i'
If '
fV
X
t
!-
J
'?
i
i
jV ' '-DECEMBM.SioioV ' -"
Bition seems to indicate that the democrats, oro
n,ofcvunjted -and- are dissatisfied, with the-last,
platform.
Now, while the last platform lost in 1908, It
won in 1910. The American people, in the light
of republican misrule between 1908 and 1910
have decided that the democrats were right and
have indorsed the democrats' 1908 platform,
fhe democratic rank and file are entirely satis
fied therewith and so- are all leaders excopt tlio
inconsiderable minority of "protection" demo
crats and anti-free raw material democrats, who
are really republicans in disguise.
. The next speaker, Champ Clark, is a sincere
tariff reformer. He is a man who has been
tried and tested and found true.. When some
of his constituents wanted protection on their
private industry, he declared that he would re
tire from public life before he would unjustly
tax all the people of the United States for the
benefit of a few people of his own state.
- Says the New York 'Press: "And now the '
..democratic party is afraid of the tariff? Afraid,
though it has not gained control of the govern
ment or even of both branches b congress?
Afraid, though it will have only the new house;
which could not make a tariff law if it wanted
to do so, but which could frame and pass a bill
to be passed upon by the voters of the United
States from now, so that if the country ap
proved it the American people could, upon that
issue, plainly set forth in the bill passed by the
democratic hduse, elect a whole democratic
congress and a democratic president as well?"
The Baltimore Sun says that this "is an illus
tration of the jeering attitude of the republi
cans, who hope that the democrats will get into
entanglements over the tariff issue. That there
may be danger of this, if no fixed policy is
adopted, is indicated by the votes of the demo
cratic senators on, various schedules of the
AldrJch-Payne tariff bill. The party had not
agreed upon any definite course in that emer
gency, and as a consequence lost the moral effect
of united action."
This is a strong argument for the holding
of a .party caucus of the house democrats, who
might consult with the democratic members of
the senate asl to precisely what sort of a tariff
for revenue only bill they should frame. But
any other democratic conference than a catmua
of congressmen would tend to create confu
sion. Ttie congressmen have a plain duty be
fore them, and, under Champ Clark's leader
ship it is probable that they will perform it like
men, to the credit of the party, and with the
result of a democratic victory in 1912. Tariff
for revenue only is the will of the American
people. That is the clear commission given to
congress by the American people in the recent
election. Disloyalty thereto wouM mean domo.
cratic failure, but .tariff for revenue only means
democratic success.
IN NEBRASKA, TOO
Hastings (Neb.) Republican: From what wo
were able to learn while at the state capital last
week there seems to be a growing belief that
plans are incubating to, if possible, supplant
Bryanism with so-called "conservatism." In
other words, certain eastern and western demo-
crats have hatched the scheme to put Bryan
down and out so" far as his leadership in this
state is concerned.
IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROGRESSIVE?
To the Editor of the Denver News: In the
general rejoicing over the democratic victories
throughout the nation,, is It not worth while to
ask how much those victories mean in the per
manent triumph of democratic principles? It
Is undoubtedly the hope of every democrat that
democratic victory means the triumph of tho
party principles. But does it necessarily follow?
In the election of a man like John Kern to the
United States senate there can well be general
rejoicing among lovers of popular rights. But
take the democratic governors, for they are the
men who will dominate democratic councils for"
the next two years. Glance over tho list, in
cluding Simeon E. Baldwin in Connecticut, John
A DIx in New York, Judson Harmon in Ohio
and Woodrow Wilson in New Jersey. Then add
Mayor Gaynor, of New. York, always a presi
dential possibility. Is there any one of theso
men who stands for what the democratic party
in the main stands for? I do not say that there
is not. I only fear that such will not prove tbd
case. Baldwin is not a presidential possibility.
Neither is Fobs of Massachusetts who is, after
all a real progressive. The others are. Let
The Commoner.
us hopo they will stand for real progressive
principles.
