PAGE 2
G6 Nobrasko. Independent
NOVEMBER 23, 1905
holders and bondholders the danger of a. reduced income because
of lower rates is much more imminent than is the danger of re
duced wages to the employes. The demand for labor depends upon
other elements than the revenue of the transportation companies,
but the dividends of the stockholders are regulated almost wholly
by this element. If lower rates produce less revenue which is
not a necessary result the dividends of the. stockholders will be
less, but the demand for labor may be increased by the increased
amount of business caused by the lower rates.
The stockholders have not done much talking m the present
controversy, but the position of the majority is' not in doubt. The
railway publicity bureaus have been the mouthpieces of the stock
holders as well as of the officials and of the AVall street speculators
who control railway destinies although they do not own controlling
interests in all the railway properties in the great railway trust.
It is not to be supposed that all holders of railway stocks and
bonds are opposed to the president's policy, for. it is to be presumed
that many of them are in favor of "a square deal." Nevertheless
the magnitude of the combined railway forces as a political power can
hardly be overestimated.
Government ownership would smash this machine. Moreover,
it would deal a blow to the trust machine which would considerably
derange its gear. Preferential rates and treatment have made the
trusts what they are." Let this preferential treatment be withdrawn
from the trusts and their cohesion will be impaired. Competition
will spring up and competition is a deadly enemy to those special
privileges which produced the trust system.
The prospects of government ownership are brighter than ever.
The people are becoming more inclined in its favor and arc open
to conviction. The most serious argument against it is that it will
centralize political power, but this argument is fully answered when
it is shown that in reality political power is decentralized
by taking the transportation business out of private hands.
8
COMMON SENSE AND THE TARIFF
The debate between President 1 loose velt and Mr. Whitney of
Massachusetts as to what the president said a year ago regarding
the tariff on free hides may be highly entertaining to these" gen
tlemen, but. it is of no interest to the public. Of far more interest
is tho report that the packers are making from $3,000 to $4,000
a day because of tho duty on hides and the prediction by retailers
that the prices of shoes arc sure to advance because the packing trust
has a complete monopoly in supplying hides.
Here is a clear case of a tariff that is a shelter to monopoly.
.Whether President Roosevelt promised Massachusetts shoe manu
facturers that ho would work to secure the removal of this tariff
is immaterial. Hides should be admitted free and the president
shfd urge upon congress the removal of this oppressive tariff.
jSTeither the president nor any tariff tory of the standpat type
can adduce a single good reason why tho people should pay a tax
of $4,000 a day to the packers. Why subsidize the greedy packers ?
iWhy not subsidize the cattle raisers who must accept the prices
fixed by the trust for beef on the. hoof?' And on the other hand,
why not subsidize the consumers who must pay the prices fixed
by the trust for the finished products? But neither the consumers
nor the producers are asking for subsidies. They are simply pray
ing for a "square deal."
High prices in themselves arc not bad when they are normal.
The great increase in the money supply has resulted in a higher
level of prices, which, if wages had increased proportionately, would
bo productive of no hardship. The present prices are trust prices
and therefore are artificial. Prohibitive tariffs are simply one
form of the special privileges which permit the trusts to maintain
an artificial level of prices and to prevent even a normal advance
in wages. Time was when tho astute members of the Home Market
Club convinced the workingmen that high tariffs, by fostering in
dustry, created a demand for labor and therefore maintained wages
at a high level that offset the evil of high prices. Hut trust con
solidation is answering this argument more effectively each
year. Thousands of men who have lecn thrown out of work by
consolidation of industries fail to Bee, that demand for lalor is in
creased bv the trust svstem. Thev might be consoled in their search
for new jobs if they could le convinced by that equally celebrated
and exploded argument that trusts cheapen production and there
fore lower price. They would then be happy in the talk f that
when they secured new jobs they would not be forced to pay such
high prices a of old 'Hut history has taught them that with tho trut
power pie the power of fixing price.
