7
MAT. 28, 1911
The Commoner.
there by act of congress. Of course, any nulllfl-,,
cation of the dividing lino between judicial and
legislative functions, presents a serious ques
tion, and ono of much larger bearings than those
relating to the case in hand bearings which
apply, in fact, to every trust litigation which
may hereafter arise in this country. The great
strength of a precedent lies in enforcing it, and
as the precedent now established cannot bo
enforced save within the boundaries prescribed
by itself, it is manifest that the anti-trust law
should be so amended, that by legislative act, all
agreements in restraint of trade will bo wrong
prima facie, and will render those who make
them, amenable to the penalties of the law.
New York Sun: The rights of property will
not and cannot be substantially or practically
affected.
New York World: Corporations that violate
the anti-trust law may purge themselves by
re-organization after the illegality of their prac
tice is established, and then proceed about their
business as before. The Sherman act will ever
be a rope of sand.
New York Herald: The business interests of
the country for the first time in years, know
what the law means, and the path is free to
normal activity and prosperity.
New York Tribune: Amendment of the law
to make it apply only to "unreasonable" restraint
of trade has been seriously considered, but it was
wisely left to the courts to develop a workable
theory of the act's intent which has now been
done.
New York Press: Morally rather than phy
Bically, the blow dealt at unlawful monopoly by
the United States supreme court in its decision
In the Standard Oil. case is heavily damaging.
New York Times: The decision of the court
and Justice White's illuminating opinion have
freed the commerce of the country from the
terror that has so long paralyzed its energies.
New. York American: There will be many
more battles yet to fight against other monopo
lies to test whether "in the light of reason"
they are good or bad.
Practical Tariff Talks
The lumber schedule has been the subject of
several impassioned speeches in congress in the
last few weeks, and the division between those
representatives who speak for a sectional in
terest and those who view the question from the
standpoint of the general interest has been
most marked. Most of the lumber manufac
turers, according to the Southern Lumberman,
are protectionists, but "it is more on general
grounds and the force of old associations and
affiliations than from any concern as to the effect
directly on the lumber trade of free lumber."
The same authority says that much of this
sentiment is based upon the fact that they think
there should be protection on their finished pro
duct because there is protection on most com
modities the purchase of which enters into the
cost of lumber production.
labor of Canada, because there Isn't any cheap
labor there. In shingle-making, it is truo, tho
Canadians employ orlontal labor, but theso mon
aro much slower In doing their work than
Americans, and In tho end tho cost per thousand
of shingle-making is greater on tho northern
side of the border. Tho Canadians frankly say
they would much prefer white labor, but they
cannot get it, and aro glad, therefore, to hire
tho Asiastics.
The truth is easily demonstrable that the
only effect of the lumber tariff now is to en
hance the value of the standing timber In the
country, and this iB in the hands of men like
Edward Hines, who has figured extensively in
the Lorimer investigation as tho alleged "angel"
for tho junior Illinois senator. Protection is
necessary only, according to the most rabid of
its defenders, when the cost of production at
home is greater than it is abroad. They seek, in
theory, to even up opportunities for business
development, by fixing as the protection neces
sary the difference between the cost of produc
tion between the foreign manufacturer and the
liome manufacturer. Note how useless this rule
becomes in fixing a lumber tariff.
In British Columbia the law requires that all
Jogging shall be done by white labor. Tho
pay ranges from $3 to $6 per day, dependent
upon what branch of the work is being followed.
Thifr is from 10 to 30 per cent more than It
costs-In the United States. This shows that the
American- has nothing to fear from the cheap
Tho facts also refute tho claim that it costs
the American manufacturer more to construct,
equip and operate his mills than is tho caso in
Canada, Theodoro M. Knappen, a Minneapolis
expert and an officer in ono of tho organizations
there that has been working for free lumber for
years, states that he has carefuly investigated
this question and gives this as his conclusion:
"Tho cost of construction, equipment and general
operation in Canada is higher In that part of
Canada most likely to compete extensively with
our lumbermen than in tho state. Data wo have
secured shows that the cost of mills, general
machinery and equipment, Including logging
equipment, is more in Canada than in tho United
States, by about 30 per cent."
To quote further from Mr. Knappen: "There
was a time when the rate of wages paid in
Canada was very much lower than in the United
States, but that was before tho present era' of
industrial activity and settlement in Canada',
which has brought tho standard and cost of liv
ing and wages in that country to as high and
In some parts a higher plane than prevails in
the United States. In tho matter of wages,
American labor has nothing to fear from tho
effects of free lumber. We have been at con
siderable pains to collect data bearing on tho
subject of wages paid and the cost of production
In the lumber industry of both countries, and
these prove that a continuance of a tariff on
lumber cannot be justified on any theory of protection."
