. 'it
The Conservative *
the rule of uniformity applied alike to
states and territories of the United
States. If , then , Puerto Rico is to be
regarded as a territory of the United
States such a law is unconstitutional.
Congress , then , in passing the act , must
have construed as they said they did ,
Puerto Rico to bo , not a territory , but a
dependency of the United States ; that
it did not come under the constitution
but was to be governed by congress ,
unhampered by constitutional restraint.
A republican congress took the position ,
without precedent in the annals of
American legislation , that congress , the
creature of the constitution , was greater
than its creator ; that it could suspender
or limit the jurisdiction of the authority
that made it. If congress can limit or
suspend the constitution and extend its
own jurisdiction at will , where will the
application of the principle end ? Is
there a single provision of the constitu
tion safe in such capricious keeping , in
the hands of men who have shown
themselves to be so disrespectful of
law.
It is this that has caused doubting
men to become all the more wavering ,
and loyal friends
Cause of OiipOHltlon. . , , . .
o f t h e adminis
tration to become suspicious. It is the
discovery that the promises of constitu
tional privileges and liberties for the
people of the newly acquired is
lands , on whose behalf we had professed
to have undertaken such an unselfish
and humane war , were but the empty
pledges of party leaders in whom the
element of sincerity is most conspicu
ous because of its non-existence ; it is
the now certain knowledge that the
present administration is woefully lack
ing in moral sensibilities and painfully
deficient in scruples of conscience ; it is
this and nothing else that has turned
the great mass of thinking citizens
away from McKinleyism.
If those who are opposed to the pres
ent administration , wish to make their
opposition effective , and if they will be
governed by rea-
Plutform the will
Bm they
Constitution. , .
agree upon a plat
form typical of this outburst of protest
against those who are seeking to destroy
constitutional government in the United
States. To appeal to this vast army of
American voters it is only necessary to
make the constitution the platform and
let the issue in the campaign be plainly
drawn with constitutionalism on one
tide and imperialism on the other. It is
upon this all can unite. It is by the
consistent adherence to this one princi
ple , and in this way alone , that victory
can be attained. It is by making the
fight upon this issue that the words of
the president may be used to condemn
his own conduct and the editorial ex
pression of many prominent republican
newspapers may be employed to refute
any sophistry they may now advance.
What a splendid opportunity for the
display of patriotic political sagacity 1
But to insert in the platform issues pre
viously rejected and proven to have
been unsound is to invite certain defeat.
By consistent adherence to this plat
form is meant the naming of a candidate -
date thoroughly in
, ,
t . ° .J
The Candidate. . . .
harmony with it ,
and not one who owes his political
prominence to a leadership in fantastic
finance , once rejected by the American
people and less forceful today than at
the time of its rejection ; the nomina
tion of a man because of his peculiar
qualifications for such responsible lead
ership and not because ho may , for four
years , have kept up an unceasing candi
dature for it ; to select a man who has
qualities of statesmanship to commend
him and not one who is unable to point
to a single line of legislative enactment
that is indebted to him for its author
ship ; the choosing of a man who , by
his personal success in his private busi
ness demonstrates his ability to look
after other people's business , and not
one who owes his livelihood , not to le
gitimate business enterprise , but to an
altogether unique method of trade , the
promotion of a market for the negotiation
and sale of words , words , too.uot freight
ed with substance , but mere sparkling
words of silvery eloquence , originally
coined and addressed , in humble venera
tion , to another deity , and now , with
the inconstancy of a fickle lover , sung
in rapturous praise of a new divinity.
There is a grow-
PATEKNALISM. . . ,
ing tendency o u
the part of the American people to ap
peal to legislation as a remedy for all
ills public and private ; to seek to avoid ,
in this way , the effect even of natural
laws of trade and to prevent personal
misfortune in private business.
A few years ago it was the railway
corporations , about which timid people
became alarmed
Hallway SiiporvlHlon. , , , . , ,
and asked for the
appointment of a state board of trans
portation , to supervise the transporta
tion facilities of the state. This piece
of paternalism has cost the state in sal
aries alone over $70,000. Ten years of
service or rather non-service has demon
strated the complete incapacity and in
effectiveness of this commission to do
that for which it was created. Not a
single instance can be cited to show
where it has brought about better serv
ice or cheaper rates from the railway
companies.
Now , another class of citizens are ask
ing that the state assist them to make
money. The but-
AVOCH of the mnkers and
tor , by
Butt.rm.iker.
OoNSERVATivEdoes not mean the farmers
who operate their own separator and
churn , but those who buy from the
farmer the product of the dairy and in
largo establishments , with expensive
machinery , convert it into butter
these butter makers are demanding
both state and national legislation to
make their business more profitable by
restricting the manufacture and sale of
oleomargarine. They want it stipulated
by statutory enactment that butter , of
the variety they manufaoture.shall bo the
only legalized breadspreader throughout
the United States , and that oleomargar
ine be declared unconstitutional.
Demands of this character are not en
titled to serious consideration by law
makers , let alone
Legislation.
compliance with
them. It is contrary to the spirit of our
institutions to enact laws that foster
one industry to the detriment of anoth
er. The manufacture of oleomargarine
is a legitimate industry and is entitled
to the protection of the law the same as
any other industry. It is made from
the fat of the boviuo while butter is
made from the milk of the same species.
Why should we legislate in favor of the
product made from milk and against
that made from fat ? If suoh leg
islation is contemplated in the interests
of the farmer , why should the farmer ,
who raises his herd for the purpose of
selling to the beef packer , be discrimin
ated against in favor of the farmer
who maintains his herd for the
purpose of supplying the market of
the butter maker ? The fact is that all
legislation against oleomargarine is di
rectly opposed to the interests of every
farmer engaged in supplying the beef
market.
Then , too , oleomargarine is a cheap
product , by the use of which the poorer
people are able to
AtrtihiHt the Consumer. , . . .
get a commodity
that is cleanly , nutritious , and infinitely
superior and more healthful than the
inferior grades of butter. This kind of
legislation presupposes , on the part of
the people , a pitiable degreee of ignor
ance. It assumes that the average
citizen is not sufficiently gifted in
powers of discrimination to pass upon
the merits of plain , ordinary butter , but
that it must first be tested and tasted by
a state commission and before it can be
legally used it must smack of the seal
of their approval. It would seem that
most anybody , even a buttermaker ,
after including this product as one of
the staple articles of his bill of fare for
twenty or thirty years ought to be
fairly competent to judge of its excel
lence or mediocrity without state or
federal assistance. It in time the Amer
ican people desist from these paternal
istic tendencies of interfering , upon the
slightest provocation , in matters which
are exclusively private and not public
business.
How do you oitizsnize a Puerto Ricau ,
how constitute a Filipino voter under
the constitution ?
1