The Tupelo journal., 1904-08-19

congress and an executive in favor OF
it are elected, without creating that
sense of uncertainty and instability
that has on other occasions manifested
itself. This can be achieved by provid-
ing that such a reasonable period shall
intervene between the date of the en-
actment Of the statute making a revi-
sion and the date of its enforcement,
as shall be deemed sufficient for the
industry or business affected by such
revision to adjust itself to the changes
and new conditions imposed. so con-
fident am | in the belief that the de-
mand of the people for a reform OF tbs
tariff is just, that l indulge the hopH
that should a democratic house of reE
resentatives and a democratic execa-
tive oe chosen by. the people, even q
republican senate may heed the warn
ing and consent to give at least soae
measure of relief to the people.
The combinations. popularity called
trusts, which aim to secure a monopoly
of trade in the necessaries of life as we'll
as in those things that are employed
upon the farm, in the factory and IN
many other fields of industry, have been
encouraged and stimulated by excessive
tariff duties. These operate to furnish
a substantial market in the necessities
of 10000. 900 of people, by practical
ly excluding competition. With so large
a market and highly remunerative prices
continuing long after the line OF possible
competition would naturally be reached,
the temptation of all engaged in the
same business to combine SO as to pre-
vent competition at home and a result
ing reduction Of prices, has proved lr-
resistible in a number of cases. All men
must agree that the net result Of enact
ing laws that foster such inequltable
conditions, is most unfortunate for the
people as a whole, and it would seem as
if all ought to agree that the effective
remedy would be to appropriately mod1-
fly the offending law. The growth OF
monopoly, of which complaint is justly
made, cannot be laid at the doors OF the
courts of this country. The decisions OF
the supreme court of the United States,
the court of appeals of this state and the
courts of last resort in many other
states, warrant the assertion that the
common law as developed affords a COM
plete legal remedy against m~onopolies.
The fact that they have multiplied in
number and increased in power has been
due, not to the failure of the courts to
apply the law when properly moved by
administrative officials or private indi-
viduals, but to the failure of officials
charged with the duty of enforcing the
law to take the necessary procedure to
procure the judgments of the courts in
the appropriate jurisdiction, coupled
with the fact that the legislative depart
ments of some of state governments,
as well as congress in the manner al
ready referred to, have, by legislation,
encouraged their propagation. What Is
needed-in addition to the passage OF a
statute revising the tariff duties to a
reasonable basis-is not so much other
and different laws, as officials having
both the disposition and the courage to
enforce existing Jaw. While this is my
view, of the scope of the common law, if
1t should be made to appear that it is a
mistaken one, then l favor such further
legislation within constitutional limita-
lions as will give the people a just and
full a. of protection.
1t is difficult to understand how n
citizen of the United States, much less
a descendant of revolutionary stock, car
tolerate the thought of permanently
denying the right of self-government to
the Filipinos. Can we hope to instill into
the minds of our descendants reverence
and devotion for a government by the
people, while denying ultimately that
right to the inhabitants of distant coun-
tries, whose territory we have acquired
either by purchase or by force? Can we
say to the Filipinos: your lives, your
liberty and your property may be taken
from you without due srocess Of law for
all time" and expect we will long glory
in that feature of Magma Charta, which
has become incorporated. in substance
and effect, into the constitution of every
state, as well as into the fourteenth
amendment of the constitution of the
United States? Can we hope for the re-
spect of the civilized world, while proud
ly guaranteeing to every citizen of the
United States that no law shall be made
or enforced which shall abridge the priv
ileges or immunities of citizens Of the
United States, or deny to any person the
equal protection Of the laws, and at the
same time not only deny similar rights
to the inhabitants of the Philippines,
but take away from them the right of
trial by jury, and place their lives and
the disposition of their property in the
keeping of those whom we send to them
to be their governors? We shall GER
tainly rue it as a nation if we make any
such attempt. Viewing the question
even from the standpoint of national
selishness, there is no prospect that the
500, 000, 900 expended in the purchase
of the islands and the $3.50, 000, 900 said
to have been since disbursed will ever
come back to us. The accident of wal
brought the Philippines into our possess
sion and we are not at liberty to disre-
gard the responsibility which thus came
to us, but that responsibility will be best
subserved by preparing the islanders as
rapidly as possible for self government
and giving to them the assurances that
it will come as soon as they are reason
ably prepared for it. There need be no
fear that the assertion SO often made
of late, that we have now become a
world power, will then be without sup
port. Ours is a world power, and as such
it must be maintained, but l deny that it