So far as the present generation is concerned
the supply of timber, Is fixed. As this supply
yearly decreases,' the value of all that remains
Is enhanced, the only limit being the natural
one which involves the ability to sell at tho
price askpd. By preventing tho lumber of
Canada from having free access to our markets,
the government is fostering a natural monopoly
owned by a few millionaires and enabling them
to engage In a speculation In which profits are
assured. But that is just what protection
breeds, and timber Isn't the only monopoly thus
favored. C. Q. D.
WATCH IT GROW
In order to place his views before a larger
number of people Mr. Bryan has given instruc
tions that his paper. The Commoner, be sent to
every subscriber for a period of two years for
the sum of $1 the regular price for one year.
You are invited to join Mr. Bryan in this great
fight. Every Commoner reader can aid greatly
If he will secure one' or more two-year sub
scribers at this special rate. This will carry the
subscription beyond the presidential campaign.
Frank J. Burns, Kankakee, 111. Enclosed
herewith I am sending you draft for $1 for
which please send me The Commoner for two
years, as per your special campaign offer. I wish
I had time to go out and get more subscribers for
The Commoner, for I appreciate the work it Is
doing. At the present stage of the reform move
ment, too much publicity cannot be given to our
side of the Issues. With reference to tho "Passing
of Bryan," I have this to say: The wish is
father of the thought. Mr. Bryan was never a
greater power in American politics than he is
today, and I believe that no single character in
American history at any time of his career, has
possessed the sway over his fellow-men now
possessed by Mr. Bryan. He has accomplished
more for his party and the country at large
probably than if he had been elected president.
Before his advent, our national politics, both
parties, were controlled by Wall street and the
Interests. In 189C Mr. Bryan wrested the con
trol of the democratic party from Wall street.
Prodigious efforts were made to return the con
trol of the party to Wall street. They signally
failed, thanks to the . matchless leadership of
Mr. Bryan. To my mind, the three successive
defeats of Mr. Bryan prove his manhood and tho
true quality of his leadership. Had he been
recreant to the Interests of the people, he might
have been elected In 1900 or 1908. For twelve
years he ha3 been educating tho people and"
leading public opinion In favor of roforms which
are nlmost necessary to tho continued Hfo of
tho republic. RooBevelt, seeing his success with
the democratic paTty, attempted to do tho samo
thing with tho republican party, and succeeded
for a timo, but nullified all his laudable efforts
as a disciple of Bryan by foisting such a reac
tionary as Taft upon tho American people, aa
their president. Whatever popularity Mr. Roosc
volt possesses today, ho accomplished by acting
as a dlsclplo of Bryan. Whether Mr. Bryan
ever becomes a candidate for president of tho
United Statos again or not, Is unimportant. Ono
thing is sure: So long as ho lives, ho will bo
the dominating Influenco in tho party, and no
reactionary or interest-serving man can ovor
hopo to bo tho candidate for president of tho
United States of tho democratic party. Tho
democratic majority In tho house of representa
tives are setting about their duty admirably,
and under tho guidance of Champ Clark,
the pcoplo can hope for much relief oven
before tho next presidential election, and then
tho democratic party will bo put In control of
all the branches of tho government, and such
progress will be made toward tho reforms for
which Mr. Bryan has boon clamoring, that tho
old "guard will bo disrupted, and wo can hopo
for a new era In American politics, with tho
people onco more In control of their govornmont.
The following named havo sent In subscribers:
Jno. M. Fulton, la.; Wm. White, Wis.; M. B.
Sterott, 111.; J. C. O'Brien, Mich.; W. G. Eckort,
Pa.; W. C. Smith, Ind.; J. A. Sutton, Cal.; T. B.
Henderson, Ky.; W. C. Crosby, Ind.; V. A.
Hovey, N. Y.; Michael McNally, Kan.; J. F.
Erwln, Wash.; David Mull, Pa.; Albert Forcch,
Cal.; J. M. Blair, Utah; F. W. Kllnshammor,
Wis.; C. W. Nash, Wyo.; Jas. Creech, Mo.; R.
N. Vermillion, W. Va.; J. T. West, Mo.; Thos.
Halpin, Wis.; Chas. H. Lamar, 111.; Jno. R.
Morrow, Pa.; Henry Ashdown, Wis.; Leo Jack
son, Va.; W. B. Lawson, N. J.; W. W. Cunning
ham, Miss.; J. J. Batterton, S. D.; R. A. Weir,
O.; Lawrence Rellly, la.; G. S. Chonault, Okla.;
S. D. Caldwell, Ky.; J. W. McNabb, Okla.; Harry
Morris, Ky.; B. H. Jeffers, N. Y.; Jno W. Bid
ders, O.; W. A. Lowry, O.; W. E. Baxter, Cal.;
A. L. Blodgett, Ore.; T. B. Floliz, 111.; I. E.
Dusinbeiro, N. Y.; H. R. Fickinson, Mich.; J.
