The independent. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, April 02, 1903, Image 1

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

    Vol. XIV.
! II I I I I III
HI U.
II 1 1 if l 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 A I P 1 I
LINCOLN, NEB., APRIL 2, 1903.
No. 45.
r
THE TARIFF FOLLY
Mr. Tan Vorhlt Point Oat the Folly of
Trying to Itesurrect Tweedledce
aitd Tweedledum
Editor Independent: , If the Clark
County Citizen or others,.. who express
themselves in the same way in this
state, mean that a man can be a
scoundrel in politics and, at the same
time, honest in business and a Chris
tian in morals, then I must admit that
they are right when they say I "fail
to see how it can bo." I have no con
tempt for sincerely held and honest
opinions. . I can trust my affairs to
an honest man, who does not see
things as I do, with much less anxiety
than to a dishonest one, no difference
what are his professions. This gov
ernment can be trusted in the hands
of ignorant, hut honest men with more
hope for the future than it can in the
hands of dishonest schemers, who have
held to the party name for the sake
of regularity while, secretly or openly,
they worked for its defeat.
, When a man declares his contempt
politically for certain men in his par
ty, I have a right to suppose that hi
regards their motives and actions as
mean and vile, because that is what
is implied by the word "contempt."
In politics no man is dishonest and
treacherous for the purpose of advanc
ing the best interests of his country
or his party. Dishonesty and treach
ery in politics are distinctively per
sonal and selfish.
I know very well that the editor of
the Citizen, and others in this state,
were in full agreement with the Chi
, cago and the Kansas City platforms
on the money question, and I am alt
the more surprised when there ap
pears, to be a desire, in. order to pla
cate , the dishonest - and treacherous
element in, the democratic party, that
lias persisted in remaining with the
parly and, .under cover of party loy
alty, -has m two national campaigns
betrayed it, to drop out of all appeals
to democrats all mention of the finan
cial question and put in its place the
tariff question. This is exactly what
the treacherous crowd, headed by
Cleveland, Hill, Gorman and others of
their ilk,1 wants the party to do.
There are papers aad individuals, who
have not heretofore appeared to be
with this crowd, that now seem anx
ious to assure them that they are re
organized and ready to accede to the'
wishes of the traitors. They try to
compromise with their own loyalty to
both principle and party by running
ur. the flag, for president, of some
one, who, like Hearst, was false ' to
the platforms, if he was true to the
I-nrty.
When the ticket was defeated in
1100, with eager haste in the next is
sue of the Chicago American, he re
pudiated the Kansas City platform on
the financial question. He, too, want
ed to substitute the tariff question.
For a number of years prior to 189G,
I occupied a position as an official of
the American protective league, and
had an opportunity from the inside
to study the purposes of that organi
zation on the one side and the free
trade league of Boston on the other.
I was forced to the conclusion that the
purpose of neither was patriotic, biit
that it was trade advantages which
furnished the motive of both; that,
while there were men following each
of these organizations who appeared to
be unconscious of the fact, the same
'financial and commercial influences
were behind both exerting their in
genuity and power to keep up a sham
fight that public attention might b3
kept away from their real purposes.
Has it been forgotten, or was it
overlooked at the time, how the Cleve-land-ITill-Gorman
crowd and the re
publican leaders acted, when both the
Wilson bill and the Dingley bill were
under consideration? All sincere con
test between "protection" and "free
trade" was lost sight of in shaping
these acts to suit the selfish interests
represented in the east by the two or
ganizations. It i3 folly, worse than folly, to at
tempt now to take up this question a3
a leading issue and to abandon the
financial question, when the strongest
opposition to the democratic doctrine
of "tariff for revenue only" comes nat
urally, and must continue to come,
from y the combination of New York
and other eastern national banks. I
want these Indiana editors to remem
ber that the national banks today hold
about $150,000,000 of deposit loans
made to them by the treasury de
partment. The government is fur
nishing them this great sum without
interest It has been taken out of
the pockets of the people, in large
part by duties on Imports. The
amount collected has been greater
than required by at least this amount,
and lias enabled the secretary of the
treasury to rapidly increase the de
posit loans to national banks since
1896. These deposits now amount to
a forced loan. The secretary dare not
materially decrease it. If he should
do so, it would cause a. most disas
trous financial panic.
A reduction of the duties on im
ports would not only stop the increase
of deposit loans, but it would take
from these banks what they have. It
is absurd to talk " about the tariff
question as an issue until the power of
this financial combination is broken.
There will be no reduction of duties
on imports until tho financial question
is settled.
