Norwich bulletin., 1910-10-07


of papers and addresses of mine Which
he found in the state library, and he
doesn't think / have made a good
choice of subjects. They are behind
the age.
Here, he says, is the first of them.
1t is on, Law of Roads and Bounda
ries.' He can find nothing in it about
public utilities commissions. Here is
another on John Higginson. Who is
John Higginson, anyway? At all
events. in this sketch of him there is
nothing about the employers liability
bill. Here is another on Judaic Chris
i tianity. Where does removing the
$4,000 limit for causing another s
death come in?
Well. gentlemen, when the state board
of agriculture asked me to go to Win
| stead and speak on the Law of Roads
and Boundaries, l confess that l did
try to stick to my text. When the
| Massachusetts Historical society ask
ed me to go to Boston and tell them
about John Higginson. Guilford
school teacher, who became a Salem
minister, it did not occur to me to tell
them about the movement for public
utilities commissions. In fact, I have
felt for nearly twenty years shut out
from talking in public about such sub
jects. They are questions of present
politics, and judges should, in nay opin-
/ ion, keep clear of making public ex-
pressions upon any subject of present
| ON employers liability acts, for in
stance ] should have had to say that
! While almost the whole civilized world
had changed their law as to these
questions during the last quarter of a
century, Connecticut had not; that a
republican legislature, to be sure had
appointed a very competent commits
sion to study the question. Competent
know they were. Two of them have
| been partly under my instruction in
ND
their ability and industry I should
have had to say that this commission
| made two reports to republican legis-
latures. one in 1907 and one in 1903,
and agreed unanimously in recon-
mending q bill for a new act, making
I our law more like the laws of other
countries; but that these republican
! legislatures had turned down their rec
concentration, and made no changes at
all; and that if anything was to De
hoped in the line of legislation of that
kind, to modernize our law, it would
have to be looked for from democrat
! ic legislature, because it had been
proved by actual test that you could
/ not depend on republican Legislature
to do anything but promise to reform,
| and promises unperfOTmed are not
worth much.
Could 1 have said all this, with any
propriety. when a Judge of the highest
| court in my state? l can say 1T now,
/ and I do say it. But Mr.. Chandler has
| another charge to bring against me.
He says that it is an important means
of securing legislation such as a gov
| ernor desires, for the governor to have
| a handsome house in Hartford. during
! the session. and give Legislative dim
| ners and receptions. 1t has been found
! so, he asserts and he must know, be
| cause he is himself one of the present
[ republican legislature and knows how
| their views can be best Influenced
| But, he says, it is not to be expected
/ that Judge Baldwin will hire such
mansion, and he doesn't own one in
| Hartford. Where, then, is to be any
source of power to a democratic adj
ministration? The candidate of the re-
publican party lives in Hartford, and
| Mr. Chandler assures us that he has
money, and is openhandedness itself.
! But elect q democratic governor and
| there will be no SAVIOR of the heshpots
| of Egypt to rise to Rocky Eiil1.
! / should be sorry, gentlemen, If /
| thought Mr.. Chandler and the republic
| can newspapers were right, and II ar
| guments or twaddle of such kind as
| that heard from Mr.. Chandler at Tor
/ rington were to be the keynote of re-
| publican campafgners. The issues of
| this election must be taken more serf-
I ously. 1 shall spend no more time on
/ Torrington trifiing with them on Chan
dIer chatter There are large questions
between the two parties. Which is
ri~ht?
The American people are giving par
ticular attention this year to one very
! simple political question. The ques-
| ton is whether they can trust the re-
| publican party in power any longer;
| and that question depends upon an
/ other. Has the republican party kept
it's word? Has it given us what it
promised? Has it or has it not bet
tered things for us during these last
few years?
There is one point on which there
can be no difference of opinion. Let us
start from that The cost of living has
gone up. The man that once saved
he would live as well and save moth
ing. The coat that used to cost So
costs SO or $12 and is made of shoddy
instead of wool at that. Meat, eggs.
milk, butter shoes, clothing of all
sorts, they have all gone up and are
going up-out of reach, almost. And.
curiously enough. there is some great
combination or trust in each of the
main articles of consumption and there
is high tariff on each of them-so
high as to cut off any foreign compe-
tition.
i Cut off foreign competition. and an
American trust can soon dispose of
home competition. That is only the
A. B, c of trade. Everybody knows
Ethat or at least feels that.
The republican platform solennly
asserts that all they want to do by a
tariff is TO make it high enough TO
meet the higher cost of production here
and give a reasonable profit to the
manufacturer.
We are all in favor of that. But do
4 they really mean it? Have they really,
in the Payne bill, measured the rates
so as just to correspond with our
high standard of wages and ensure a
reasona BILE profit to the employer? Not
a bit of it.
The way they frame republican tar
ifs, whether the Dingley bill or the
Payne bill-they are all the same in
: principle-reninds me of the dry goods
store where they were getting 2 bar
gain counter ready over night. The
proprietor began by putting up a sign
Everything on this counter sold for
this day only, without regard to cost.
Now, my lad. said he to a new clerk
whom he was instructing in the bust
ness, pointing to a roll of pink silk
, put card on that marked "Only S2.3s
| a ward" But. sir, said the boy, that's
that cheap silk that only cost us 81
cents yard. Yes, yes, was the reply
but don't we say that on this counter
we sell without regard to cost?
: That is just the principle of all thei1
} tariffs The cost of production, pro
tecttng American Wages-that is the
| talk of their D1atforr0S b11+ v7bap II