Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1906-09-12

The tariff question is very closely allied
TO the trust question, and the reduction of
the tariff furnishes an easy means of lin
lting the extortion which the trusts prnc-
tice.
While absolute free trade would neces-
sarily make trust impossible, still 1t is
adjustments would dare to enter into a
trust If the President was empowered to
put upon the free list articles competing
with those controlled by a trust.
Tariff Fosters Idca of
Voting for Selfish Reasons.
But one Of the worst features of tar
III levied not for revenue but for the avowed
purpose of protection is that 1t fosters the
Idea that men should use their votes to
advance their own financial interests. The
manufacturer has been assured that 1t Is
legitimate for him to vote for Congress-
men who, whatever their opinions on other
subjects, will legislate larger dividends into
his pocket sheepgrowers have been en-
Outraged to believe that they should have
no higher aim In voting than to raise the
price of WOOL and laboring men have been
urged to make their wages their only con-
Germ.
For a generation the FAT has been fried
out of the manufacturers by the Republican
Campaign Committee and then the manu-
facturers have been reimbursed by legisa-
tion.
With the public conscience educated to be-
lieve that this ol.en purchase of legislation
was entirely proper, no wonder that tnsur-
ance companies have used the money of
their policy holders to carry elections-no
wonder that trusts have fastened to pur-
chase Immunity from punishment with lib
eral donations.
There never was n time when the tariff
reform could be more easily entered upon
for the manufacturers by selling abroad
cheaper than at home, as many Of them
do, have not only shown their ingratitude
toward those who built the tariff wall for
. hny hut IA G tnI
ability to sell In competition with the
world. The high tariff has long been a
burden to the consumers In the United
States and 1t Is growing more and more a
menace to our foreign commerce because 1t
arouses resentment and provokes retalia-
tons.
The railroad question is also interviewer
with the trust question. Nearly all the
private monopolies have received rebates or
secured other advantages over competitors.
Absolute equality of treatment mt the hands
of the railroads would go far toward Grip
ping the trusts. and rejoice that the
question upon Congress. While the law, as
II was finally distorted by the Senate, Is
not all that could be wished, 1t deserves n
fair trial
Public Ownership OF
Railways Is Necessary.
Experience has demonstrated that munich
pal corruption Is largely traceable to the
control the City Council and thus Increase
their dividends II the. railroad managers
adopt the same policy the sentiment In ia
vor of the ownership of the railroads by
the government Is likely to increase as rap
idly throughout the country as the senti-
ment In favor of municipal ownership has
Increased In the cities.
have already reached the conclusion
that railroads partake SO much of the ma
ture of n monopoly that they must ulti-
matey become public property and be man.
aged by public officials In the Interest, Of
the whole community, In accordance with
the weli-detined theory that public owner
ship is necessary where competition is i'm
possible.
of all railroads by the federal government
would result In naturalization which
would all but obliterate state lines, pre-
fer to see only the trunk lines operated
lines by the several state governments.
Some have opposed this dual ownership
us improbable, but investigation In Europe
has convinced me that 1t is entirely prac-
tlcable.
AS to the rights of governments, federal
and state, to own and operate railroads
there can be no doubt. If we can deepen
the water in the lakes and build connecting
portation during half of the year we can
build railroad and cheaper rates the
whole year; If we can spend several hundred
millions on the Panama Canal to lower
rates we cdu Duliu u rail-
road from New York to San Francisco to
lower both transcontinental and local rates.
Railway NIngnntes Fear
Force of Public Sentiment.
If any of you question the propriety of
mentioning this subject beg to remind you
that the President could not have secured
the passage of the rate bill had he not ap-
peaied to the. fear of the more radical rem
edy of government ownership, and nothing
will sot restrain the railroad magnates from
attempting to capture the interstate com.
merce commission as the same fear
The hiyh-handed manner In which they
have violated law and ignored authority,
together with the corruption discovered in
high places, has done more to create senti-
ment In favor of public ownership than all
the speeches and arguments of the oppo.
nents of private ownership.
JUST one word more In regard to the
trusts Some defend them on the ground
that they are an economic development and
that they cannot be prevented without great
injury to our Industrial system.
The Democratic party, II 1 understand Its
position, denies the economic MS well MS the
political advantage of private monopoly and
promises to oppose 1t wherever 1t manifests
Itself. 1t offers as an alternative compe
tition wherever competition is possible and
public monopoly wherever circumstances are
such as to prevent competition.
Socialism presents a consistent theory
but theory which, In my judgment, does
not take human nature into account. Its
strength Is In Its attack upon evils the ex
istenee Of which Is confessed. Its weak
ness Is that 1t would substitute new dis
ease--if not Il worse one-for the disease
from which we suffer.
Would Dust Trusts that
American Citizens Can Live
As was leaving home 1 set forth my
reasons for opposing the Socialist doctrine
that the government should own and ope
rate all the means of production and trans
tay, .x,1.,
year have strengthened my conviction or
that subject. Because am anxious to pre-
serve indiyiduaism. ! am earnest in m,
desire to see the trusts exterminated, rooI
and branch, that the door of opportunity
may be open to every American citizen.
The Democratic party is not the enemy
OF property or OF property rights; it Is
on the contrary. the best defender Of both
man rights are the only foundation upor
which property and property rights can rest
secure.
The Democratic party does not menace
a single dollaf legitimately accumulated
on the contrary, 1t insists upon the protec
tion of rich and poor alike in the enjoy
ment of that which they have honestly
earned The Democratic party does not dis
| !ates each individual to the highest en-
deavor by assuring him that lie will MOI
be deprived of the fruits of his toll.
II we can but repeal the laws which
Il
sown, laws which enable them to garner
| into their overlooking barns the harvest
| that belong to others--n0 one Will be abb,
to accumulate enough to make his forum,
| dangerous to the country.
Plutocracy Rests Alone
on Special Privileges
Special privilege and the use of the tax
| Ing power for private gain-these are til,
| twin pillars upon which Plutocracy rests
| To take away these supports and to ele
| vate the benehciaries Of special Legislation
| In the path Of honest effort ought to be til,
purpose of our party.
And who can suffer Injury by Just tax
| alton, impartial laws and the application
| of the Jeffersonan doctrine of equal right
| to all and special privileges to none ?--Onl.
| those whose accumulations are stained witt
| dishonesty and whose immoral methods hay
| given them a distorted view of business SO
| ciety and government
Plutocracy Is abhorrent to the republic
| 1t is more despotic than monarchy, NOR
| heartless than Gristocracy, more selfish thai
bureaucracy. 1t preys upon the nation ii
time of peace and consplres against it In til
| hour of its calamity. Constituencies, com
| passionless and devoid of wisdom, it ener
| Yates Its votaries while 1t impoverishes 1t
| victims.
The time is ripe for It's overthrow. LIE
lis attack 1t boldly, making our appeal 4,