These Indiana editors ought to know
another thing. Bimetallism is a cor
rect economic policy, but it is not the
financial question. It is an incident
to a principle that must continue to
exist even if silver and gold were to
cease to exist. The financial question
involves the policy of delegating the
prerogatives of government to indi
viduals and corporations.
I shall not dispute as to what the
tariff laws foster. I recognize the in
justice of the laws now on the statute
books. But I do insist that the effort
to make a leading issue out of the
question i3 the sime old deception.
Who are they that are trying to sub
stitute it for the financial question?
Every one of those who thought , the
financial question of so much import
ance, and v every other declaration of
the Chicago and the Kansas City plat
forms of so little importance, that they
preferred to have the republican party
succeed. The tariff did not. trouble
them much then. Why are they so
anxious about it now? It is not be
cause they- are so much interested, in
getting the tariff question up, but be
cause they are more interested in get
ting the financial question down and
out It is insincere and dishonest when
they pretend to believe that the tariff
question, the trust question, or any
other possible question in our politics
is more important than the question
that involves the surrender of the
prerogative of government to Issue
money to the control of banks.
FLAVIUS J. VAN VORHIS.
Indianapolis, Ind.
MAJORITY RULE A WINNER
Missouri Legislature Submits Constitu
tional .Amendment
Washington, D. C, March 28, 1903.
(Special to The Independent, from
the. National FecTeration for Majority
Rule.) The Missouri legislature, as
the result of a long and hard fight by
organized labor, the Missouri direct
legislation league, and other forces
for popular government, has consented
to give the people of the state an op
portunity to vote upon the question
of taking to themselves" an increase of
power through . (1) the extension of
the people's veto, by means of the
optional referendum, and (2) a direct
initiative. This initiative applies to
the state constitution, statutory law
and municipal regulations, while the
people's veto applies to all bills passed
by the legislature, except urgency
measures, the usual appropriation acts,
and bills where there is a two-thirds
vote; also to ordinances passed by
common councils and other municipal
bodies.
Missouri Is the fifth state to vote
on the adoption of this system. The
vote will be taken at the next gen
eral election November, 1904.
The first state in this country to
adopt the system was South Dakota
In 1898, the popular vote being some
3 to 2 in favor of the system.
Two years later tho people of Utah
adopted the system by a larger ma
jority, nearly 2 to 1.
The third state was Oregon. The
vote, taken last June, was 11 to 1.
The fourth state, Illinois. In No
vember of fast year the .question waa
voted upon under a statute which em
powers the people to vote upon any
cmestion of public policy where a suf
ficient number petition for it. The
question of whether the legislature
should or should not submit a con
stitutional amendment for the refer
endum and the Initiative was answered ,
in the affirmative by a 5 to 1 vote, and
in some of , the republican counties
it was as high as 12 to 1. Very little
campaigning was done on the ques
tion. In Missouri, the fifth state to vol3
upon the adoption of majority rule,
the senate submitted the question by a
unanimous vote, while in the house
the .only opposition was by .the re
publicans who declared that the
amendment proposed makes it too
difficult for the people to use the veto
and direct initiative. The Missouri
leaders, however, will accept the
amendment, and use the Improved
system for striking out the excessive
requirements. . Without doubt the
vote of the people on the adoption
of the system as submitted will be
practically unanimous. The history
above quoted shows that there is a
rapidly growing sentiment for major
ity rule. ' ,
The Oil King's Soliloquy.
Ye eighty millions, ye toil
For me, the King of Oil,
For me, .. '
D'ye see, .
ME, who've by large genius won
My thousand of millions.
Yes, a king am T by-right,
By divine right of might,
And ye,
Who see .
Me as I sit on my throne,
Think wicked I have grown.
That I worker-folk oppress,
And the widow distress;
But no! -Tho'
so
I oft raise the price of oil,
'Tis to educate who toll.
To uplift them, to inspire, ,
To drag them from the mire,
Wherein
Their sin -v
Hath ground them down so long,
A brutish, grov-ling throng.
Ye are weak, ye common herd,
Impotent : in act and word;
Hence I
By my
Supreme executive will
Control billions, which still,
If it were not for me, '
Deep in the earth would be;
So then,
Ye, when
Ye, commons, shall be in need,
Appeal to me I'll heed
And answer, save, being king,
Ye seem to ask a thing, ..
Which I
In my
Wisdom shall deem th.1 best
To withhold; for ye rest,
And be ye not unruly,
If seems I tax unduly,
For ye,
May be,
Through your base ignorance, see
Heavy, where light to me.
