Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-01
A MORAL QUESTION

kkTT is useless to argue with luna
tics or with the insincere," says
Il the San Francisco Chronicle by
way of preface to an editorial ardently
defending the Payne-Aldrich tariff,
which It does after the familiar method
of the standpatter of the last decade
the quotation of a lot OF figures pur-
porting to show that the law is a
great revenue producer and exports
promoter.
If the Chronicle is going to classify
the opponents of the Payne-Aldrich
law as lunatics and insincere, it is go
ing to have good cause to grieve for
the mental and spiritual condition Of
a large part Of the people of tho coun-
try. The trouble with that paper and
the standpatters for whom it speaks
is that they are incapable of getting
the viewpoint of the great majority of
the people, Democrats and Republi-
cans, on this subject.
The people now see clearly that the
tariff is great moral question, involv-
ing right and wrong-the right Of a few
thousand Americans to have. form Of
subsidy that enables them to buy and
sell as they please and tax the mil
lions who are for the most part poor
and getting poorer by reason of the
shrinking value of their wages. The
people have been going into causes
little more than formerly, while the
standpatters have been harping on the
old string of effects. The people know
that the tariff has been the source Of
more corruption in our political, So
ciaI and economic life, the means Of
more injustice, the breeder of more
discomfort and class feeling than any
other single agency in the country.
The people are no longer concerned
with rows of figures setting forth ex-
ports or imports. They do not worry
whether the Payne-Aldrich law Is a
revenue producer or not, for they know
Uncle Sam could find other and better
ways of raising his needs. What they
are immensely concerned about is the
low rate of wages, the vast growth of
trust extortion, the swelling fortunes
that are coming out of the higher
prices charged for the necessaries of
life. the injustice in the selling of
trust-made goods cheaper abroad than
here, the cutting Of melons for already
gorged capitalists, and score Of other
evils that have grown up around, un-
der and with the system Of tariff sub
sidy for capital.
The defense that the Payne-Aldrich
tariff is no worse than the Dingley tar
iff is utterly futile because it Is seen
now by the people that the Dingley
tariff was as rank an injustice as any
other. Its principle was wrong, and
its practice was to build up most Of
the trusts that have since fattened on
the masses by extortionate charges for
the necessities Of life. 1t legislated
for the money power, not for the wage
Garner; for property rights, not hu-
man rights. The only thing that can
be said for the Dingley tariff is that
it was a little better or little worse
than the Payne-Aldrich-C Cannon in
iquity.
If to object to the tariff as a means
of gross inequality is an evidence Of
lunacy. there Is method in the mad
ness. The common people-and they
comprise 95 per cent of our 9O,OOO,OOO
people-are acutely conscious of the
exploitation Of them by the privileged
5 per cent, and propose to do some
thing about it. They are for the most
mart poor. The only figures that in
terest them are those relating to their
everyday life-the rising prices for
food, clothing and rent, the shrinking
value of their money as measured by
trust prices, and the practically sta
tionary condition of wages.