2
THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT,
JANUARY 29, 1903.
! coal trust a monopoly of the anthra
cite supply?' . If the answer is yes,
then no amount of mendacity by the
sacrilegious head of that trust should
make coal consumers credulous dupes
as well as victims of , the anth'racits
" monopoly."
It Is singular that the efforts, which
.Mr. William It. Hearst has been mak
i ing since September last to bring the
great eoal trust into court for pun-
ishment, have not been noticed by the'
i New York papers (other than the
American, owned by Mr. Hearst).
( In September last he petitioned At-
torney General Davies of New York to
I commence proceedings under the New
J York anti-trust law against the great
coal combination. Mr. Davies was a
I republican,' his term of office was
about expiring; he wanted to be
4 elected a judge; he was a candidate;
. but not elected, although the rest of
tile republican ticket ' was elected.
Perhaps he was defeated because he
i found too many excuses for not pro
ceeding against the coal trust accord
J Ing to the petition of Mr. Hearst.
'At. any rate, the defeat of Davies for
a judgeship and of the republican can
didate for attorney general resulted in
the election of a democratic attorney
general, Mr. Cunneen. Yesterday
(January 12) the democratic attorney
' general, Cunneen, made an order that
the coal railroads, constituting the
trust should file their answer to Mr.
Hearst's petition within ten days, and
that they must show cause within two
weeks why suit should not be insti
tuted against them under the anti
monopoly law of New York.
And yet, although this suit has been
pending in the attorney general's of
fice since last September, and columns
about it have been published (in the
American), and although it is a mat
ter of public concern, not one of the
New York papers have noticed it.
Why thi3 silence on the part of the
New York papers? Last week Mr.
Hearst published in hi3 New York
American an open letter to the presi
dent (a copy of which I sent you);
and yesterday this letter was read in
. the house of representatives at Wash
ington by the clerk and every member
of the house heard it, andsyet the pa
pers, of this morning (Januarys 14) are
silent as to this fact. Why. this si
lence? In October last Mr. Hearst
commenced proceedings in the office
of United States Attorney General
Knox which proceedings were referred
to the United States district attor
ney for. the southern district of New
York, testimony was furnished and a
report made to the attorney general,
and yet the "newspapers have' not no.
ticed the fact. WBy this silence? Sen
ator Jones offered a resolution in the
. United States senate requesting attor
- ney General Knox to report the evi
dence (furnished by Mr. Hearst) to
the senate, and yet the newspapers of
New York did not notice the fact.
Why this silence? Senator Jones' res
olution was debated in the senate
several days and yet the New York
newspapers did not notice the fact.
Is this the way newspapers do? If
so, what right have they to do so?
I have refrained from noticing the
silence of the New York newspapers,
with regard to what Mr. Hearst has
been doing since September last, part
ly because I thought the papers would
soon get over their petty jealousy .of
Mr. Hearst and soon do their duty to
the public bf giving us the news as
it comes Out; and partly, because I
thought Mr. Hearst was able to defend
nimselt and would do so. I now look
upon the silence of the newspapers a-s
caused solely by jealousy of Hearst
and of his newspaper enterprises. At
first I thought that they did not wish
to encourage him in his fight with the
trusts and that they really wanted the
trusts to win.
When Mr. Hearst started in in Oc
tober last, I made up my mind that
the trusts would not only soon be
crushed, but that some of the coal
barons would go to prison. I thought
and still think that the trust ques
tion is not to be a political issue, but
that, on the contrary, it is to be treat
ed as a Question of enforcing a stat
ute civilly and criminally. I believe
it is no more a matter of politics,
than murder Is a matter of politics.
Yesterday (January 13) the Ameri
can published an editorial, in which
among other things, it said:
With the right kind of an attorney
general In office not only could the
coal trust be dissolved, but every
member of the coal trust could be sent
to jail. And jail is where they ought
to be, since they are criminals, mur
derous criminals, for this coal famine
kills, and will continue to kill.
