The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1912-08-20

w uohIh6tOhs hu8s ~ thC i6he
of the Presidents veto of the wool bill,
which veto gives the woolen trust a
continuance Of its privilege to plunder
the consumer while at the same time
paying its workers starvation wages,
page from the hearings in connec-
ton with the Lawrence strike inquiry
makes interesting reading. The wit
ness is Miss Sanger, trained nurse.
page 1926 Hearings on House Reso-
luton 400 and 433.
The Testimony
Mr.. Pou: Miss Sanger, were you in
strumental in taking number of the
strikers children away from Lawrence
during the strike?
Miss Sanger: Yes, sir.
Mr.. Pou: Did you talk with those
children about their manner of living?
Miss Sanger: Yes, sir. found that
the children-there were 119 OF them
in my party-seldom ate meat, and
their physical condition was the most
horrible have ever seen. In the first
place four of the smallest children had
chickenpox, and they had not received
any medical attention. They were
walking about among the other chill.
dren apparently without noticing the
chicken pox or diphtheria; one child
had diphtheria. OF the 119 children
only four of them had underwear, and
II was bitterly cold. We had to run
all the way from the station to Labor
Temple after we got to New York to
keep from freezing.
Mr.. Foster: You say only four had
underclothing; what was the condition
of their outer clothing.
Miss Sanger: It was simply In
rags. Their coats were worn to shreds
Mr.. Foster: Were the children pale
and thin?
Miss Sanger: Yes, sir, and ! want
to say that when they had supper II
would have brought tears to your eyes
to see them grab for the meat with
their bare hands.
Mr.. Foster: Did any OF them have
| on woolen clothing of any sort?
| Miss Sanger: No, sir.
Mr.. Foster: And yet they all work
ed In woolen mills?
Miss Sanger: Yes, sir.
In his veto message Mr.. Taft has
much to say about the "woolen in
dustry", and foreign labor" Ht
makes no mention OF these poor vic
Tins of the woolen trusts greed
Une nundred 1oiiars annually. rhis
Is the amO tat the crome OF over-capi
talisation. or watered stocks, costs ev
cry American family!
This statement flows easily from
the pen, but It can be demonstrated
by q little arithmetic.
Various prominent financial student.
and authorities are responsible for tht
statement. and their conclusion are
wholly sustained by reports Of thu
United States Commission and thu
published figures OF the National Cor
poration Tax Returns, that about $50,
900. 100000 OF the stocks Of our In
dustrlal or tarlff trusts, represent on
ly water.
On this stock, dividends Of about 81
500, 100000 are being paid yearly
amounting to approximately $18 per
son or nearly 800 an American FAM
| y!
This $1,500,00O. 900 IL not picked III
out Of the streets. Where. then. doe
It come from? The answer is, iron
the pockets OF the consumers. Their
Is not dollar of water" or imitation
| In the capitalization OF corporation
which deal In commodities, or In raj
road or other public service corpors
tlons, that does not impose burden
upon the consumers and producers O
this country.
The above figures. which may b
accepted as fairly conservative II
view OF the fact that United State
Senator LaFollette and various othc
students Of the question assert that tn
amount of watered stock is more tina
double the amount estimated above