Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1904-05-28
F0UNT OF CORRUPTION
Protection Has Demoralized Our
Political System.
TAXES MANY TO BENEFIT THE FEW

position of Unfairness of Republic
an PoIicies-The Farmer and La
bOrer Robbed TO Enrich the Pro-
tected Trusts.
Congressman W. Bourke Cochran Of
New York in his famous speech on the
ship subsidy bill during the closing
days of the recent session of congress
exposed the hypocrisy of the Repub-
hcan party in its treatment of the
wealth producing classes Of the coun-
try. Mr.. Cochran said in part:
Mr.. Speaker-While the gentleman
from Iowa mfr. Hepburn was enter
tanning the house with the brilliancy
of his wit, the versatility of hispowers
and the wide extent of his references,
few gentlemen sitting near me sug-
gested that he was paying no attention
whatever to the question actually be-
fore US. That, Mr.. Speaker, L am hap
py to say, is a criticism which l think
wholly unjust. There never was q
speech, there never was an appear
ance, there never was a performance.
that illustrated more clearly how d.
rectIy every vicious perversion of gov
eminent can be traced to the fountain
of all corruption-the protective tariff,
which has demoralized our whole po-
litical system.
Mr.. Speaker, we have before US q
measure which, II it have any justifi-
cation or explanation at all, is step
toward inducing the congress of the
United States to establish system OF
ship subsidies-that is to say, of pay
ing moneys from the treasury to per-
sons engaged in the business of ship
ping. tits actually a scheme to in
duce certain reluctant members of the
majority to take the very short step
from indirect to direct use of the pub
lie funds for the benefit of private citi-
Zens. Now, 1 cannot understand why
SO many gentlemen who support pro-
lection recoil from subsidy. To me
subsidy is protection in its full fruit
and complete development. The gen
tleman from Iowa was wise when he
undertook to justify subsidy by de-
Tending protection. The only differ
ence between subsidy and protection
is that one is direct and the other indi-
rect. One states plainly the amount of
public funds to be bestowed on an in
dividual; the other leaves the amount
uncertain.
If this suggestion of subsidy can be
explained at all. 1t proceeds, L assume,
OH the principle laid down by the late
President Mckinley in the message by
which 1t was first commended to the
attention Of congress. The burden Of
that message-I have not got 1t before
me now, but 1 recall its argument per-
fectly-amounted to this: The trans
portation OF commodities by sea is a
highly profitable business. Because 1t
is very profitable, Americans should be
encouraged TO engage in IT; and from
these premises he argued that because
this business is very profitable the loss
es Of those engaged in 1t should be paid
out of the treasury. 1" -"
II 1t be advisable to pay persons for
engaging In the business OF shipping.
which, according to the supporters OF
the bill, must be carried on at a loss.
why would IT not be at least equally
advisable to pay a tailor for engaging
in his business of making clothes and
a farmer for engaging in his business
OF agriculture, both of which can be
carried on at a profit? And IL it be
proper to pay q man for engaging in
any kind of industry, why would II not
be equally proper to pay him for obey
ing the law-that is to say, for main
tanning the peace, since peace is essen
tial to prosperity in every industry ?
And after we have paid one man for
going into a losing business and still
another for obeying the law-and there
we should pay SO highly that none but
lunat1cs would disturb the peace-the
question must arise, naturally and in
evitably, where will we get the money
with which to pay all these subsidies?
Now, Mr.. Speaker, here we place our
fingers upon the very crux OF this
whole question. If some industries be
subsiaized-that is to say, IL their pro-
moters are to be paid for carrying them
on at a loss-there must be some other
industries carried on at a profit from
whose earnings these subsidies can be
paid. Money must be made some
where, somehow, by some one, before
1t can be paid out to any one. If we
were all In losing occupations we
would all soon be bankrupt, and then
no revenues would be paid into the
treasury and no subsidies could be
paid OUT or It 1here Is one industry
In this country that is self supporting,
one business that needs no favor from
government. and that is the basic in
dustry of this land-the Business of
agriculture. Here. then. must be one
OF the industries from the profits Of
which the losses of improbable in
dustries must be made good If this sys-
tenn of subsidies be established.
Now, what is prosperity? Mr.. Speak
er, does prosperity mean, as some gen
tlemen seem to think, high prices for
worthless securities. few millionaires.
enriched by successful speculation?
Does ii mean the erection of few pal
aces without any Improvement in the
dwellings OF the poor? Does 1t mean
an increase In the number OF private
equipages. additional pOmp in public