Morgan, Baer & Co. are doing their
utmost to drive every community un
der their pillaging sway to the same
desperate extremity to which the peo
ple of Areola, 111., resorted. We want
nothing of that kind here. There
must be no coal riots. Should they
come, no matter what the crimes of
the coal trust may be, they will be put
down In blood' ' 1 M ? 'r
But relief from : "this"' cruel ' and
wicked and life-sacrificing coal famine
must be had, and had quickly. ' -.
The only recourse of a law-abiding
people against this gang of law-breaking
monopolists is such an expression
of public opinion, such a tornado of
popular protest, as shall shake the
capitol and the White house and set
the machinery, of the law into swift
avenging motion, .
You perceive that Mr. Hearst calls
the coal barons "murderers;" and, yet,
they remain silent and so do all the
New York newspapers.
Now, I have this proposition to sub
mit, namely, that, if the coal barons
are innocent, and if they are not en
gaged in a conspiracy to put up the
price of coal, they would at once
bring suit against Mr. Hearst in the
courts and punish him civilly and
criminally. i desire also to submit,
that every day they fail to bring a
suit against Mr. Hearst for slander, i3
a; confession that they are guilty of a
conspiracy under the Sherman anti
trust law. And yet although they are
proclaiming their innocence from day
to day, they do not bring any suit
against Mr. Hearst. How. then, can
we, the common people, come to any
conclusion other than that the coal
barons are guilty and ought to go io
jail?
The republicans at Washington have
concluded to put coal on the free list.
This means free trade in coal. Now,
we will have an opportunity to see
what the effect will be. ' I predict that
it will make no change whatever in
the price of anthracite, because there
is no foreign anthracite to come in.
It may make some change in the price
of bituminous, because there are
large quantities of this kind of coal
in Canada, which can be brought here.
It was never the intention of con
gress to put a duty on foreign anthra
cite coal, but it seems that the law
was so framed as to include anthra
cite. The law expressly declares that
"coal anthracite" shall be free from
duty, but when they were fixing the
duty on bituminous coal, they in
serted a provision that "all coals con
taining less than 92 per cent of fixed
carbon," should be subject to a duty
of 67 cents per ton. This made, the
duty C7 cents on anthracite coal, be
cause there is no foreign anthracite
containing as much as 92 per cent
carbon.
The republicans, in deciding to put
all coal on the free list, have acted
very wise. The correspondent of the
New York Press (January 13) remarks
in this connection:
"Political economists in congress
will watch the developments with
great interest. Experience has taught
them that theories do not always jibe
with results, where tariff
are concerned.
Last year, when the democrats de
manded that meat should be put upon
the free list, I hoped that it would be
done, in order that it might be proved
that free trade in forei srn meat wnnifl
not lower the price of domestic meat.
But the republicans refused to put
meat on the free list, and consequent
ly, we were not able to demonstrate
what many would like to have seen
done. But. now. We Shall havo an
opportunity of watching thp rocnu
free trade in coal. We shall read with
interest the editorials of thp Mew
York papers on this subject.
I could write interminably upon this
subject, if I had time and you had
space. I believe that .a great deal of
time and space ought to be devoted to
this subject, not only for sending the
coal barons to prison, where they are
likely to go, under Mr. Hearst's ham
mering; not only for arousing a public
indignation, which will cause the
president to remove Mr. Knox, the at
torney general who has been mislead
ing and fooling the president so long;
not only for removing the trust ques
tion from our politics, but to enable
the country to come to economic and
political questions, such as taxation
and money, which so greatly need the
public attention.
JNO. S. DE HART.
Jersey City, N. J.
