t? tv '
SEPTEMBER 20, 1012 '
The Commoner.
7
Samuel M. Ralston's Great Democratic Speech
Samuel M. Ralston, democratic nominee for
governor of Indiana, delivered a speech at
Anderson, Ind., from which tho following ex
tracts are taken:
Fitness to hold ofllce is determined by tho
principles and policies for which the candidate
stands, his grasp of the problems affecting the
people and the rectitudo of his purposes. With
such a standard by which to bo measured, I
dare to ask tho people of Indiana to choose
me for their chief executive.
I am an optomist. I have faith in the capacity
of the American people for self government.
Their silenco in the presence of wrong doing
does not necessarily indicate inability on their
part to discover they have been wrdnged. What
at times seems to be ignorance or indifference
on their part is but patience in bearing their
burdens. They are slow to wrath, but swift and
terrible in verigeance when they decide to ad
minister punishment for the betrayal of public
confidence.
Unless all signs are misleading the people
have determined to transfer their national gov
ernment from the party in power to a party of
their own choosing next November, and the
change will not be made without a just cause.
All the democrats, all the prohibitionists, all
the socialists and fully one-half of those hereto
fore constituting the party in power, agree there
should be a change in the administrative policy
of the government.
What is the source of the people's grievance
against the republican party? The query is not
difficult to answer. This is a government of
delegated powers and the republican party in the
administration of tho government has perverted
those powers to the building of fortunes for
favorite individuals and combinations to the
injury of society.
This it has done chiefly through the power to
tax a sweeping power. Upon its wise exercise
the maintenance of the government depends.
Through its abuse the property of the citizen
may in effect bo confiscated and transferred
without consideration to another. In the la'n-
giiageof Chief Justice' Marsh all, "the power to
tax is the power to destroy."
The abusive exercise of this power appears
most prominently in the working of our tariff
system. All agree that this system, which is a
system of indirect taxation, affords the most
convenient method for the government to derive
the revenue necessary to defray its expenses.
But the democratic party insists that In operat
ing this system no more than enough money
should be taken from the people than is neces
sary to defray the expenses of the government
economically administered, while the republi
can party maintains that in levying a tariff a
wage for the laborer and a profit for the manu
facturer should be included, in addition to its
revenue feature. In other words the difference
between the two parties is the difference
between a tariff for revenue and a tariff for pro
tection. The one through this system seeks to
get money from the private citizen into the pub
lic treasury for public purposes, cheerfully
acquiescing in any incidental advantage, if any,
thereby afforded the laborer and the manufac
turer. The other through this system, under
the guise of the general welfare, seeks to get
money from the private citizen beyond the needs
of the governmnt so as to enhance the profits
of some other private citizen or corporate com
bination of private citizens engaged in a private
enterprise. "This," declared Justice Miller, "is
none the less robbery because done under tho
form of law, and is called taxation."
It is apparent that in the national contest this
year the tariff will be the paramount issue in
connection with its brood' of evils. Let us con
sider briefly then the position of the democratic
party on this question as set forth in tho Balti
more platform. And just here let me digress
long enough to observe that no greater con
vention ever assembled on American soil than
the Baltimore convention. It was composed of
masterful men. They were big of brain, of
heart and of stature, and the first among them
Was he whom Indiana always delights to honor
and whose name is revered the world around,
wherever the home and the republican form of
government are held sacred the first citizen of
tho republic, William Jennings Bryan.
I think it clearly appears and has, by implica
tion at least, been acknowledged by the republi
can party in ita platforms, that a protective
tariff appropriates the property of one citizen
for the benefit of another citizen in his private
capacity, without compensation. Is such an ap
propriation authorized by tho federal constitu
tion? Democrats say it is not.
Webster, in defining a tax, says: "It is a
charge or burden usually pecuniary laid upon
the person or property for public purposes; a
forced contribution of wealth to moot the public
needs of government."
From this definition It is plain that a tax must
bo for the public and not for the benefit of
individuals, unless they bo the inmates of alms
houses, and then the public element controls.
The fifth amendment to the federal constitu
tion in part reads: "Nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensa
tion." High judicial authority has declared that "pri
vate property necessarily includes everything
that can be held or owned by private persons."
Notwithstanding this broad definition of pri
vate property, courts have held that money can
not be taken for public use under the clause of
the constitution just quoted.
Tho founders of our government vigilantly
labored to shield the property rights of the in
dividual citizen against the designing avarice
of those who ignore tho moral element in the
ownership of property, and do not hesitate to
despoil both the Individual and tho public In
their efforts to enrich themselves.
When the fathers provided against tho taking
of private property for a public purpose with
out just compensation they thereby declared to
the world that he who labors and acquires shall
not be deprived of his possessions beyond a fair,
contribution -on his part toward defraying tho
expenses of his government economically ad
ministered. They thus laid tho foundation for
true liberty and gave assurance of an Indestruc
tible republic.
I am not required to furnish figures to show
that tho American manufacturer can compete
with the world in putting his product on tho
market. He can do this so easily and with such.
a handsome profit to himself that we have in
this country manufacturing concerns that dis
pose of all their output in foreign markets. Nor
need I pause to remind the American consumer
of the Injustice 'the cruel ipjustlco done him
by the tariff beneficiary in selling tho product of
the American loom and factory abroad cheaper
than he will sell it at home.