These point have l-n clear iu the mind" of all thought fid
'Americans for quite a number of years, and yet the tariff schedules
are still tyrannous because standpatters have not been rebuked , by,
public condemnation. Now that party lines are less securely drawn
than formerly it behooves republicans of the rank and file to insist
upon tariff revision. Let us have done with the atrocious doctrine
that a republican must be against a tariff for revenue because it
was in a democratic platform. The fact that the democratic party
while in power failed to give the public a revenue tariff should con
vince men of all parties, not that a revenue tariff is bad or that
the rank and file of the democratic party were dishonest, but merely
that the vicious power which is always at work to advance the in
terests of trusts defeated the declared will of the people. In these"
days of political independence, which will go down into history
as the days of triumph for popular rights and interests, men of
all parties should combine to defeat trusts. They should abandon
the petty discussion as to whether the tariff shall be revised by its
friends or by its enemies and simply insist with" ever increasing
earnestness that it be revised.
i$
"THE SURPLUS MAN"
In an interesting and illuminating book, entitled, "Constructive
Democracy, The Economics of; a Square Deal," a new phrase has
been coined by the writer, William E. Smythe, who has assigned to
himself the task of suggesting practical ways and means of careing
tor "the surplus man." According to Mr. Smythe "the surplus
man is one who, under the conditions that surround him, is unable
to satisfy his reasonable wants, according to his accustomed stand
ard of living."
We have been accustomed to the term "the unemployed," and
at the first glance might suspect that this is the class to which Mr.
Smyth refers when he speaks of the surplus man. The writer, how
ever, takes pains to point out that the surplus man is not always un
employed. He is produced by the changing order in the realm of
industry. Frequently he is a workman who has been displaced by
labor-saving machinery, but he may be a lawyer, journalist, artist,
preacher, banker or even a "captain of industry.'" He is the man
who has been forced to take a step downward in tho world, and to
him and his family the change brings as much unhappiness as comes
to the workman who must spend a portion of .his time in idleness be-,
cause he cannot obtain work. :
' "v Mr. Smyth shows that on 'the whole-the modern economic read
justment is a benefit to mankind. His point of view is well illustrat
ed by the following passage :
It does, indeed, look stormy for the little umbrella man, but there is an
other side to the matter. The very conditions which wrought his undoing
made umbrellas cheaper for the mass of consumers. It is likely
that as a consequence thousands of children are now carrying umbrellas
to school who would otherwise have to dodge between raindrops, or per
haps suffer less of health or life. And if this be so, there is a net gain
for humanity on the side of the chsap umbrella. We cannot take the um
brellas away from the children nor demolish the department stores. Our
real problem is with the umbrella maker, who is a surplus man.
It will be seen that from Mr. Symth's point of view the prob
lem involves not only the unemployed but those men who live in
straitened circumstances as a result of economic change. There is
room and to spare, as a general rule, for all who wish to work, but
the room is at the bottom. "There is ever a place for the man who is
able and willing to work a little cheaper than another man." This
necessarily lowers the standard of living and is a great hardship in.
a country where the standard of living is high, but it is a hardship
in any country which passes from a higher to a lower standard. Can
the backward step bo prevented? Mr. Smyth says: "For every
surplus man there is a surplus place, where lie may use his peculiar
talents and experience, and where he may satisfy his reasonable
wants, according to his accustomed standard of living." The prob
lem, of course, is to find the surplus place.
In his solution of the problem Mr. Smyth gives much space
to a discussion of the undeveloped resources of the country and
truthfully points out that they are immeasurable. Tho duty of the
government is to prepare the way for the surplus man. Tho reclam
ation of arid lands U a wise and humane step in this" direction. The
writer denouiuvs the "rape of the public domain" and ngitA
excellent laws touching upon ihi phase of the question. Moreover,
tho surplus men must Ik mobilized and there must lo effective co
operation. Mr. Smyth propose., "an army of peace" which hall k
a thoroughly trained to develop the country's natural resource an
a regular army U trained to operate eJTectivi iv in time of war. 'YhU
plan U based on a largo measure of governmental aid, but education
plays an important rle. The public school mu-t train the y.ut!i of
America for ellicirnt m rviee in the Army of IVuv,
Along with iht development of the public domain there ltould
