The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1904-02-18

Editor Independent: The New York
American (Wm. r. Hearst, editor and
proprietary asls:
Gould an iniquitous, unsupported
ing tariff exist. with its abuses, II
workmen united against it?"
Gould trusts exist, if the working
men voted to kill them?" (Jan. 6,
19O4)
II Is now certain that Mr.. Hearst is
to be prominent candidate for the
nomination for president in the next
democratic national convention. 1t is
also certain that, Mr. Bryan and Mr..
Hearst will work together in the next
national convention of their party.
They are both democrats. hut they
are not both clike. Mr.. Hearst is much
more in favor Of an income tax and
direct taxation upon wealth and IN
proportion to wealth than Mr.. Bryan
is; but he is not SO much in favor OF
free coinage of silver as Mr.. Bryan is.
This would maize him (HearsO more
acceptable to the east. There are GER
tain prejulices against free coinage
of silver here which are hard to get
over. The common people do not UNI
derstand what free coinage" means
They do not know that we are living
under free coinage of gold now; and,
if some of them DO know it, they can
not see any danger from it. They are
unable to comprehend that if free COIN
age of silver is dangerous. free coin
age of gold is equally dangerous. Much
less can they understand that even II
free coinage of gold is dangerous, free
coinage of silver might act as an anti
doLc. In other words, the whole sub
ject of monometaliism and bimetallism
is dark subject. This ought not to
be so, but nevertheless it is SO, al
though everybody ought to be able to
see that If free coinage OF gold is
right or expedient, free coinage of sill
yer must be equally right and ex-
pedient.
Mr.. Hearst and Mr.. Bryan are both
inclined to free trade. In this respect
they are alike. But, if we have free
trade, how is the government to be
supported? q refer to the federal gov.
ernment.) Mr.. Hearst is opposed to
'trust-protecting tariff" So are We
ALL But is he opposed to tariff that
protects American lndustr es Gas
against foreign industries)? Does he
propose to remove all tariffs, that
protect our industries and leave lot
of tariffs that are for revenue only?
If so, he is not in favor of free trade.
We have tariff on raw sugar which
is about 100 per cent, that is. NC
pound, which doubles the price of
sugar to every consumer, and enables
our producers TO get higher price
for their sugar.
About ohe-half of the tariff on SUI
gar is for protection and the other
half, of course, is for revenue. II Mr..
Hearst is in favor of tariff for revenue
only and opposed to tariff ior protec-
tion only, he would take off so much
of the duty Ton sugar. as is for pro-
lection and cave the other half on
for revenue. The republicans, those
who are in favor of tariff for <protec-
ton only, would remove the whole
duty on sugar. II they should act true
TO their platform. But the trouble is
that republicans vote first for small
tariff on sugar for protection and then
for more tariff on sugar fer revenue,
so that in the end the taxpayer, that
lis, the consumer OF sugar, Is COM
PEELED to pay a very high price for his
sugar. What does Mr.. Hearst pro-
pose to do about IL?
What We 'ant Is president who
will insist that III the hovernmeEt
must have revenue. II must be OBJ
tanned by an income tax or some other
Kind OF tax upon wealth: and that II
a tax upon wealth cannot be inaug-
urated. then let the present system
Of taxation remain "a Il ls. This will
leave tho tarlit nv II In. until the pco-
pie can elect president who will
give them direct tax on wealth.
Mr. Hearhts objection Ia a larlff on
the ground that II encourages trusts
N not worth considering. although
this objection IN frequently made hy
democrats. II we should put the dem.
ocrats into power. they would AZ once
enaet hish tariff duties. and then az.
tempt 10 Justify them on the ground
that they are necessary for revenue.