TABIFF REDUCTION
rUukln Interest Most Strongly Oppostd
to It Th Fiaanclal Record'
Editorial
Editor Independent: A recent edi
torial in the New York Financial Rec
ord is a startling manifestation of
audacity or ignorance, or both. This
publication assumes a superior wis
dom concerning financial conditions,
but this editorial demonstrates that
the term "financial" as a descriptive
j ijective no more guarantees that its
editor has a correct knowledge of
either economic conditions or prin
ciples than the possession of a watch
shows the owner to be a watchmaker
Like a child that puts its hand, into
the fire, it does know enough to know
when it is hurt It knows that the
situation in New York is critical, and
foresees, that "some, fine morning"
something may happen. But not
knowing, or not caring, what has pro
duced the critical situation that is so
threatening, but only caring to secure
a little temporary relief, it says:
""Meanwhile, Secretary Shaw has
a chance of making a name for
himself by simply doing what any
conservative, self-reliant business
man ought to do lend money on
any good collaterals offered. Ev
ery serious business man is
watching Mr. Shaw's action with
unusual interest, and it remains
to be seen whether he will use
his opportunity."
This proposition to loan government
funds for the benefit of stock gam
blers, stated in such plain language,
and violating both law and common
sense is doumbfounding. To whom is
it thought loans ought to be made?
What Is thought ought to be the terms
of the loans? The language indicates
that this editorial paragon of finan
cial wisdom thinks that Mr. Shaw
ought to loan to any business man
who furnishes good collateral. This
proposition to convert the funds of
the government into a loan fund
ought to have been accompanied by an
apology to the farmers' alliance.
But after all what has Mr. Shaw
done? Between September 15 and No
vember 25, 1902, he loaned to the na
tional banks $23,000,000 of the money
taken from the pockets of the people;
how much since that time I cannot
tell until the next report of the comp
troller of the currency is issued. These
banks now hold a loan of government
money amounting to about $150,000,
000 made to them by Mr. Shaw and his
predecessors. The forty-six New York
national banks have almost $50,000,
000 of the people's money. No inter
est is paid the government for these
deposit loans. This money of the
people is, in large part, being loaned
by banks to stock gamblers at heavy
rates of interest.
What this editorial says Mr. Shaw
ought to do has been done by Mr.
Gage, and continued by Mr. Shaw, al
most to the limit of the government's
capacity to loan. It is not only what
The Commoner calls "a sentiment
that, prevails- among financiers," but
an existing fact of financial conditions.
The November debt statement on page
1506 of the monthly summary shows
the amount of available funds in the
treasury (exclusive of the bank de
posit loans) to be reduced below $56,
000,000. At the rate Mr. Shaw has
been increasing these deposit loans,
how long will this available sum last?
Another very important question is,
how long will it he before Mr. Shaw
will dare call in these deposit loans
of the people's money.
Read a little more of this editorial:
"The whole business community
will be made rich or poor accord
ing to the way the funds of the
United States treasury will be
handled this fall. The money be
longs to the people; they need it;
and we think they will get it"
Belongs to the people, does it? If
the people need it so badly, why was it
taken out of their pockets by duties
upon prime necessities o'f life? If this?
indirect taxation gives the government
so much more money than it needs
so that Mr. Shaw can lan the banks
$150,000,000 without interest and the
people "need it," why take it away
from them to be returned to them by
the banks at a high rate of interest?
Has it ever occurred to either re
publieans or democrats, who are ex
pecting a' revision of the tariff sched
ules, that it is not only the selfishness
of manufacturing monopolies , that
stands in the way of it, but the bank
ing and financial interests as well?
There will be less opposition from
commercial and manufacturing inter
ests to a reduction of import duties,
than from the financial interests that
have control of the national banks
east of the Alleghenie3.
If import duties are reduced, Mr.
Shaw will not only not be able to
make further deposit loans, but will
be compelled, for current expenses to
take out of the banks the deposit
loans already made. The republican
party will "stand pat" on the present
tariff schedule because the financial
interests demand it If the party ex
pects to have their assistance as it
has had it in the last two campaigns
and without which it would have been
defeated in both, it must not interfere
with the very thing that gives Mr
Shaw the money with which to make
deposit loans to the national banks.