There Is scarcely a machine or tool, made in
this country, used by an American farmer that
is not sold in a forolgn market cheaper than it
is sold at home. The foreigner can purchase
the American sewing machine for his wife
cheaper than the American husband can buy
the same machine for his wife. The father in
a foreign land can put an American shoe on his
boy at a lower cost than the American father
can put the same shoe on his boy. The foreign
wage earner can fit up his home with American
furniture, American carpets, American queens
ware, American cutlery and American utensils
cheaper than tho American wage earner can sup
ply his home with the same things. And yet tho
American consumer, the farmer and wage earner
alike, through the operation of a high tariff, has
long and patiently made his contribution to the
home manufacturer to enable the latter to com
pete in the American market not the forolgn
but the American market with the foreign
manufacturer. This the American consumer has
been urged to do for more than forty yoars in
the name of patriotism, but it has at last dawned
upon him that the patriotism demanding tribute
from all the people to satisfy the greed of a
few of the people, Is neither a safe guide for
the Individual nor the nation.
We are told in eulogistic terms that among
the advantages derived from a protective tariff
are an increased wage scale and prosperity for
the American laborer. If this assurance be cor
rect it is strange that men like John Mitchell
have not mado the discovery. In discussing the
American standard of wages in his hook on or
ganized labor, Mitchell says:
"The greater skill and effectiveness of work
men the invention of machinery, the improve
ment and increased productiveness of manufac
turing have all contributed to this result. But
without the active intervention of trade unions,
The increase in wages, which has marked the
nrogress of American industry in the nineteenth
century, would not have taken place.
Further on in the same book he uses this lan-ctmKe-
''The wages of the working man are
measured in the final instance, not by the mere
amount of money contained in his envelope, but
by what that money will buy.
What a splondid opportunity was hero
afforded this champion of labor to pay a tributo
to tho protective policy of tho republican party
by pointing out tho blessings it brings to tho
homos of working mon. But ho did not attempt
It. Ho understood that to tho extont tho tariff
incroases the prico of what the laborer consumes
It decroases his wage scale.
By no moans then does it follow that high
wages and prosperous workman are found In
tho Industrial centers moHt highly favored by
tho tariff. Not long ago Senator La Follotto
pointed out to tho sonate that the tariff on
woolen goods mado tho manufacturers thereof
$100,000,000 annually in excess of a roasonablo
profit thereon and that through tho tariff tho
manufacturers of cotton goods notted annually
more than $90,000,000 beyond what Is a reason
able profit.
There Is no lack of ability, then, It Is apparont,
on tho part of thoso engaged In these Industrie!
to pay tholr employes a living wage, plus some
thing for tho misfortunes of the future. Tho
result of the recent Investigation of labor con
ditions at Lawrance, Mass., a woolen and cotton
manufacturing centor, Is yet fresh in the public
mind.
We gather from statistics that 27 children
under five years of age, die in every 100 deaths.
In Lawrence and somo of tho othor labor
centers, notable for their protected industries,
tho death rate among children of this ago has
been found to bo as high as 47 in every 100
deaths.
The shroud and tho hoarse portray more
graphically the oppression and suffering endured
by the American family In many of our highest
protected centers than it is possible for mo
to do.
John Mitchell, in speaking of tho standard of
living for an unskilled workman, says:
"Tho American standard of living should
moan, to tho unskilled workman, carpets, pic
tures, books and furniture, with which to make
homo bright, comfortable and attractive for
himself and his family, an ample supply of cloth
ing, suitable for winter and summer, and above
all a sufficient quantity of good, wholesome,
nourishing food nt all times of the year."
Let us ascertain, If we can, whether it Is pos
sible not probable but possible, for the fami
lies depending upon the woolen and cotton in
dustries of Lawrence for support, to enjoy tho
standard of living suggested by Mltcholl for tho
unskilled workmnn.
W. J. Lauck, who at one time was connected
with the United States immigration commis
sion, is an experienced investigator of industrial
conditions. Ho has examined into labor condi
tions at Lawrence and makes the statement in
reference thereto that
"Tho average annual earnings of the male
heads of families in these woolon and worsted
Industries In Lawrence are only $400 and" of all
males upwards of 18 years, $346."
Four hundred dollars per year Is $1.09 per
day. Tho average American family consists of
five, and at the rate of $1.09 per day each mem
ber would havo to live tho year around on 21
and a fraction cents per day. This allows no
day for sickness and no day for pleasure. Does
it occur to you that there is a relation existing
between this dally wage and tho death rate of
children to which I havo called your attention?
And how do you suppose the head of a family
under such conditions would go about to provide
for those dependent upon him tho standard of
living suggested by Mitchell for tho unskilled
workman?
During the recent strike in the mills at
Lawrenco, 119 children, having mill employ
ment, were found to bo In such destitute cir
cumstances that they had to be ministered to by
a nurse, furnished by charity. This ministering
angel found that but four of tho 119 children
had underwear of any description to protect their
shivering forms against tho wintry blast. Think
you, I again ask, Is there any relation between
the wages paid at Lawrence and the death rato
to which I have directed your attention?
But our republican friends assure the coun
try that tholr party will correct tariff inequali
ties and right many of the wrongs tho people
have suffered If the republican party Is given
another trial and a tariff commission, through
which to work. My friend, Hon. James E. Wat
son, who recently delivered the keynote speech
for his party, at the republican state convention,
made a plea for such a commission, citing tho
impracticability of making a proper revision
without the aid of a commission. He said:
"For, if all persons interested had the oppor
tunity of presenting their claim to such a board,
and if the entire question as it affects any one
(Continued on Page 10.)
-1
'tl
,
tCltt-.
