j- ' i'i ' , I'Vil1 * ' i f w5Ti Ti - * * _ f M i'B f V * "
" * * ! > FWf * W'p'7' * * l" " " . ' - - , ( - ' * -UJ'l'JiJ.1i.li5itAi'W | ' liti-n-l n\i \ ' --IT. i
10 The Conservative.
tive , nutl the protective tariff
therefore , necessarily , only impedes ,
blights and destroys those interchanges
of goods and products between this and
other nations which are reciprocally
profitable. All existing duties , insti
tuted to restrict exchanges between the
United States and other parts of the
globe , ought , in my judgment , speedily
to bo repealed. The history of agri
culture , manufacture and commerce
proves that whenever statute-makers
have entered the economic domain for
the purpose of legislatively encouraging
or restricting production , they have
wrought positive injury to the many
for the possible benefit of the few. It
is agreeable to observe , however , that
the thought , trend and talk of our law
makers and executive officers in the
United States today are struggling to
wards an enfranchised commerce.
The domestication of tariff legislation ,
that is to say , the assumption on the
part of the Con-
Domesticated , gross of the United
States of its power
to discriminate here at homo by federal
legislation in favor of one industry and
against another lias been exceedingly
unjust and vicious. A pioneer fallacy of
the domestic application of the protec
tive tariff was the first statute dis
criminating against oleomargarine. Ol
eomargarine is a preparation of whole
some , edible fats. It is so compounded
that it competes because of its cheap
ness and nutritiousuess with butter.
The first federal legislation relative to
this was for the purpose of aiding the
butter-makers and discouraging the
manufacturers of oleomargarine. It was
passed under the false pretense of rais
ing revenue and has been followed by
various malevolent statutes in the several
states which are intended to aid butter-
makers. This sort of legislation , this
law-making , for the purpose of building
up one industry and tearing down
another , cannot bo too severely or too
universally condemned. Persisted in ,
this system of class law-making must
logically spawn industrial strife , and
result , at last , in civil war. It sets one
citizen against another citizen. It
arrays one industry against another
industry. It formulates prejudices , self
ishness , envy and malice into statutes.
In a brief paper it is impossible to
mention even a small percentage of the
laws which ought
Too'Many. to be repealed or
radically amend
ed ; but I think all will agree that the
patent laws of the United States ought
to be generally and carefully revised ,
for the reason that as at present admin
istered they establish , by their abuse ,
the only real monopolies in the country.
The founders of this government en
deavored to protect authors and inven
tors through Section 8 of Article 1 of
the Constitution of the United States ,
which "conferred upon Congress the
power to promote the progress of science
and the useful arts , by securing , for
limited terms , to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective
writings and discoveries. " Congress
has abused this power by enactments
which have bredfostered and perpetuat
ed monopolies year after year. The
people have paid millions upon millions
of dollars in extortionate prices for
threshing-macniues , mowers and reap
ers , plows , sewing machines , cultiva
tors and other useful implements , uten
sils and inventions , because of the care
less and criminal manner in which the
Congress has legislated under this whole
some and wise provision of our funda
mental law. Congress has thus imposed
xipon labor and the producing classes ,
generally , an irksome and unnecessary
and irritating burden. These patent
laws , seemingly , grant a perfect monopoly
ely to the patentee , and provide dam
ages and penalties for violation of the
privileges of his monopoly. To stimu
late invention by decently generous leg
islation , is a beneficent and wise prerog
ative of the law-makers. But patents
which have already been continued in
existence for thirty and forty years , by
constantly claimed additional improve
ments , ought not to be everlastingly ex
tended.
Corrupt legislation , many believe and
aver , has very frequently been secured
in order that a reaper , a sewing ma
chine , or some other useful and neces
sary invention might be extended as to
the period of time in which it could
alone bo manufactured and sold by a
given party or corporation.
On September 2 , 1873 , it was my
pleasure and duty to call the attention
of the farmers of Nebraska to the very
general abuse of the power of Congress
to extend patents and thereby to perpet
uate monopolies as to the implements
and machinery necessary to successfully
carry on modern agriculture , but at this
late day it is a work of supererogation
to depict the infamous methods which
are declared to have been in vigor , at
times , for securing extensions to monop
olies which had already been sufficiently
remunerative to make many multi-mil
lionaires.
There exists a mania for the curing of
all faults political , social and economic
by the enaot-
The Law Cure. ment of statutes.
Some in each in
dustrial class in the United States think
that by favorable legislative enactment ,
their vocation , their daily calling may be
made more profitable or agreeable.
There is an epidemic desire for legisla
tion in behalf of nearly all the staple
and producing industries. Exit in a
government like ours , declared to be
made up by the people , of the people
ple , for the people , paternalism can find
no rational lodgement There is no power
to determine what part of the' American
citizenship shall act as parent and what
portion play child. Paternalism is ut
terly impossible of useful perpetua
tion in this form of government , and
every advance towards it is a movement
towards the ultimate overthrow of the
republic.
In many of the states the common-
school system has been debauched so
that it assumes
Common Schools , general parent
hood for the com
monwealth. The books are purchased
by the state. Thus the great lesson of
ownership , of care , of thrift , which was
instilled under the old system , when
each child received the books from his
parents with an injunction to take good
core of them , each book being carefully
covered with strong cloth by a com
petent and thrifty mother in order that
the money invested therein might not
be wasted or lost , is eradicated from the
mental and moral discipline of the
pupils.
The ownership of books by the chil
dren in the old-fashioned country
school carried with it a lesson in self-
reliance , in self-denial and in economy
which not one of the public schools of to
day teaches half so well. Now in many of
the states the educational system is
primarily for the benefit of certain types
of modern educators rather than for the
intellectual expansion and training of
pupils. Boards of education in many of
the cities of the Northwestern states
have been involved in great scandals of
corruption because of the bribes which
are alleged to have been paid to their
members by the agents of the publishers
of certain classes of school books. The
of text-books in the
frequent changes pub
lic schools are largely the result of the
log-rolling of book agents with boards
of education , and the unnecessary taxa
tion thus saddled upon the citizenship of
the country runs annually up into mil
lions of dollars.
However , the laws most of interest to
an audience made up of merchants , are
those relative to the collection of debts ,
and as it is not possible in this paper to
refer to those of each of the several
states and territories , I make general
reference to the present Bankruptcy
Act.
Is it not so imperfect as to make it im
possible to properly amend it so that it
may in any desir-
U. 6. Bankrupt Law. able degree , be a
protection to the
interests of creditors ? Did not the
Supreme Court of the United States re
cently hold [ see the decision in John T.
Pirie , Robert Scott , George Scott ,
Andrew McLeisch , Samuel 0 Pirie ,
John E. Scott , and James Grassie ,
trading as Carson , Pirie , Scott &
Company , Appts. , vs. Chicago
Title & Trust Company argued
January 18-81 , 1901 , and decided May
