i"FF"f
'-w (as
Zr- - (-.
4
-v
r.
Au,- v.4-
. - !T - t
v
The Commoner
NOVEMBER, 1922
US
(
r
.
v
r
1
V
i
v
I
I
r
I
itl-
-nM not liave supported 'the popular election,;
VSnatora had they had the -privilege of .voting
SirStly on the proposition,- but Republican
1 adership is more conservative than the Re
publican masses.
U i 1, larl fho flfrh frit. hn T
The uemocruuo u -. v t" w o m
It was an income tax
E enacted by a Democratic congress in 1894
S.i was declared unconstitutional by the Su-
majonty of one, and that
. florlrt by a
L ohanecd his' mind between two hearings
if the case. The nullifying of the income tax
law of 194 was the beginning' of the fight for
in amendment, that seeming tp be the only
means of securing a tax on income. For years
the Democratic fight for an income tax seemed
to be hopeless. They made it an issuesin 1896
and 1900 but because of the Conservative ele
ment in tho 1904 convention, it was omitted
from the platform of that year. JDuring his sec
ond term, President Roosevelt unexpectedly
find much to the disgust 'of the conservatives
declared :n favor of an" incdme tax as a means
reducing swollen fortunes. (The Democrats had
been advocating the income tax as a jf iscal meas
ure for the purpose' of securing a more equit
able distribution of the burden's of government).
Mr. Roosevelt did not -inaugurate a crusade for
the Income tax, and few Republicans of promi
nence spoke favorably of it. When Mr.- Taft
announced his candidacy for the presidential
nomination, he referred to. the income tax in a
guarded way saying that tie. was in favor of,
such a tax when it was' needed.
In the campaign of 1908 the Democrats again
declared in favor of an income- tax 'amendment
to tho constitution. " Mr Taf t's - platform ; was
silent on the -subject, and he, in his" speeches,
opposed the amendment,' takirigthe position-that
an income tax could be secured' by statute when
ever such a tax was needed.1, ?After his election,
the progressive Republicans of the Senate joined
with the Democrats in. support of aji income tax
as a part of the Aldrich b!ll: TJiis.was dpposed
by the conservative Republicans; .whenit be
came evident that the, Demvocrats ana .progres
sive Republicans could .together furnish enough
votes to attach an income tax, provision to the
Aldrich hill, the conservative Republicans joined
in the submission of .the income, tax amendment,
(the very thing which President .Taf t had op
posed during the- campaign) in order to defeat
statutory income -tax, (the thing that he sug
gested). As proof that the conservative. Re
publicans did not act in good faith, when they
pffered to support the income tax amondment in
order to defeat a statutory income tax, I c'te
tho fact that they did not urge its ratification,
iuicii to their surprise, the people responded
quickly and the income tax amendment was
Boon a part of the constitution.
In all legislation against the trusts, the Demo
crats have taken the lead and they have bad al
most all the leaders of the Republican party
against them. Four Democratic National, plat
forms have declared a private monopoly .to be
"defensible and intolerable. And so, in the pas
BQ of the Currency Law the "greatest econom
ic measure placed to the credit of the Wilson
"ministration; the Democrats had ,the opposi
on of nearly all the Republican leaders.