Now it is woll known that all thcoo demo
cratic governors are In open hostility to Mr.
Bryan. They do not stand for hio principles;
they do not favor tho kind of democracy in tho
main that ho favors, and that tho west favors.
Tho line of cleavage is very well marked be
tween theso two types of democrats. LaFolletto
is far closer to Bryan than aro any of these
men, based on past practices and professions.
All of them havo at least ouco opposed Bryan
for president; some of them havo always op
posed him. Wo recall that Woodrow Wilson
two years ago spoko at a public meeting against
tho naming of Bryau for the presidency and in
favor of John A. Johnson, who was then tho
hopo of the conservative east. John A. Dix
is tho antithesis of Bryan. His campaign was
made along precisely the same lines as tho re
publican campaigns in New York that defeated
Bryan for tho presidency. His first utterance
after the campaign was one proclaiming that
investors had taken confidence becauso Roosevelt
was defeated. The old cry, so familiar in tho
Bryan campaigns. Mayor Gaynor said tho re
cent election showed that men of property would
hereafter divide equally botween tho two parties
as in Cleveland's time. Another very familiar
anti-Bryan statement. Men of property (some
property, at least) havo always supported
Bryan. It all depends upon how much property
the New York mayor thinks a man ought to
have.
Judson Harmon, a Cleveland man, Is now In
open and bitter antagonism to Mr. Bryan.
Tho rumbling protests from tho east against
Champ Clark as speaker of tho next house em
phasizes this very point that tho "big business"
of the east in tho democratic party is radically
opposed to the people's fight for progressive
idjeas. If there bo a democratic triumph will
it not serve to show the lines of cleavage In
the democratic party to dlvido tho reaction
aries from the conservatives just as has hap
pened in the republican party?
In the republican party the distinction grows
clearer. Nothing could show It better than two
editorials that appeared last week, one in tho
News and tho other in tho Denver Republican.
The News gave Roosevelt credit for what he has
done in divorcing tho republican party from "big
business." Its editorial was so fair and so
striking that I wish to quoto a few sentences:
"Whatever else may bo said of Theodore
Roosevelt this much all fair men will concedo
to his honor: He attacked from tho White
House those corrupt allies of tho republican
party upon whose money favors the party must
depend for Its continuance in power.
"But the democracy does not owe Roosevelt
any satirical thanks. It ought to be on its knees
of humble and sincere gratitude to him.
"He did what all tho democrats of tho nation
were unable to do. Ho broke tho alliance of
big business with the republican party. And
that is half tho victory.
. "Tho other half will bo for democrats to
achieve If they can." ',
Two days later the Republican of this city
contained a bitter editorial attack on Roosevelt
and his doctrines as announced at Osawatomle,
Kan., declaring them to bo populism. What
could better illustrate tho signs of tho times,
or the fundamental and irreconcilable split that
will mark this as an epoch In American politics?
WAYNE C. WILLIAMS.
, CONFERENCE IDEA ABANDONED
Tho Baltimore meeting will not be a confer
ence, it will be simply a banquet, such as Is a
common occurrence In all parts of tho country.
Champ Clark is reported as having advised
against a "conference," saying that "a confer
ence of self appointed delegates meeting on the
edge of one part of the country would not be
wise." Clark's head Is level, as usual. Ac
cording to the revised plans "no resolutions aTe
to be adopted," and "no candidates are to bo
boomed."
It Is asserted that no section of the country
will be slighted, butr this statement must be
taken humorously, for the west and south will
not be very largely represented unless It be by
senators and members' of congress who happen to
be in Washington. The east will be there
especially those who think tliey have been doing
the Lord's service in defeating the democratic
party.
