The Commoner
MAY, 1921
11
$ -vmSEm
' ' ' AsHoffff.'
i. WtAtaaM
Jfefl
i-y
i. '
A d
J,!
' a
. v. a
.
. "!
, : ..i
-"
f -a
.. Ki
-!
1 ill
jti
-iffl
"
jv V
- m
-B. rifctV
,mr
s'JVram-i
S 011
t ' ,
, '.1
'- a
5T77
!Vrt
i
i-L' i
,m
IVJ-
..',
f
Sy
i',m
"-j,
Wi
'$!
't'v,
HI
J&s
' L f J-
". i
. "J
Jj1t
BS
AC
jij
TK.
M
. " fcjjrt,- i
i -eW-r
;y
Hraaro
Flays Tariff Bill as
Lobby Measure
i Washington dispatch, dated May 9, says:
y lines wore broken in the Senate today dur-
fthe debate on the emergency tariff bill, Sena-
Moses, Republican, New Hampshire, delivor-
& scathing denunciation or it, ana senator
iirst, Democrat, Arizona, warning his col-
ues not to let "the folks back home" learn
stood for free trade. Senator Moses charged
a great lobby was pressing for passage, and
kcd the leadership, of his party for its part
eking to enact such legislation. It was not
epublican measure, he said, and had no sup-
from the white house insofar as it proposed
continue wartime restrictions on importations
3yes.
Senator Ashurst said Democrats had lost elec-
ms in the past on the issue of free trade, and
day had come when the rights of the agri-
Mlturists must be given equal consideration with
of the manufacturers.
r. Moses' drive againBt the lobby, which he
V otai V. 'I1n.nnf wtsrt4- Vtfrrltlfr nftranirtnA
WHO lUO IU15COI.) IUUOI. lUfamj UlbttiimvU
paid and most arrogant of any thlff capital
Seen," brought N a rejoinder from Senator
x, Republican, Pennsylvania, who sponsored
Sip amendment restricting dye importations.
r Knox argued that the senator's attitude was
HWbased on the views of future needs of the
rernment in time of war.
Lr. Moses submitted what he described as a
fcement of expenditures by the American dyes
titute covering, he said, its activities in be
lt of the tariff bill with the dye amendment.
e alleged expenditures, he said, totalled ap-
clmately $104,000. The Dupont interests
were brought in by Mr. Moses as supporter
le dye industry. They were represented, he
$,by M. R. Pouthier whom he described as
ring a large measure or control over tno
tuff industry in the United States.
Recalling that he had opposed the bill in the
rious congress, Mr, Moses Ba'd he had hoped
mi its reconsideration was begun by the Sen
I finance committee that he would be able "to
mllow it, even though holding my nose, while
ting for it." Its appearance, however, did
justify his hopes, he saidv
THE COLOMBIAN TREATY
jhus endeth an eighteen-year-old quarrel.
Ihe United States congress had voted to build
'anama canal. It had accepted an offer to
m $40,000,000 for the rights of the French
ial company, subject to the completion of an
reement with Colombia, whose territory the
aal was to traverse. A treaty had been 1 ormu-
ted under which Colombia was to receive $10,-
1,000 and an annuity of $250,000 a year. The
Mate ratified it. The Colombian congress
Hied.
?he impression prevailed in this country that
delay in Colombia had a sinister meaning.
ire the Colombian congressmen waiting to be
tght? No need to answer. Of a sudden there
is a revolt in the Colombian state of Panama.
mama declared itself independent. Senator
hn Sharp Williams insisted the other day that
Wt& revolting army consisted of ninteen negroes
end a mule. However that was, President Roose-
slt recognized the new republic and made with
fthe contract which Colombia had failed to
Ftify. Then the canal was built.
sColombia naturally insisted that the United
rates had robbed it of Panama. To this day
las refused to forgive us, and its hostility has
a reflection throughout all South America.
f. Bryan negotiated as secretary of state, a
seaty of friendship with Colombia under which
le tatter was to receive $25,000,000 Jn recom-
ms.e for the loss of Panama. This treaty, minus
clause in which the United States expressed
gegret for the events leading up to the quarrel,
las now been ratified by a republican senate,
tather, it is ratified by af combination of the
emocrats and the non-Roosevelt- Republ'cans.
he group of "senators who were the Roosevelt
rogressives of a dozen years ago voted vainly
Kgainst ratification.
whether this is an indictment of President
oosevelt's course is n question for historians tot
Kettle. The motive of ihe adminstration and of
the senators had little to do with history. The
democrats, of course,, were glad of the chance
to vindicate the Democratic administration
rhleh negotiated the treaty. But the adminis
tration seems to be thinking of the matter wholly
A NEW DAY
mmHMFr &&&tfz. c?
Louisville Courier-Journal.
as a basis for future trade -relations with Colom
bia and with South America;
That may prove to be important matter. With
Europe largely barred from trade with us by ad
verse exchange conditions, South America be
comes a natural and rather essential recourse.
Nebraska State Journal.
GENERAL JOHN J. PERSHING ON WAR
- As we contemplate the causes of war and real-,
ize its horrors, every right-thinking man and
woman must feel like demanding that some
steps be taken to prevent its recurrence. An im
portant step would be to curtail expenditures
for the maintenance of navies and armies.
The estimates recently presented to our con
gress for the naval and military services con
template an appropriation for the next fiscal
year of more than $5,000,000 for every working
day in the year.