Hof ilave not iuclued Tariff legislation in the
. ?,ause tUG "issue Which it raises is not as
uisunctly an issue between the progressive and
wo conservative as the issue raised by the
mea8Ure8 mentioned.' A great many Republican
S ves favo,r a uiSh tariff, and a groat
Many conservative Democrats favor a low tar
addPiY effects'Ql! a protected tariff (tho sum
the i thQ price oC "imported merchandise and
comS, l largor Bum added to the price pf
mpeting articles manufactured in this coun
twn Si be clearly seen, the groups on the
idonHn , s 0,f lhG is3ue would be more nearly
off, WIth the eroups on opposites of the
ceaZi S,I? but the weight of the burden is con
titmii tllQ pr'ce of the article so -that a mili
ar in J ?Glued. Then, too, tho big importers
8ervnMainst tho tariff regardless of their con
Demnn.!. on othor subjects, and moat of the
Bardipo manufacturers are for the tariff re
jects their Progressiveness on other sub-
in th railroad question furnishes another test
tism rr,(Uscussion of -progress versus consorva
WiiBB ?i rallSads are on the conservative side
Wctori ,,,!!?y aro managed by men who are con
mattera J tUe WaP StreeT magnates. In all
leader,? rates and regulation, the Republican
railro-ui i lareoly under the influerice of the
t thom J10 ads while theDemocrats not all
n ? ut noariy all are more irf sympathy
4 Tho S Ple'a -side. ' '
Q 8ch-CumminB'law may be offered as
L ADd'ed etnthanatl011al regU,ation "Ki
fnr ITn State elation, not substituted
lor it, the conservatives in both parties believe
mat national regulation should hn qiTTwrr
TUTBD for STATE REGULATION . In Sf Ro-"
publican party, the conservatives were strong
enough to secure a plank in 1916, declaring in
favor of the surrender of all the power of tho
states over tho railroads in .order that the Fed
eral government might have exclusive power to
regulate. The railroads have never been able
to secure any such declaration in a National
Democratic platform. Possibly the Democratic
tendency to guard tho rights of tho state may
account for the fact that no serious attempt has
been made to commit the Democratic party to
the exclusive regulation of railroads by the Fed
eral government. This is not, however, the
only reason; the Democratic party stands for
complete regulation, and regulation by both
state and local governments. The chief reason
is that more of the Democrats aro free to sup
port a progressive policy.
The primaries held this year indicate a
growth in progressive sent'ment more appar
ent in the Republican party than in the Demo
cratic parly because of the triumph of a num
ber of progressive Republicans. Ex-Senator
Beveridge's victory over Senator New was tho
first progressive triumph, although some of
Senator Beveridge's utterances indicate that
this progressiveness had been overestimated.
On some points he is not only conservative but
reactionary; in the matter of regulation cor
porations, he seems to favor the repeal of some
of the laws already in force rather than the en
couragement of new restrictions.
The nomination of Mr. Pinchot for-Covornor
of Pennsylvania was a distinct shock to therpro
progress'ves but not so much so as the nomina
tion of Mr. Brookhart in Iowa, and the defeat
of Senator McCumber in North Dakota. The re
nomination of Senator Johnson in California is
proof that conservatism has not yet regained
the strength to resist the Republican progres
sives in the state; but the sweeping triumph of
Senator LaFollette has administered the most
stunning blow to conservatism in the Republi
can party. , .n.
In the congressional campaign of 1922, tne
Democrats, as a whole, are on the progressive
side of every important issue and the Republi
cans, as a party, on the conservative side. Con
servative leaders direct the policy of Congress
In both the Senate and tho House, except where
the agricultural bloc has been large enough,
acting with the Democrats, to defeat Republican
P While the progressive strength is likely to be
increased -among the Republicans of the Senate,
there will not be enough Republicans to ac
complish anyth'ng except by cooperation
with the Democrats, and such progressive
Republicans as there may be in the Sen
ate will In all probability, be coerced by party
(Continued on Page 11)
anC.e 7 u twn venrs alo lett It this year con-
i it . onri Renublican newspapers that
Republicans ann"eTp"",iette t0 the limbo of
have been consign W J might find
forFHv nf the Wiscons returns of great educe
a study of Jhe Wisconw R th( el(jc.
tional value. Thaen,aelnlng that they had so
tion f "V ? Shine up the totals
little do when it came . w return read
rometlUriinisP" alollette 240, opponent,
none,"
nl . rUv journal, discussing the cur-
The Sioux City v0 boar(i, says
rent critic's of tne fJble to speculate how
that "it mVaSo? would have been had
much worse the s'tua tion
there been no fedei revt bankruptcy by the
farmers who were cdintespeclaiiy at what
deflation that was win ej kfl to know
EST now Ursfthtngs things couSa have
been.
Democrats Triumph
in Fall Elections
Democracy camo back into its own in the No
yombor elections. With tho exception of tho
loss of senators in two states, tho victory was
the most complete in years. Almost ovory state
showed a reversal from tho unprecedented Re
publican majorities of 1920, and a return to'nor
mal Democratic victories in some stntes, with
sweeping victor'es in others.
Tho Republicans still retain control of both
houses of Congress, but by greatly reducod ma
jorities. The present Republican majority of
twenty-four in tho Senate has been cut to ten
votes, and tho House Republican majority - of
157 has been reducod to sovonteen votes. .
