VOLUME 10, NUMBER f
I
V
t
I
2
may onablo many well meaning men to correct
thoniHolvoB, it will bo tho part or democrats and
republicans who do hgo clearly, to load tneir
broth ron out of tho dnrlc.
Ono may find ropubllcmiB overywhero who clo
nounco Aldrlch In tho senate, Cannon In tho
houso, Balliiigor In tho cabinet, yet InslBt that
they aro tho faithful followcrB of Mr. Taft. iwcn
Bomo of tho Insurgents havo protested that they
aro devoted to tho "Taft policies" and that their
fight is not against tho Taft administration.
Why can not theso pcoplo see, as many
ordinary citizens do, that Mr. Taft Is tho faith
ful political nBHoclato of Senator Aldrlch? Havo
they not co-oporated In tho formation of na
tional policies and was it not Mr. Taft who, in
his speech at Boston, described tho Ithodo
Island senator as a faithful servant of tho people
upon whoso counsols they could confidently
roly? Is ho not tho political associato of
Spoalcor Cannon? Did ho not assist In pre
venting a stampodo from Cannon In tho re-election
of Cannon as speaker and In tho main
talnonco of Cannonlsm in the rules of tha
hotiflo? Has ho not, In his special messages, ad
vocatod thoso policies which tho trust magnates
and tho railway loadors favor, particularly tho
policy of concentrating control over tho rail
roads through tho contral court at Washington
and tho policy of destroying tho states' author
ity over corporations through centralization by
way of national Incorporation? Has ho not
uphold tho hands of Ballingor, decorating him
with ono of tho highest honors tho president
lias to bestow, oxorting his offorts to prevent
any Investigation of Ballingor's official conduct
and discharging Glavls and PInchot, who wero
oxorting their offorts to protect tho peoplo from
tho ovlls which tho Ballingor policies would
bring upon them?
If one-half of what republican papers liko
tho North American havo charged against
Aldrlch and Cannon and Ballingor bo truo then
Mr. Taft should havo beon ablo to recognize
somo of tho wrong doing.
If ho Is really so blind that ho could not see,
surely thoro should bo among tho several mem
bers of his cabinet, at least ono man who could
toll him tho truth.
But whether It bo a caso of a blind man In
tho Whlto Houso leading a cabinet full of blind
mon, or a prosidont and cabinet membors who
profor not to seo, choosing tho causo of mon
who stand for special Interests and seeking to
put tho brand of infamy upon mon who stand
for public Interests whether it bo wooful Igno
ranco or dollborato wickedness, tho timo for re
volt among patriotic mon in tho republican party
is at hand.
WHY NOT HIGHER UP?
Four omployes of tho sugar trust havo beon
aont to jail. Tho sontenco of oach of theso mon
was for ono year. Tho sugar scandals showed
that frauds on a largo scale had beon carried
on to tho great financial advantage of the sugar
trust. Surely tho omployes who helped to carry
out theso frauds did not doviso tho plans for
robbory from puro anxiety to seo their employ
ers flourish. Surely tho already rich men who
grew rlchor through these bad practices had
somothing to do with tho frauds; yet thoy aro
to oscapo while four employes go to prison.
It was so in tho insurance frauds. Tho in
vestigation of thoso frauds brought famo to
Lawyer Hughes and made him governor of New
York. Although enormous frauds wero uncov
ered tho rich and influential insurance magnates
wont scot free while an obscuro clerk received
a prison sontenco.
Will tho American people ovor havo such an
administration of public affairs that thoy will
not bo treated to a lot of buncombe as an excuse
for tho non-enforcemont of criminal law?
Does it not seem reasonable to believe that
thoy will never havo such an enforcement of
tho law so long as thoy surrender tho reins of
government to a political party that is financed
by tho monopolists?
