The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-08-22

passed upon the question, could nave 2 hearing before you; y;. but |, ! .,n nnc conn m mittee. as Mir. Aidrich thinks 1t likely to be, is entirely satisfactory to the interests l represents with .ne excep- in regard to those cases have handed
 Mr. Niles whom have before quot cd says in American Industries Of April of this year.
 sentative for relief on another sched- uie were by that representative re- ferred to a New England rnanufacturer, the oficial agreeing to act In accord- wishes Said the manufacturer: I wrote that schedule myself. did not intend that 1t should be interpreted as severely as 1t has been, but having to a modification of it. And this mans will remains the law"
 We would not expect a jury to do justice to the defendant If 1t was the plaintiff; neither can we expect Congress to do justice to the masses if 1t is composed of men who are m sympathy with, and obligated 10. the ton been enjoying special privileges. There is no prospect of relief from Republican President and Congress The Democratic party. if entrusted with power can and will reduce the
 The Democratic platform not only demands a reduction of the tarin, but 1t plainly outlines the course to be pursued in securing the reduction. It begins by proposing that articles which come into competition with articles ,ss free list. What better place to begini Years ago Mir. Haveineyer, the head of the sugar. trust, said that the tarin was the mother of trusts-and her chu- dreh are many. Secretary Taft. in his notification speech, says that an excess sive tarin serves no useful purpose but offers temptation to those who would monopolize the production and l try, to profit by the excessive rate" Now suppose the manufacturers, who have been favored by legislation. do insprirs into nonopoIy. n Wi What % psnaity % do % the | Republicans suggeet7 None whatever. | These men are to be consulted about | proposed changes, and if the next Re- ! publican tariff is made like former 1 Republican tariffs, nothing will be done without the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries.
 What would be the effect of the | remedy proposed by the Democratic piatforms Simply this: law goes into I effect at some fixed date in the future. l and if the Democrats pass a law, put ting upon the free list articles com @
 
 | trolIed by a trust. the trust will have | until that date to dissolve. If the trust | considers the law too drastic, 1t can avoid 1t by giving up. its monopoly.
 sserseaFs Sss.,rnct,ys ncl ana ,n his anx | iety to prevent 1t overlooks the fact | that the Democratic party has other l remedies for the trusts. If we can suc- esed in dissolving existing trusts. and In preventing the organization of new | vi trusts | which 10 use the remedy of which no l complains. There fs now law againat trusts. but 1t has not been snfiiciensy enforced to prevent trusts The Dem | ocrats deFnend it's enforcement; if It's | enforcement rids the country of trusts, | then this policy which Mir. Ta9t so much fsarf VII, ,h4 bsooeats bsSome asss seeurs control of both the House and the | Senate, they are pledged to iegislauon | which will make private monopoly control of the legislative machinery of | the government and refuse to join in | the effort to make a private monopoly ! impossible, they are not in 2 position | at trusts If they refuse to assist ! ual m exterminafing the principle or | private monopoly. they cannot well ob- ! ject to Iegislation necessary to protect | the people from trust extortton. | Mir. Taft did not refer to the plat | form demand that wood pulp, print ! paper, 1umbers timber and logs be | placed upon. the free list. WhyY Be- | Congress to enact a law embodying | part of this demand. it Is absurd to | complain of the exhaustion Of our for- | ests while we encourage their destruc" | tion by a tarIff on the products Of for- | eiRn forests. But such legislation be- | comes not only a folly but a crime | when 1t isi remembered that handful of men fnepoIize the bensfts flowing ,gs the whole country bears the burden | of the tax. Hon. R. F. Pettigrew, of south Dakota. in a speech made In
 the United States senate' referred 70 peared in The Northwestern Lumber man, February q. 1897. Senator Bur
 rows, of Michigan, had referred to iiability and ditruthfuiness, h and Senator
 Pettigrew quoted Mir. Winch ester as
 saying in The Northwestern Lumber
 man: ... the Northwest. up Minnesota way, in
 Washington the other day. and they
 were sitting in Senator Burrows's
 room. An interesting incident oe-
 cured there. Senator Burrows Is
 chairman of the committee. The com
 mittee had not had a meeting for .
 long time. They happened to be seated
 in that room and one of the gentle-
 men from Minnesota had an envelope
 and lead pencil. He walked around
 the room and ciphered up little bit,
 Mr. Burrows do you know what
 S1 a thousand would mean to this
 crowd Of men in hereT
 "There were not many in the room
 as there are here. He said
 "'An advance of q a thousand on
 lumber would mean ss.125,Ooo on last
 Could more Ve~r elusive proof be de-
 aired? And the hator Burrows mem
 tioned is the ne Senator Burrows
 National ConveR lion, and sounded the
 keynote of the campaign.
 How long will the Republican farm
 CTS, merchants and iaborlng men per-
 nit a few men to make the tarin laws
 for their own pecuniary advantage and
 at the expense of the rest of the coun-
 try7
 the tarlff is Q material reduction up-
 on the necessities of life, especially
 upon goods competing with such Amer
 icAn manufactures as are sold abroad
 more cheaply than at home" At pres
 ent the articles used by the poor bear | A higher rate, ad vaiorem. than the
 articles used by the rich. This state l ment can be verified by an examinat tion
 of any of the schedules. A tax upon
 consumption, even when laid with ab-
 soiute irnpartiality. bears heaviest upon
 the poor, because our necessities are
 much more uniform than our posses
 sions. People do not eat in propor- l tion to their income; they do not wear
 clothing in proportion to their Income
 they do not use taxed goods in pro-
 portion to their income. As all taxes | must come out of ones income, no mat
 ter through what system levied or coll
 lected. they are. in effect income taxes | and taxes on consumption are really