Following is a summary of returns on United
States senators and governors by states;
Arizona: Senator Henry F. Asiiurst,' D.
CTovornor G. W. P. Hunt, D. ,-!'..
California: Senator Hiram "W. Johnson, ''R.
Governor F. W. Richardson, R. ' -
Colorado: Governor Wm. Sweet, D. ,,
Connecticut: Senator G. P. McLean.' R.
Govornor C. A. Tomploton, R.
Delaware: Senator Thomas F. Bayard,:Df
Georgia: Senator Walter F, Ceprgo,raJt.
Governor C. M. Walker, D. 0 '';t.JT'
Indiana: Senator Samuol Nj Ralston, D:
Iowa: Senator S. W. Brookhart, R.dpv;-
ernor N. E. Kendall, R. ',r
Kansas: Governor Jonathan Davis, D. ""''
Maryland: Sonator W. C. Bruco, D. ,tJ ,
Massachusetts: Senator H. C. Lodgey t-Rt
Governor C. II. Cox, R. "i
Michigan: Senator W. N. Ferris, D, GSf-
ernor A. J. Groesbeck, R. n .
Minnesota: Senator Dr. Honrik Shipst'6ad;
Farmer-labor. Govornor Prues, H. 'zjuVjtl
Mississippi: Sonator rH. D. Stephens, Dj
Missouri: Senator James A. Reed, D.'
Montana: Senator B. K. Wheeler, D. '""'
Nebraska: Senator R. B. Howell, R. 'Gov
ernor Charles W. Bryan. ".,
Nevada: Senator Key Pittman, D. Q'tiUfjjft
nor J. A. Scrugham, D. -' "t"
New Hampshire: Govornor F.-H. BrownD.
New Jersey: Senator B. I. Edwards, D,
Govornor G. S. Silzer, D, leading. , '
New Mexico: Senator A. A. Jones, D.
New York: Sonator R. S. Copoland,
Governor A. E. Smith, D. j m
North Dakota: Senator Lynn Prazior"
Govornor It. A. Nestos, R.
Ohio: Senator S. D. Fe3s, R. Governor
At V. Donahoy, D.
Oregon: Governor Walter M. Pierce, D::
Pennsylvania: Senators D. A, Reed, R, and.
G. W. Pepper, R, Governor Gifford Pinchot, R;
Rhode Island: Senator P. G. Gerry, D.
Governor W, S. Flynn, D. leading. ,
South Dakota: Governor W. H".l...Mc.Mas-
t6r, It. . Jr !,(' '
Tennessee: Senator K. D. McKellar,, D. .--..
Texas: Senator E. B. Mayfiold, D Gov
ernor P. M. Noff, D. '
Utah: Senator W. H. King, D,
Vermont: Seilator F. L, Greene, R.
Virginia: Senator Claude A. Swanson, D.
Washington: Senator C. C. Dill, D. "
Wisconsin: Senator R. M. LaFollette, R.
Governor J. J. Blaine, R.
Wyoming: Senator John B. Kendrick, D.
Governor W. B. Ross, D.
NEBRASKA DEFEATS CHANGE IN
PRIMARY L AW
Every Republican legislature in Nebfaslia in
the last ten years has changed tho primary lar,
each change representing the desire .of the pro
fessional politicians to edge back to the nomi
nating convention, where theirpecullar talents
can find profitable play. Each time the people,
by a referendum, have knocked out the law. The
latest attempt was at the last session. It was
the baldest effort of all and included an effort
to give the convent'on the power of endorsing a
set of candidates with the object of giving this
group the advantage at the following election.
' At this writing the returns on the referendum
taken on this law were not all in, but those
counted indicated about a four to 'one vote
against the law.Vith Mr. Bryan in the gover
nor's chair there w!ll be no such bill enacted
Into law, even if the vote on tho last attempt
isn't emphatic enough to deter the Republican
politicians from further mining and sapping. TBhe
people prefer to make their own nominations,
and will not delegate the power to any group of
self-selected men,
D.
R.
4,wm ML
Ml m
l
.,
ne
&
in
mm
r i
!
VJ
4
3M
?
--?
VI
mmfxrr
mk& 'ii