The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1916-10-20
Judge NOhOni Refused to Be Led Back Into
the Republican Party After Unsparingly Con- :
demning and Criicising 1t as Member
Of the National Progressive Plat
form Committee in 1912.

appear to be Progressive in order to
consummate the plan SO manIfestly
pre-arranged to destroy the Progress
sive party and seize, almost as by
force, Its membership to be utilized in
rehabilitating the old Republican or
gantzation to the end that the invisi-
bic government may again be secure
in Its place and the army Of office
holders once more be triumphantlyin
stalled In authority. In this view, Mr..
| Hughes was introduced with much &C
claim, not as a progressive, but as an
ant-boss candidate Is it thought for
a moment that Barnes, Penrose, Crane,
Smoot and others, who controlled the
Republican convention this summer,
would accept a Progressive? If so,
then why did not Cummins or some
others Of that school fare better?
| Everyone who meditates upon It
knows that these men understand the
| fundamental distinction lies in the
mental attitude in respect to the
rights OF property and the rights of
men. The Progressives believe in the
principle declared in the Declaration
of Independence to the effect that all
!
as such are possessed of certain in
alienable rights, among which are
those OF life, liberty and the pursuit
OF happiness, and that it is the chief
office of government to secure and
protect these. The other school of
thought adheres to the old Tory doc.
trine or aristocratic view that prop
erty and wealth accord special priv
ilege to the owner and special right.
Emanating from this fundamental dis
tinction In the two schools of thought,
there arises every day and hour of our
existence conflict between the rights
or humanity on the one hand and
those Of property on the other. Mr.
Lincoln, whose spirit dominated the
Republican party at one time, stood
for the rights Of humanity as against
those Of property; and this, too was
the doctrine Of Thomas jefferson So
1t was the Progressive platform of
1912 employed the names of these
two great friends Of the people con.
junctively in declaring our doctrine.
Such alone was the great fundamental
Of the Progressive movement and the
matter OF the opposition to bosses and
boss control was but a mere incident
In the fight for human rights, and this
because the crooked special interests
which seek to control the govern
mental agencies in the interests of
property first and relegate human
rights to the second place usually at.
tain their ends through the activity OF
the bosses who acquire political power
for the purpose Of financial reward
Concede that Gov. Hughes opposed
Boss Barnes, and still he appears as a
reactionary rather than as a Progress
sive. Gov. Hughes vetoed the two
cent fare law in the populous state of
New York, where more persons ride
on the railroads than in any other
four states in the Union. And this,
too, on mere opinion that II was con
fiscatory in that 1t diminished the
earnings of property, and without an
investigation as to the fact though
the rights Of men and women who
paid the railroad fares we're involved
as well. He also vetoed the law fix
Ing the salary Of women teachers who
performed the like services as men,
although the matter of human rights
was involved and the elemental pre-
cepts Of social Justice called aloud for
vindication. Likewise. he vetoed the
full-crew bill in the interests of the
railroad properties, though its opera
ton lessened the burden Of the toilers
and rendered more secure the lives of
those in transportation.
In the view that it is the office of
government to protect property, the
enlightened opinion of the country has
long since settled upon the PROPOSE |
ton in favor of an income tax, for il is
proper that one who possesses large |
income, say representing a pillion,
whether in property or genius, should |
contribute more to the support of the |
government which protects him In its |
enjoyment than the man of lesser
means who really enjoys but slight |
measure Of protection regarded with |
reference to his meager portion. The |
Congress passed and submitted to the |
state legislatures for ratification the |
income tax amendment and Gov. |
Hughes sent message to the legisla- |
ture of his state in opposition to 1t,
and in this he advanced reasons COM
monty put forward by the big business
and reactionary crowd, William Barnes
and others, The position thus as
sumed was In favor Of property and
inimical to the rights of humanity at
large, from whom the proposal was
designed to lift considerable burden
Of taxation. So it is, we see, that Mr..
Hughes, as said recently in flaming
headlines In the Chicago Tribune, the
leading standpat Republican organ of
the west, is satisfactory to Wall
Street. Far be 1t from me to even
suggest that Mr.. Hughes Is not an
honest man. The point of the matter
IS that, even though honest, he Is a
creature of the environment in which
he developed. A typical New York
lawyer, who won his way in the mart
Of big business, he lives and moves
md has his being as big business lives
md moves and has its being. The
same is true, on the other hand. of
me who comes from the slums. He ISL
/ creature of his environment, and his
rental attitude partakes from those
sources and is fixed by the circum-
tances and customs surrounding his
development. How frequently in the
history of the country have we seen
,onest men who have served the rail-
Dads, for instance, for 20 years as
ounsel, been elevated to the federal
n.