The keynote will be harmony to be secured
by an unconditional surrender of the party into
the hands of tho Wall Street financiers and the
trusts and railroads which they represent,
Practical Tariff Talk
Tho man who han tho tlmo to dovoto to a
thorough Btudy of tho metal jchodulo in tho
Payne-Aldrlch bill will bo able to got sorno In
tprosting, facts relating to tariff-making. Thin
is the schedule that tho republican prow pointed
to with much prldo,,n8iiertIng that tho largo re
cluctionu In duties made therein were proof that
tho steel trust had no friends in republican
councils. .. Tho computation made by tho senato
committco on finance for tho use of Inquiring
persons hIiowb that thoro was a reduction of
duty on structural Iron and stool from 30.75
por cont under the Dlngloy law to 29. 40 per
cent under tho now law. This statomont wan
repented lator by tho president In tho Winona
speech that cost tho republicans untold thou
sands of votos at the Inst election. -It also In
cluded tho declaration that there was an avorago
reduction of duty on this schedule of 2 per
cont, whereas the fact wns carofully concealed
wholly or In part that rates were actually raised
on structural steel, razors, nickel alloys, bottlo
caps and a few other Items of general use.
Neither Mr. Aldrlch In his committco com
putations, Mr. Payne In hls'spcoch of defonso
nor President Taft was fair with tho pooplo In
discussing the structural steel paragraph, bo
causo tho facts hero stated woro known to them.
Thoy cannot, theroforo, bo acquitted ' of tho
charge of Intent to . deceive. This structural
steel ltom, If one is not verBed In tho uses mado
of this product, apparently does show a de
crease. Hero Is how tho deception was worked'
Under tho old law the rate on structural steel
"whether plain or punched or fitted for use,"
was $10 a ton. Tho house changed this duty
to rend $G a ton. In tho senato the rate wns
fixed on structural steel at from $G to $8 a ton
according to tho value of tho Iron. In that
form it was adopted. Apparently, theroforo,
there Is a reduction on structural steel, a
claimed. Actually there Is a largo Increase
because Aldrlch struck out the words "whether
plain, punched or fitted for uso," nnd inserted
instead these words, "not assembled or manu
factured or advanced beyond hammering, rolling
or casting."
In otjier words, the schedule was tinkered
with so as to provide no particular or specified
duty for structural steel in tho only shape in
which tho man who Is erecting a building can
uso it. Tho ordinary reader would not under
stand that structural steel "not advanced be
yond hammering, rolling or casting" was not
fitted for use, or that in order to make It avail
able to place In buildings It must be punched
and otherwise prepared. The substitution for
tho words "plain or punched, or fitted for use"
threw the item Into what Is known nB the baskot
schedule, which fixes a 45 per cent duty on "all
manufactures of metal not specifically men
tioned." ir. Aldrlch took care that manufac
tured and ready-for-uso structural steel was not
specifically mentioned. That this was done for
the express purpose of aiding the steel trust is
shown by the fact that II? Is only In recent years
that this class of bufding construction has be
come necessary and desirable. Increasing tho
duty just when the consumption was Increasing
by leaps and bounds demonstrates that such an
increase is indefensible, becauso tho only pur
pose of protection, we are told, is to stimulate
languishing manufactures. Twenty-six million
dollars worth of this sort of steel is used yearly
in this country, and practfcallly all of it Is,fur
nlshed by American manufacturers, the only ex
ceptions being where builders couldn't wait their
turn at the factories.
Mr. Taft, repeating what Mr. Payne had said,
asserted that the Increased duties In the steel
schedule were on articles the aggregate con
sumption of which in this country was only
about eleven millions of dollars a year. On
the one item of structural steel, a consumption
value of more than twenty-six millions of dol
lars was Involved. Structural steel, It may be
stated, brings a market price of from $30 to
$40 per ton. A duty of 45 per cent would mean
a tax of from $13.50 to $80 a ton. Tho old
rate being $10 a ton, It Is apparent that the
increase Is from 35 to 80 per cent, depending
on the value of tho material. C. Q. D.
a
JJ