A cent a gallon i3 small ,
Some thirty milions all
But then
Go ten
To the university
Twenty only to me.
Thus, base-born, it is for best,
I am with riches blest,
For He,
Through me,
Works out all things for tho good,
When ye hor would nor could.
A king then, a king I am,
Supreme king of Uncle Sam,
And ME
Ye see,
Envy they and fear great, small,
President, senators, ALL.
B. O. DUGGAN.
So. Pittsburg, Tenn.
Estes G. Rathbone. the Mark Hanna
criminal who robbed the Cuban mails
and was convicted and got out through
political influence, has been bringing
charges against General Wood, but
the war department refused to enter
tain them. When Rathbone was ar
rested The Independent said that he
would never serve a sentence for the
crime, as he wa3 a Mark Hanna pet
A LIVING WAGE
L. A. Doane. R. F. D. 6. Mauston.
Wis.: I consider I eet fullv as much
or more enlightening news from one
issue of The Independent than from a
week or six issues of the Chicago
daily I take.
Rt, Herbert 8. Blgelow'e Sermon on the
Parable of the Good Samaritan
"We need a modern version of the
parable of the good Samaritan." This
was the contention of Herbert S. uige
low, pastor of the Vine Street Congre
gational church, Cincinnati, O., in
preaching on the subject of "A Living
Wage." Continuing, the pastor said;
We do not mean that the parable of
the Good Samaritan can be improved
upon. It is a priceless treasure, just
as it stands. Who would wish to add
or substract a word? ' , - ,
But we need to interpret this par
able in the light of the changed condi
tions of modern life.
..The teaching of the parable is that
no religion is genuine which does not
move men to compassion for the suf
ferings of humanity.
Look at the priest and the Levitc.
What counterfeits they were. In sim
ple words that will never die we have
the hardness of these clerics con
trasted with the warm-hearted Samari
tan. What sharpens the contrast i3
the fact that the Samaritan was a
heretic. He was not of the Orthodox
faith. His name was a reproach. So
much the worse for these teachers In .
Israel that they should have been put
to shame by the humane acts of such
a man. ..- .,
The moral is apparent It matters
not what religious label a man may
wear. Does his religion touch his
heart? Does it manifest itself in acts
of justice and love? That is the final
test
Now apply the te3t to modern condi
tions. We would 11 be quite willing
to go to the rescue of a man who had
fallen among, thieves. But we never
have a chance. That kind of suffer
ing does not exist today. Most of us
never have had and never, will have
such an experience as , befell the
Samaritan on the Jericho road. -
Men seldom fall a victim to thieves
today. But they suffer In other ways.
If we do not see to relieve such suf?
ferings as we find among us, we bear
witness that our religiori is as heart
less as that of, the priest and the
Levite. ' .
Doubtless it was a common thing in
that country for men to suffer vio
lence at the hands of lawless bands.
This would be good reason for using
that particular Illustration
But if Jesu3 were to repeat that
parable today, it Is inconceivable that
he would use the same illustration.
He would select some common kind of
suffering among us and he would de
clare that if our religion did not
prompt us to go to tho relief of that
suffering it would be worse than v.no
religion.
You see the man who fell among
thieves was the victim of a lawless
act In our country the laws are fair
ly well enforced so that the victims
of lawless acts are very few. But
those among us who fall a victim to
the cruel operation of unjust laws" and
are thus despoiled by lawful act3, their
name is legion. To make the applica
tion of this parable to cur modern
life perfectly apparent we must sub
stitute, for the victim, a man who' is
robbed by due process of law. ' " 1
Unquestionably there are multitude
who, although not robbed outright,
are, by due process of law, deprived
even of a living wage, so that tbey
suffer continually. The government
under which they live Is such that
they are virtually doomed to a life
of hard labor, for which they do not
receive enough to permit them to live
in bodily comfort cr moral health.
What claims our sympathy today is
not an occasional victim of outlaws.
But there are millions of men and .
women whose wages are so small and
whose work is so hard that their bod
ies are broken, their minds darkened
and their spirits crushed. What about
these victims -of social wrong? Are
you indifferent to this, or does your
heart ache for a change that will
bring a more abundant life to these
toiling millions? I take it that thl3
is the supreme test of the genuineness
of religion in our day.
But is this the condition of those
who labor so hard after all? Have
we no: exaggerated the matter? Let
us see.
The treasury department of the fed
eral government recently made an in
vestigation into the wages received
by the-factory workers of this, coun
try. The investigation , included 500,-