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 -