DROP PRETENSE
The following is taken from a statement
issued by tho houso insurgents: lment
"In the effort to becloud tho real issue an
anfair and malicious attempt is being made to
represent us as opposed to President Taft's ad
min stration and policies. There is not oven a
semblance of truth in this accusation. Without
exception wo aro firm supporters of rei ubl can
doctrines and President's Taft's ndminl rtrat on "
It would seem that the time for self-deceit on
The Commoner.
Is past. If theso Insurgents are to bo of ser
vice to thoir constituents thoy must recognize
that many of Mr. Taft's policies aro puro and
simple Aldrichl8m and must bo opposed by men
who stand for tho public interests.
Tho excitement over the Pinchot dismissal
was so intense that some republicans failed to
attach to the recommendations in the presi
dent's special message, tho importance they de
served; they failed to recognize the revolution
In our system which these recommendations
carried into effect would bring about.
Havo they not already learned that these
recommendations havo the approval of the trust
magnates and the railroad presidents of the
country? Do they not seo that in the Benate
Stephen B. Elkins, recognized as one of the
foremost spokesman for the railroad trust, is
likewise tho president's spokesman so far as
concerns his proposed amendments to the inter
state commerce law?
Every republican insurgent and every demo
cratic democrat in America must, sooner or later,
drop polite pretense and fight Aldrichism and
Cannonlsm" in tho White House just as vigor
ously as they fight those evils in the capitol
building. And they must fight Aldrichism and
Cannonlsm in their party in both of the great
parties for the foul blight of those mighty evils
has fallen upon some who claim to be democrats
as well as upon some who claim to be republicans.
NOT MR. BRYAN
Tho New York Herald quotes the New Or
leans Times-Democrat as saying:
"Tho plan of national Incorporation, like
many another of the reforms or regulatory meas
ures urged by the Roosevelt administration, was
proposed some years ago by Mr. Bryan. Its
value depends almost entirely, of course, upon
tho terms of the law which is to give it effect.
With the measure rigged in the monopolistic
interest, it might easily prove dangerous. But
there is reason to believe that the adequate and
effective regulation of the great corporations
will at last be secured by a system of national
incorporation, though it may not follow the ex
act lines sketched by tho president."
National incorporation did not originate with
Mr. Bryan or with any other democrat. The
Times-Democrat has national incorporation con
fused with the federal license proposition as
advocated by Mr. Bryan. National incorpora
tion would destroy the state's power over cor
porations doing business within the state's bord
ers. Federal license would simply mean that a
federal remedy would be added to, not substi
tuted for, state remedies.
IIUMAN NATURE A FACTOR
Tho Jacksonville (Fla.) Times-Union, in at
tempting to defend tho policy of taxing raw
material is guilty of an amusing misjudgment
of human nature, as well as of an inexcusable
misrepresentation of Mr. Bryan's position It
says:
"It is absolutely true that free raw materials
under a protective system would strengthen the
hold of that system, add to the advantage given
tho manufacturers and lift not one particle of the
burden from the shoulders of the consumers It
is true also that if the south should voluntarily
give up the few duties that protect 'its products
this surrender would strengthen the hold on pro
tection of products that the South buys
"To illustrate our view, let us suppose the case
of two mon. One owns timber and has a saw
mill, and the other owns sheep and clips wool
Tho sheep owner is in favor of a tariff on wool'
but ho thinks a tariff on lumber an outrage'
So long as a high duty is kept on lumber he ha
a prospect of becoming an opponent of the pro
tective system, because it hurts him as well as
helps him. Repeal the tax on lumber, and does
ho reciprocate by proposing a repeal of the tariff
on Wool? Not a bit of it. The tariff has ceased
to hurt him, and lie regards it now as a bene
flcient system. He will stick to nroteptnn
through thick and thin, for it helps Wm! anS
does no hurt him. When the tariff on lumber
is repealed all hope of securing the assistance of
this man in tho fight on protection is given un
In the first place it ignores the fact that the
platform proposed by Mr. Bryan calls for n
greater reduction in the tariff on manufactured
products than it does in the tariff ed
terial. There is no thought of SvSVi1!!
facturer MORE benefit; fre rw maLZ m"
or tho benefit of the consumer as The Til 3
Union would see if it read the platform which
Mr. Bryan has presented for the consideration of
democratic candidates for congress.