The policy of the republican party has
been, and now is, to take from the
pockets of the common people, by im
port duties, a large amount in ex
cess of revenues required, ami fh
to enable the secretary of the treas- J
ury to make large deposit loans with
out interest to the eastern banking
syndicates. . ,,;.,,
It is idle to suppose that the finan
cial interests that have upheld the re
publican party, and upon which it
must depend for-future success; or
that part of these interests repre
sented by the reorganizing gold ele
ment in the democrvtic party, will be t
in favor of killing the tariff gooses
that has been laying golden eggs for '
them. The fight between the protec
tive tariff league of New York and
the free trade league of Boston, both ;
jcontrolled by the financial interests, i3
a sham battle in effect, if not an act--ual
humbug in intention. -
FLAVIUS J. VAN VORHIS. J
Indianapolis, Ind. '
Whenever the republicans get firmly
resolved to do anything the way .they
go at it is to denounce it, call it an- 1
archy and advocate the very opposite.
That is what they have done with the
tariff business. In 1896 they said in :
their platform that they were going to -pass
a tariff law that "would diversify
our industries and promote competi
tion, what they did was to pass a
law that threw the great industries in
to the hands of a small squad of men
and practically destroyed competition.
trom taeir past career we can there
fore learn a lesson. When they sa
that they are going to down th
trusts, we may know that they intend
to place them on a firm foundation.
Senator Lodse is still of the onininn
that if the treaty with New Found-
land is ratified that Gloucester. Mass..
will become a howling wilderness and
the United States navy will be ruined,
for Gloucester is the place where they
manufacture sailors. But the navy de
partment says that it wants men and
boys from the west and not from the
east and is putting out bis advertise
ments to lure them to enlist. In the
list that they advertise for are coal
passers, firemen, oilers, coppersmiths
blacksmiths, boiler-makers, nhimbers.
machinists, electricians, shipwrights,
painters, carpenters, yeomen, hospital,
musicians, waiters, cooks, stewards.
bakers. Are men trained to these
trade on Gloucester fishing smacks?
A grocer in Bronx, Aiass., made a
will in which he provided that a monu
ment should be erected over his grave
to cost not less than $25,000, and in
the event that this specification in his.
will was not carried out, his property.
should go to a certain -young person
distantly connected .with the family.
His wife erected the monument, but
she is left in most straightened cir
cumstances. This performance has.
led many writers to sugest that some
sort of limitation should be placed
on will making, denying the right of
a man to provide for the wasting oJ!
his estate after his death.
I Will Cure You of
Kheumatism
Else No Money is Wanted.
After 2,000 experiments, I have
learned how to cure Rheumatism. Not
to turn bony joints into flesh again;
that is impossible. But I can rnrp rha
disease always, at any stage, and forever.
I ask for -o money. Simply write
me a postal and I will send you an or
der on your nearest aruggist for six
bottles Dr. Shoop's Kheumatic Cure,
for every druggist keeps it Use it
for a month and, if it succeeds, the
cost is only $5.50. If it fails. I will
pay the druggist myself.
1 have no sam. es, because any med
icine that can affec Rh
quickly must be drugged to the verge
oi aanger. i use no such drugs, and
it is folly to take them.
get the disease out of the blood.
My remedy does that, even in the
most difficult obstinate rasps Ma
matter how impossible this seems to
you, I know it and take the risk. I
nave cured tens of thousands nf r-acoa
in thi3 way, and my records show that
39 out of 40 who get six bottles pay
gladly. I have learned that people in
general are honest with a physician
wno cures them. That is all I ask.
If I fail I don't expsct a pennv frnm
you.
Simply write me a postal card or a
letter. I will send you my book about
Rheumatism, and an ordpr iw
medicine. Take it" for a month, as it
won i narm you anyway. If it fails
il is free, and I leave t. nniinJZ
with you. Address Dr. Shoop, Box 910
Racine, Wis. '
Mild cases, not chronic, arc oft0
cured by one or two bottles. At all
fir"re'its.
Patronize out advertiserg.