pinchot and Glavis were blocking "the completion of a long planned thievery of a billion dollars from tho American people." Their solo object was to "keep thieves from stealing the nation's wealth," yet both Pinchot and Glavis were removed from office upon the order of William H. Taft. And Secretary of the Interior Ballinger holds his place, not only as a member of the president's cabinet, but as such a close confidential adviser of the chief magistrate that he was his first counsellor in the preparation of the special message relating to conservation. Thus analyzed the North American's editorial would seem ridiculous. Now it is not at all important that this Philadelphia newspaper has given spaco to an inconsistent, illogical editorial. With all of its good points and it has many of them the North American often does that. But this particular editorial is interesting at this time because inconsistent and illogical as it seems it is fairly representative of tho atti tude of a considerable number of republicans. Because tho uncovering of this false attitude -. k'jMBffiia&fe-rffeA WjSMuJbiwKilij.' -"." JJ H4uLvim iMu Af&Af.iJ Ut . P u -