D. Hill, Tenn.; Chas. A. Davis, O.; Mrs. A. F.
Goulding, la.; T. J. Rasp, Okla.; C. Slaglo,
Tenn.; M. C. Hamilton, Tonn.; R. H. Williams,
Mo., Fred Rottorcr, O.; Louis Lerritz, Mo.;
C. A. Haulenbeck, Kan.; C. Huber, O.; Morris
Gorin, R. I.; Wm. Long, Mich.; C. E. Bryden
burgh, N. Y.; Jas. DuBoIs, Mich.; C. A. Over
lander, Ore.; J. E. Poguo, N. C; L. Holding
ton, Wash.; Jno. R. Wood, 111.; C. E. Burch,
Ky.; Thos. Finnegan, Wis.; Martin H. Wallace,
R. I.; W. T. Creasler, Cal.; A. C. Murphy, Tex.;
J J. Herbster, la,; F. J. MIrlach, Colo.; J. J.
Rolans, Okla.; J. B. Sutherland, O.; A. C. White,
Idaho; C. H. Chambers, Minn.; J. W. Colo, Ark.;
M. W. Farris, Ind.; J. L. Nance, Tex.; Jas. W.
Turner, Mo.; A. W. Smtih, Kan.; F. B. Morgan,
Minn.; M. C. Coy, O.; Henry Heodacker, 111.;
W. A. Ditzler, Pa.; David M. Tice, Md.; Walter
Yoeman, O.; A. R. Rosseau, Tex.; Jas. L. Camp
bell, Cal.; J. T. Phillips, N. D.; W. J. Craw
ford, Kan.; P. B. Shaffer, O.; V. H. Thomas,
Okla.; H. T. Worthing, Neb.; J. E. Miller, 111.;
W. H. Thompson, Neb.; W. M. Sweet, N. Y.;
-Thos. J. Switzler, Pa.; H. C. Wallace, Mo.; W.
M. Parker, Va.; Chas. Wlckmore, Mich.; J. M.
Goth, Me.; G. C. Oviatt, La.; Jasper Bycrs, 111.;
E. L. Montgomery, Mich.; W. A. Peterson, 111.;
V. W. Stoeser, N. D.; F. S. Bryne, Mich.; D. P.
Norton, N. M.; Byron Mattison, la.; J. F. Lu
cas, Mo.; T. A. Sawhill, Kan.; Susan Look Avery,
Ky.; Amanda Beecher, N. Y.; G. C. Shaw, Ky.;
J. A. Dunkel, O.; Wm. Bawders, Pa.; J. H.
Savage, Neb.; E. A. Shirley, la.; Jas. B. Callo
way, Okla.; Lewis Schneider, O.; J. S. Hollihan,
N. Y.; Asa M. Whetsell, W Va.; L. L. Ray, Ky.;
B. Singer, O.; Hugh Mooney, Mo.; E. J. Zim
merman, Tex.; J. V. Hicks, Minn.; J. R. John
ston, Ky.; F. L. Langford, Ga.; J. E. Spenco,
la.; J. A. Rice, Ala.; J. H. Crampier, Kan.; M.
V. DeWitt, Tex.; F. G. Dewey, O.; W. C. Hazel,
Tex.; Thos. D. Turner, O.; W. R. Goddard, O.;
J. F. Huntzlnger, Okla.; J. A. Bryan, Pa.; A. R.
Wright, la.; F. A. Lans, Ky.; A. F. Speck, O.;
Thos. McPherson, la.; J. W. Turner, W. Va.;
J. M. Blank, Va,; Chas. E. Petty, Kan.; J. I.
Bates, N. Y.; R. B. Ash, W. Va.; J. C. John
son, Ky.; L. N. Larabee, Ind.; Jas. L. Week,
Conn.; Geo. W. Butcher, Ky.; H. C. Foot,
Mich.; J. W. Stephenson, O.; C. C. Dickinson,
D. O.; S. M. Mann, Ore.; W. H. Kettell, la.;
Mrs. J. W. Miller, Kan.; D. J. Morgan, . Tex. ;
H. C. Titus, Pa.; Jas. Kinsella, la.; Jas. Phelps,
Mass.; Clinton Toxter, Ore.; J. D. Hefton, Cal.;
Garrett Demmlng, Mich.
'1.1
l.U.W-'--'
.,: .,
