The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923, May 24, 1912, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

K WjUPWIWIliI .mm i. i
mrniuen man mji iiiiriir ar
' i
Si v
i -
WMI . 1
ii '
The Commoner.
Kntorod nt tho PoBtofllco at Lincoln, Nebraska,
no aocond-claau matter.
Wii.mam J. Hhvan
lCilllorniitl Proprietor
Awocluto Kdltor
Kflltorlnl nnoinn nnd llunlncfut
Olllcc, 3IM.330 Houth 12th Street
One Ycnr 9100
Klx Month CO
In ClubH of Flvo or
more, per year., ,7B
Three Month. .... . 2S
Single Copy 03
Bamplo Copies Free.
Foreign Post. Co Extra.
SUIISOHII'TIONS can bo aent direct to Tho Com
moner. Thoy can alao bo sent through newspapers
which have advortlsod a clubbing rato, or through
local agents, whoro sub-agents havo been ap
pointed. All remittances should bo sent by post
ofllco money order, express ordor, or by bank draft
on New York or Chicago. Do not send Individual
chocks, stamps or money.
UIQMSWALS Tho dato on your wrapper shows
tho tlmo to which your subscription is paid. Thus
1012. Two weeks aro required after money has
eolved to and including tho last issuo of January,
January 21, '12 means that payment has been re
bcon received beforo the dato on wrapper can bo
OIIANGlfl OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting
a chango of address must give old as well as now
ADVRUTISINC Rates will bo furnished upon
Addross all communications to
THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Neb.
Practical Tariff Talks
In tho Taft column of delegates It will bo
observed that tho state of Vermont Is well
represented. In that state tho marble quarry
owners aro quite prominent in politics, and
their rounding up of tho delegates for the presi
dent is but their way of repaying him for his
kindnesB in signing the Fayne-Aldrlch tariff bill.
Marble, perhaps, does not appeal to the average
porson as being a commodity that anybody
would care whether thero was a tariff on or not.
Yet tho annual marble bill of the United States
Is twenty millions of dollars, and the big tariff
tax on tho raw material pours a great many
thousands into willing pockets, paid for by tho
home-buildors and the general taxpayers who
foot tho bills for tho finer grade of public
The Commoner.
on marble Is to a1d immensely to tho value of
tiio atone still unchlsolcfl Horn tne nuis 01
Vermont, ana that is why it was retained.
This rank favoritism shown in the marblo
schedule is repeated in a number of other
schedules in the existing tariff law. A tariff, s
levied upon lead ore that has no other result
than to greatly enhance the value of the hold
ings of the lead mine owners. A ?20 a ton
tariff is placed upon zinc ore, and adds approxi
mately that much to the value of the zinc ore
still in tho hills. A tariff is levied upon coal for
the purpose of giving added value to the coal
yet unmined. A tariff is maintained on lumber
that adds just tho amount of the tariff to every
stick of standing timber left in the country.
These and many others like them are all to bo
found in the Payne-Aldrich law, which was
signed by and given the hearty approval of
President Taft, and it is but natural that the
owners of those lands where these great sup
plies of the raw material of manufacture are
located are lined up behind the candidacy of
the man whose influence and approval helped
give them added value.
American marble is protected against tho
pauper marble of Italy .by a tariff of 65 cents
.per cubic foot. This is a tariff that is fully
absorbed, not by the manufacturers, but by
tho quarry owners. They have a selling com
bination, which fixes the prico at around $1.50
a cubic foot, which is about twice -what it costs
to got the stone out of. tho quarry. Tho marblo
sohedulo in tho present law is unique in that
tho only reduction made in it was upon the
finished or partly finished product, while tho
old protection for tho raw material was main
tained. Tho presumptive object of a tariff is to
protect tho manufacturer from the competition
of foreign manufacturers. If the tariff on raw
material is lowered or abolished tho result
inovitably is to stimulate the manufacture of
that raw material since tho supply is greatly
increased and the price lowered, creating, in
turn, a greater demand. In remodeling the
marble tariff the influence of big quarry owners
was sufficient to prevent any chango in the tariff
on tho raw marble.
The democratic party is committed to tho
doctrine of free raw material for the reason
that with the tariff barrier removed manufac
tures would flourish, since it would relieve them
of tho price tyranny of those combinations that
control the sources of supply and give them tho
freedom of choice that comes from buying in a
world market. The United States has handed
over at a nominal cost vast storehouses of
mineral and other wealth to rich syndicates,
and the republican tariff policy is to protect
these owners from any competition while they
dole out the supply at their own figures.
C. Q. D.
Speedio . " 6,370
Whitehead 10,114
Morrissey ..: 22.G77
Terry . .--' .. '--oi.-..20,0G5
Eastham -.--o:. 37,597
Harman - .12,425
Hayden . . . :-. . . . . 6,740
Hinklo . . :: i:i. -r.. 3,346
Maupin ....... w.r.-.-. .-.-. 9,137
Simms ... ! . :...:'.:.-.'. 3,911
Simmons ...-,' .- ..:.-......-. . 4,344
Stamm . . iV ;.,;:, 4,848
Initiative and Referendum:
Republican, for -.!.-. .-.-..-... 47,880
Republican, against . .: 7,744
Democratic, for . ..... .-. . .32,400
The principal source of supply in foreign
countries is Italy, where the stone, after being
quarried, is rolled down tho mountains and
transported by boats and carts to tho markets.