But misrepresentation is not unusual and it
remains to be seen whether the Times-Union will
retract its misrepresentations or prove by per
sisting in them that the misrepresentation was
intended. The more interesting part of the
Times-Union's editorial, however, is its misunr
derstanding of human nature. It argues that
it is wrong to take the tariff off of lumber
for fear the sheep raiser will then lose his in
terest in tariff reform. That is sophistry. In
the first place there are comparatively few sheep
owners while all the people use lumber
and it is not fair to tax the people who use
lumber merely to coerce a few Bheep-raisers.
But the fact is you can not coerce wool
growers in that way. While they can collect
40 per cent on wool they will consent to a tax
on lumber. Who ever heard of a wool growers
association demanding a reduction of the tax
on anything? The protected industries stand
together. A few get a tariff on wool, a few
get a tariff on lumber and the few who enjoy
special benefits combine against the many who
bear the burden. When we remove the tariff
on wool the sheep growers will become inter
ested in tariff reform and not before. So
when we remove the tariff on lumber the lumber
men will help to reduce the tariff on other
things.
Any one who understands human nature
knows that you can not increase the number
of tariff reformers by spreading the benefits of
protection among a larger number.
IIOAV LONG?
Away back in 1902 David B. Henderson, then
speaker of the house of representatives, wrote
a letter to Mr. Birge, a prominent republican
and merchant of Keokuk, la., saying:
"There is a storm brewing in the mind of
the average American as to existing conditions,
and the congressman who fails to realize this
will find himself in the near future relegated to
the shade of home life. I find many intelligent
republicans who feel as I do, that the time has
come when it is the business of the republican
party to look the whole question, squarely in. the
face and to lower the protectee, tariff to. its
legitimate ends, that it shall be no longer pro
hibitory." Later Mr. Henderson declined to be a candi
date for re-election and in his letter of declina
tion he said that he found many republicans in
his district in favor of putting trust-made ar
ticles on the free list as a1 remedy for private
monopolies. Being opposed to that remedy he
said he preferred to retire to private life rather
than strike such a blow at the system of pro
tection. It will be seen that away back in 1902 even
Mr. Henderson, who retired from public life
rather than strike a blow at the system of pro
tection, realized that the time had come when
the republican party must "lower the protec
tive tariff to its legitimate ends that it shall
be no longer prohibitory." Since then there
have been two presidential campaigns. In the
first one the republican party escaped without
being required seriously to face its tariff record,
in the next one, however, public sentiment was
so strong that the republican leaders found it
necessary to promise tariff revision. Again
the republican party won and it "redeemed" its
promise by enacting a' tariff law that in its net
results is an Increase over the tariff law against
wh ch even Mr. Henderson protested and from
which the republican party, in 1908, promised
to give the people relief
iniSiilLP.0SSibl,that ln tne "SW of history
intelligent republicans, having no axes to grind
?arniff0exac?ionse?rei,UbliCai1 party fr relief from'
PRIVILEGE WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY
Judge Munger ln suspending the Nebraska
guarantee of deposits law presents two reasons
for holding the law unconstitutional! first be
cause it requires banks to contribu e to 'each
others losses; second, because it forbids indi
yiduals from doing a banking business Th
udge holds that enforced participation in lossel
s a taking of property without due process o?
uStfnf.We mUSt aWait the deciBion Tttl
united States supreme court bpfnm w i,
whether this Is to be regarded as law omeelv
as a valueless personal opinion it is nor nn i
Place to suggest that the requirement anZrpri
reasonable to a large number oTpersoTis-ln
AtL the VOterQ of 8S sTatTof
iNeDrasica and The Commoner submits that th
reasons upon which the people baseS their op&!
V,.- i
. r
."SuT
-m, ij,M' , t j xx&Xhl