The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1916-08-11

committee on finance took it under ad-
visement over night and I came near
securing its acceptance in the bill, but
after some hesitation it was rejected.
voted for the final bill not because it
suited me or measured up at all to my
views on the tariff, but because of my
long continued strenuous opposition to
the Payne-Aldrich bill and because the
bill contained an income tax provision,
which I favored, and also because the
bill contained a provision placing a
duty of ten per cent ad valorem upon
all articles imported into the United
States in foreign vessels. This impor-
tant provision has not been enforced by
the administration, but this failure to
enforce it could not have been foreseen
at the time I voted for the bill. 1t
should have been enforced and any con-
hicting treaties with foreign countries
should have been cancelled or modified
by due procedure. My vote did not
determine the passage OF the Under
wood bill. If this had been the case,
the bill would have been protective
bill as indicated by the votes mention
ed above, and many others. will
not burden you, however, with details,
but will 90 into the subject at whatever
length may be necessary in the cam
paign which I will make shortly be-
fore the primaries.
have voted on various occasions in
favor of Senator Clapp's proposition OF
prohibiting congressman from collect
ing campaign funds and for various
other forms of eliminating and reducing
the influence OF money in elections
agree with you most heartily in
your doctrine which might be called
the new nationalism. I think, in
fact, Roosevelt used that term some
years ago. Whatever term, however,
we may use, the fact is you have struck
a KEY note in the central idea OF the
necessity OF utilizing the power and
activity of the federal government.
Strange to say, there has been a re-
versal of position upon this question.
I called attention the other day in the
senate in a debate on the water power
bill, involving the question OF federal
regulation of these great essential pow
ers in so far as they still remain public
property, to the fact that New England
was asserting the doctrine of states
rights, so contrary to its position at the
time of the war. Another reversal is
that the great masses Of the people,
who formerly were jealous of the cen
trail power and looked to the states to
protect their rights, are now looking,
in all the economic, social, and indus
trial reforms for which they are strug
Cling, to the federal constitution and
the federal government not as a power
to be feared and dreaded, but as an
affectionate protector and guardian Of
their rights and liberties. In the pres
ent republican platform adopted the
other day at Chicago, which is really a
progressive platform, the declaration in
favor of the exclusive control Of in
terstate railroads by the federal govern
ment, is long step, if accomplished,
in the direction you mention. So is
the pending child labor bill about
which a great struggle is now being
waged in the senate of the United
States and with which l am heartily in
favor. 1t will put the power of the
federal government long way ahead
of any exercise OF it heretofore and
do not object to it, but rather favor it