The independent., 1904-01-28
JANUARY %, 1904.


not be but two great political parties
in a country at time and assumed
that the question is settled NOW.
why only two9 After all the smoke
is cleared away, we find that men are
obliged to exercise their sovereign
powers through the medium OF po-
litical party. With what one snall
they affiliate? Plainly the one which
to them seems most likely to protect
them In life, liberty and the pir-
suit of happiness"
But the pursuit of happiness, resent
the statement as we may, cannot pe
divorced from the pursuit OF tnlhss
which man needs or wants-in snort
the accumulation of property. Hence,
under all, political parties must nave
an economic foundation. The TACT tnal
in the past only two great partles
have existed, is proof only that there
were two great divisions OF property,
each struggling for political dominion.
For convenience of expression these
NAV be termed agricultural ana
manufacturing The war between the
two great divisions of property sui
continues, although very one-slded
contest because the democratic party,
as it now exists, has failed to show
that it can be depended upon 10 rep
resent the OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES the re-
publican never pretends to, except at
election time.
With the growth of socialism, how
ever. a new factor enters, and the
coming struggle, as The Independent
views it. will be three-cornerea
fight. with the profit-takers represent
led by the republican party (mann1ac-
turing): the rent-takers represented
by the democratic party, or some other
built upon its foundation (agricul-
ture): and the wage takers repre-
sented by the socialist party.
Simply because men have hereto
fore aligned themselves with one or
the other of two great parties, IS not
proof that they will always do so.
Men are learning more about matters
political every day, becoming class
conscious" as the socialists say. lhe
big capitalists have never been any
thing else. But the farmers are
learning few lessons themselves,
and while they may agree with MT.
De Hart's conclusions as TO the iel-
ative merits of tariff tweedledee ana
tweedledum, not many OF them, at
least here in the west, when tney gel
at The root of the matter, will be WILL
ing to give their lifelong political an
tagonist, the manufacturer, leaf in
order that he may give them a crumb
iE return.
There is nothing Of sectional or
class hatred in this. Adam Smith
contended that the individual III an
orderly pursuit of his own interest
thereby promoted the good OF all. So
collections of individuals, known as
a political party, will promote tie
good Of all by pursuing, in an oruer-
ly, honest way, their collective IN
terest. There is no reason why an
agricultural party should waste any
tears over the manufacturel-he has
shown remarkable ability in taking
care of himself
Along this line Mark Foster touched
the keynote last week C"The Point OF
Attack" d. 13) when ne said.
1T is true, though, as Mr.. De
Hart says, that protection is the
settled policy OF this country and
for us to light against 1t is a
waste of effort. What we should
do is to ignore the tariff, and
continue to fight for public rail-
roads, scientific money, and free
land.
"At the same time We should
point out that while ali conserva-
tives admit business interests
need protection, and it must he
had through legislation, tariff
protection does not apply to
workingmen and farmers. and
these classes must therefore have
protection by other means"
A protective tariff is essentially
favorable TO the manufacturing In
terests. but, with some triiling excep-
tions. 1t Is not possible TO benefit the
agricultural interests by such a meas
ure. IL Is true that incidentally some
benefits may accrue TO stock growers
by a tariff on cattle. TO sugar beet
growers by a tarlif on sugar. and so
on; but much OF this advantage Is
transferred 10 the manufacturer
pnr rknta by means uf rchntes ON px-