About all of the Italian product that reaches
these shores come from the Carrara region,
which supplies a marblo of such purity and
whiteness that it is largely used in the fine arts.
It costs about $2.50 a foot to lay it down in
Now York, or about a dollar more than the
American product is Bold for. A lower tariff
would bring lower grades into the home market,
and enable those manufacturers who are rioti
quarry owners to gain access to a supply thatl
would prove aj serious rival to tho Vermont and
Tennessee stone. Tho result of tho higbjinrlfft
'. i. ;.. .L.i:. ...
, 8,518
Democratic, against
Legislative Salaries:
Republican, for ...
Republican, against
Democratic, for . . .
Democratic, against
Board of Control:
Republican, for .'.-.. .38,903
Republican, against . .-- 10,761
Democratic, for -!..- ..- . .24,093
Democratic, against ..... .:..:. i. . 7,874
Biennial Elections:
Republican, for ,.vr. . . .. . .39,038
Republican, against .:. . ...... .11,837
Democratic, for -.:. .:. .-. . .26,118
Democratic, against . . :..... . . 7,273
Home Rule Charter:
Republican, for ;.'.,-.-.. . .33,800
Republican, against :.-.-. .. .15,005
Democratic, for -... .-. .-.. ...... 23,398
Democratic, against . . . -. ., 7,883
In tho democratic primaries recently held in
Nebraska the preference vote for presidential
candidate' follows:
Wilson . . . ......:. . . .14,068
Harmon 12,557
Clark ...-., 20,908
Loomis, Dunn, Westover and Bryan were the
progressive candidates for delegates-at-large.
Of these three were elected, Loomis, Dunn and
Bryan, Hitchcock, the reactionary, being
chosen as one of the delegates-at-large.
Bryan c. .-.:.. . ... . ...t. . . . 31,209
Loomis ;.-. 27,258
Volpp : ..-.:. . 17,495
Hitchcock . .-.-., -. . .25,722
Smith :. . ....... ....... 21,163
Dunn -. . . ..... .;... 24,014
Westover ....-.... 23,594
District delegates were elected as follows:
1st A. S. Tibbetts, W. D. Wheeler.
2nd C. J. Smyth, F. J. McShane, Jr.
3rd Louis L. Lightner, J. R. Tulley.
4th C. E. Bowlby, Matt Miller.
5th P. W. Shea, F. P. Swanson.
6th Frank J. Taylor, Orin Reed.
Contests on other offices were as follows:
Shallenberger . . .:. . . .-......:. ...:.i. .,... . . 27,581
Thompson . ...... .:.:. . . . -.:.-..-.-. .-.-.-.-. i. .11,993
Reed -..-.-... ,r-. .ousv.i.-n.-v.,., 5,244
Smith 3,061
Hall .,. t. ., 26,590
Fanning w. ,. .-.;.......;... 15,138
Morehead ..-,,v . . 26,284
Metcalfe 22,065
Diers .- 3 9,110
Gatewood . . -. ' .!- .15,275
Kelley -. ,..-.;,,-. .-.-.-.. ,-.T. .;.;....-.-... .18,993
Whitesides . .. . . .'. . ,:. ,t. .:.., . , 9,381
Richmond : .&::.-. r .39,915
Hall r.r.- :.r.-.v. . .22,954
Seybolt . .-. 20,904
Clarik'.-;!..;. ....... ..;. .,..i...1.....;.i, . .J,CJ18
Moprpo., ... ,y . . . . n.jLri .....j. ... , ... . i .10,227)
Editorial in Boston Herald: An amendment
to tho constitution of the United States, pro
viding for the popular election of United States
senators, now goes to the legislatures of tho
forty-eight states for their adoption. The story
of the congressional deadlock, of a year, and of
its final breaking under the influence of Mr.
Bryan, is told in another column by the Herald's
Washington correspondent.
The legislatures would better "ratify" tho
amendment. It would accomplish, openly and
frankly, what is now secured by various devices
of indirection. It is unfortunate that popular
nomination and popular election two entirely
different things have been to so large a degree
merged in this discussion. Had such an amend
ment been adopted twenty years ago, it would
have meant the election of senators on the
November balloting, after they had been put
in nomination, in the same way that governors
were entered for the contest. Today popular
election will doubtless include popular nomina
tion as well, with all the dangers of this extreme
of popularization. But here again that plan is
already so largely employed that no great issuo
is at stake in the amendment Itself.
The south, with only one party, has long had
the popular election of senators. The western
states, with two parties, havo evolved many
different plans, of which that of Oregon is tho
most complete, for accomplishing the same pur
pose in evasion of the constitutional Intent.
And the western system is creeping eastward.
Legislative election of senators is about as dead
as the electoral college in president-making, and
to this conclusion the country might just as well
adjust itself.
While few legislatures are in session now, it
is not improbable that this latest amendment
will secure final adoption earlier than that in
relation to the income tax, which now lacks only
a few votes of the requisite three-fourths of the
states. This, at least, will bo the case, if the
legislatures, with the opportunity actually be
fore them to secure organic results, vote as
they have regularly done when the popular elec
tion of senators was merely an aspiration.
.., . , 00fl