Imperial Valley press., 1912-10-22

charms Will not emancipate our work
ers from conditions that are unfair and
unjust. Quack remedies will not cure
the new diseases that afflict us, the
pellagras and hookworms that were
unknown problems to the political
economists of that day which evolved
the tariff-for rrevenue only. These are
searchlight days We cannot entrust
our political fortunes to men who peer
about with the lanterns of leaders who
were going to their graves when our
fathers were born.
And, besides-the tariff
That we have permitted ills to flour
ish behind it; that we have allowed
combinations of capital to get the bet
ter part of the advantage it secures,
is not an argument against the tariff
but against our own folly. 1t admits
the tariff is an advantage. Surely the
next move is to see that the right
folk get the advantage, not that the
advantage is destroyed. To burn up
the barn to kill the rats were a mad
enterprise. Rather, l think we should
set traps for the rats-reach out bare
determined hands and grip the necks
of the combinations that wrong us and
right them. To administer a hurt of
tariff smashing is, / fear, to admins
ter a greater hurt to ourselves. 1t is
pounding the backs of the common
men very great deal to pound the
back of the monopolist a very little
1t is stabbing through the breast Of
the worker to prick the profit taker
al his back. To break down the walls
to the flood of European manufactur-
ers might be hard upon some of the
monopolists; but it might be harder
upon us. 1 could take no satisfaction
in cutting off my nose to trim the
beard of a pirate-no grim joy in sep
arating so per cent Of American work
men from wagepaying Jobs to separa,
few trusts from illegal dividends
L would be the more concerned to keep
the wheels turning and the wage en-
velopes filling, while direct assault was
made upon the unjust profit and the
unfair division of profits. Curbing tn
trusts by cutting the tariff might be
like one of those hospital reports which
records that the operation was success
full, but the patient died.
But you urge, the tariff is too high!
Then reduce it-flatIy, frankly, direct
ly, drastically, reduce it, But | would
not at the same time take the pro
principle has built our manufactures
1t has multiplied jobs and wages for
our city folk-which means multiplied
markets at the very gates of the farm
and multiplied profits for the farmer
That protective principle has mad
Chicago and New York and Kokomo
We do not want to draw the fires of
our prosperity. We do not want to
hot mi irln ho1
But, the tariff is too high, Then
reduce it. Obviously a tariff built on
a protective principle must be in need
of continual readjustment. When that
readjustment is delayed, the protective
principle is departed from and injus-
tice is done Much tariff injustice is
being done now. The tariff cries aloud
for equilibrium; but to expect the pro-
tective principle to be sacredly con
served by a party which declares the
protective principle is unconstitutional
is to expect grapes from grass.
And when the tariff is adjusted lei
us not suppose that will cure all the
other ills which our comm ercial and in
dustrial flesh is heir to. To recon
struct the tariff will not reconstruct
The soul of the greedy monopolist. III
move the opportunities of the men who
have built our great monopolies. We
must have some direct method of re-
straining the man who restrains trade.
Neither should il be supposed that
tariff readjustment will check a world
movement of the masses toward better
living. which means. and in high part
explains. expensive living.
The m will MT he 1apie1
are going to live better. That econ
omist, that political leader and that
economic program is wisest. safest.
sanest. which recognizes this and di-
| rects its energy toward a fairer dis
tribution OF the profits of labor, com
merce and manufacture.
The tariff Is wrong, but when it is
righted the trust problem, the overcap-
italization problem, the maritime prob
lem, the protection of labor problem,
the direct legislation problem, will still
remain. and many others like them.
Now, while I sat debating thus with
myself over the Democratic platform
in which / could not believe, and Wood
row Wilson, in whom | do believe. there
came into my hands the platform of
the national Progressive party. The
difference became instantly apparent.
This was not patchwork. 1t was not
inconsistent with itself. Neither was
IL inconsistent with the times in which
it was written. 1t had no past to
Justify. 1t declared itself simply and
in straightforward way. It declared
for a protective tariff policy. but it
also declared for an effective and thor
ough going reduction Of our present
tariff duties. But it did not antici-
pate that these reductions, this treat
ment for mumps, would cure measles
and whooping cough and those other
rheums and fevers which affect the
body polite.
And so I went on through the docu-
ment. The thing was practical; there
fore it was American. Here was a
party platform in it's shirtsleeves. For
the tariff, direct action; for the trusts,
direct action; for the laborer, direct
action; yes, and for the voter, if repre-
sentative instruments failed, direct ac
tion-a shirt sleeved platform! Yet it
is not a collection of palliatives. IT
deals with principles. 1t is statesman
ly in conception and imm ediate in its
proposals. I believe heartily in the
integrity and ability of Woodrow Will
son, and l believe unreservedly in the
integrity and ability of Theodore
Roosevelt; but 1 believe more in the
platform of the national Progressive
party than I do in the personality of
either of the principal candidates.
Here, now, was the final test 1 put
up to my own mind. I cannot support
Woodrow Wilson on the Democratic
platform, but I could support him on
the Progressive platform. I could sup
port Theodore Roosevelt on the Prog
ressive platform; but 1 could not sup
port him on the Democratic platform
Therefore, it was not n question of
men, but of platforms I hope Theo-
dore Roosevelt will be elected; be-