It is a gloomy commentary upon world condi
tions that expenditures several times graater
than ever before' in peace times should be con
sidered necessary, especially when the most
rigid economy in governmental administration
is essential if we would avold national bank
ruptcy. The world does not seem- to learn from experi
ence. It would appear that the lessons of the
last six years should be enough to convince
everybody of the danger of nations striding up
and down the earth armed to the teeth. But
no one nation can reduce' armaments unless all
do.
Isn't it, then, time for an awakening among
enlightened peoples to the end that the leading
powers may reach some rational agreement
which would not only relieve the world of this
terrible financial load, but which in itself would
be a long step toward the prevention of war?
Ours is not an aggressive nation. We want
no territory and we have no designs on other
people. If other nations have the same attitude,
- it seems unreasonable not to believe that all
will be willing to prove it by consenting to limit
armaments. , Unless some such move be made,
we may well ask ourselves whether civilization
does not really reach u point wliere it b3g ns to
, destroy itself and whether we are thus doomed
to go headlong down through destructive war
and darkness to barbarism. Address at New
York, December 29, 1920. '
s,
LACKING DRINK, ARE FOLK NOW TAKING
- TO DRUGS?
In the merry old days it used to, be a ques
tion what, if anything, drove thispreson or that
to excessive drink. One of the strong question
produced by the prohibition law is whether Jack
of the potable alcohols, such lack as there is of
them, is driving people from drink to drugs.
-. An expert on such a subject whom The Globe
has consulted answers this question with a gen
eral No and an exceptive Yes. Commissioner
Carleton Simon must be regarded as a convinc
ing authority by reason of his experience in
charge of the narcotic division of the city police
department and by reason of his being a psychia
trist and criminologist.
Dr. Simon gives it as his observation and
conclusion that most people accustomed to
spirituous drinkables are not turned by depri-
vatlon or rarity of them in the direction of the
narcotics. This thing Jo quite as true, he seems
to say (and the point is a little surprising), of
immoderate drinkers, even drunkards, as of
temperate consumers. In short, the most com
prehensive aggregation of people who can be
called normal come within this rule, the rule
that absonce of desired drink does not open the
avonuo (or the alloy) of vitiating drugs.
But ho non-normal group which bites its
sharp sector into the circle of this immensely
inclusive generality is the underworld classos.
Denial of liquor or difficulty in getting it does
press the hypodermic syringe into the hand of
the criminal. A pickpocket or a cracksman, or
about any other malefactor, wants stimulus and
steadying for his adventure. Formerly ho got
both from a stiff glass of spirits, which ho could
buy for a few cents, but now ho often Iiqh not
the multiple higher price of a whisky or brandy
in his pocket. Hence ho carries a heroin or co
caine outfit In. his pocket
So, as Commissioner Simon pronounces, (ho
only member of society whom the eighteenth,
amondment Is driving from drink to drugs is he
who is only contractively a mombor of it at all
the criminal.
The country is both fortunato and unfortunate
in this exception. It is fortunate because pro
hibition influences to narcoticlsm only the crim
inal few; but unfortunate because the vil will
nwke them the more dangerous. For the ?iar
cctic renders the user clear and fearless and
without conscience.
While not all who are given to tho hypodermic
vice are directly classifiable as criminals, Dr.
S.'mon is startling in the proportion he attributes
to those with criminal histories among all drug
addicts. They number 77 2-5 per cent If this
is true, and. true also the drug habit promotion
by prohibition among criminals, it is evident
enough that we are in for a worse underworld.
But it is welcome to be assured at tho same
time, however, that prohibition is not acting
0 the drug recruitment of tho crookdom ciusws
which It does bedrug. New York Globe and
Commercial Advertiser.
BRITAIN'S GROWING DRINK BILL
Mr. George B. Wilson, Political and Literary
Secretary of the United Kingdom Alliance, in
h;s statement of "The National Drink Bill of
1920," says that the consumption of intoxicating
liquors In the United Kingdom during 1920,,
measured in terms of absolute alcohol, showed
an increase of 15sper cent over 1919, but is still
about 24 per cent less than in 1913.
"The expenditure on intoxicating liquors
' showed an advance of 21 per cent over 1919, ana
ot no less than 183 per cent; that is, for every
100 spent-on these liquors in 1913 the nation
spent 283 in 1920.
"Although the funds available have been suffl
cient to maintain the total consumption of al-
?Xn1ICx,!Iquors at an even higher level than in
1919, there are indications that the industrial
depression is already affecting consumption:
and, in the opinion of tho trade, is likely in
creasingly so to do.
"I estimate the amount spent on intoxicating
liquors in the United Kingdom in 1920 at
469,700,000, as against 380,000,000 in 1919
and 100,000,000 in 1913. '
"The expenditure per head of the population
was therefore, in 1920, approximately 10 per
adult of 21 years and upwards ' (including ab
stainers) 16, 16s., as against 3 12s and 5
19s. in 1913. The expenditure for each of the
three kingdoms, though not capable of strict
statistical verification, was probably about:--
Total. Per head.
England and Wales. . .391,000,000 10 7 0
Scotland 45,000,000 9 3 0
Ireland v 34,000,000 7 3 2 0
"The taxation collected by the trade from con
sumers' of intoxicating liquors in 1920 was-
Spirits, 71;000,000; beer 123,000,000;. wine
3,000,000; or 97,000,000 in alh '
Total Drink Total
BUI. Taxation.
JJlil "' 166,700,000 38,200,000
1920 469,000,000 197,000,000
Per cent, of Net Drink
, . Taxation to T't'l Bill.
JJJJ ' 23 128,500,000
192Q 42 272,700,000
"During 1920 , an increased consumption of
alcoholic liquors has coincided with- a marked
increase In public drunkenness, both of men
and women." From an English newspaper.
'S
LS'
