“Lives thereA MAN WITH SOUL SO DEAD,Who never to himself hath said,This is my own, my native land?”
“Lives thereA MAN WITH SOUL SO DEAD,Who never to himself hath said,This is my own, my native land?”
The Washington Postis authority for the statement that the President will, in his next Message,againurge upon Congress the necessity for Currency Reform.
TheMONEY QUESTION, as you will rememberIS SETTLED; it is onlyTHE CURRENCYthat needsREFORM.
Bryan saysTHE MONEY QUESTION IS SETTLED; ditto Roosevelt; ditto Secretary Shaw;ditto the big bugs ofBOTHthe dear old political parties.
Yet, with equal unanimity and fervor, they all say thatTHE NEED OF CURRENCY REFORMis something fierce.
Peculiar, isn’t it?
***
Whenthe peoplewant financial legislation that willrestore the system of The Fathers, it isTHE MONEY QUESTION, and it’sSETTLED. The old party leaders, one and all, agree uponTHAT.
Politically, therefore,THATquestion isRes Adjudicata, and must not be spoken of any more.
But whenthe corporationswant financial legislationwhich will tend still further to make our National Treasury a huge Reservoir from which the National Banks and their allies can draw strength, support and profit—why,THEN, it is a matter ofCURRENCY REFORM, and if Congress doesn’t give the Money Power everything it demands, the Country will go to the “demnition bow-wows.”
That’s how it is, my son.
The moguls of high financedeclare that what our currency system needs is greater “elasticity.” The India rubber quality is wanting, it seems. The present system doesn’tstretchreadily enough. The Moguls declare that the “rigidity” of the currency system threatens us with calamitous conditions at the prospect of which the imagination becomes exhausted and quits business.
Those two words, “elasticity” and “rigidity” are being featured in all the Mogul talk, all the Mogul papers—and are being dutifully repeated by all the Mogul Senators and Representatives.
***
Yet, there isn’t a particle of sound common sensein all this cant aboutelasticityandrigidity.
When the currency system of the body-politic is healthy and normal, there can be no question of elasticity and rigidity. Like the circulation of the blood in the human body, the circulation of money will take care of itself.
Once get the system right, and nature will do the rest.
If the Physician tells you thatYOUR CIRCULATION IS BAD—youKNOWwhat that means.
Your system is out of order. The blood goes about its business, without any help fromYOU,PROVIDED YOUR SYSTEM IS KEPT IN ORDER.
Youdon’t have to pump blood away from center to the extremities;THE BLOOD WILL GO THERE, OF ITSELF, IF YOUR BODILY SYSTEM IS IN THE PROPER, NORMAL, SOUND CONDITION.
It is just so with, the circulation of money in the body politic; if the system isRIGHT,THE MONEY CIRCULATION WILL REGULATE ITSELF BY NATURAL LAWS.
***
Elasticity—Rigidity—two words that are cunningly employed to disguise the purpose of the Moguls of National finance.Those conspirators mean to drive the Government still further away from the Constitutional system of the Fathers.They mean to push still furtherthe usurped power of the National Banks to create and control the supply and distribution of the Currency.
“Currency Reform” means nothing more nor less than that.
***
Government loans to the common people, at four per cent, or even at two per cent, would seem to bemore statesmanlike, in all respects, thanthis eternal lending of government money to Wall Street without any interest at all.
Why should Uncle Sam furnish gamblers money to speculate with?Can any good reason be given for it? Does it seem to be fair to legitimate business men? Is it just to the taxpayers? Can it beRIGHT?
Yet the Wall Street gamblers got nearly ($30,000,000) thirty million dollars from the U. S. Treasury in one lump. Upon this huge sum of public money, the speculators will pay no interest at all.
Is it right?
***
According to the official statementfor Nov. 12th, 1906,THE GOVERNMENThas now increasedits loans to the National Banksto the stupendousTOTALof $147,000,000.
Never before has the gratuitous loan been so large. Who can defend such a policy? Who would notBE ASHAMEDto appear before an audience of intelligent voters to advocate the wisdom and the propriety of suchGOVERNMENTAL FAVORITISMas this?
You laughed at the Farmers’ Alliance when it favored government loans to the people, on the best of security, at two per cent interest. Yet you saynothingagainst governmentloans to a few pet National BanksFREE OF INTEREST, and uponDOUBTFUL SECURITY.
Part of thatLOAN OF ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-SEVEN MILLIONSis secured by Chicago Municipal Bonds, called, I believe, the Sanitary Bonds. Would you not prefer to lendYOURMoney upon a good farm, orupon warehouse certificates for cotton?
***
The farmerswould be only too glad to pay the GovernmentFOUR PER CENTfor that money whichTHE PET BANKS GET FOR NOTHING. Four per cent interest upon one hundred and forty-seven million dollars is a tidy sum. Figure it out and you will see, that it is aboutSIX MILLION DOLLARS. That’s a neat sum to beGIVEN AWAY EVERY YEAR, isn’t it?
***
Consider this also: You, the Common People, are the taxpayers who put that money into the U. S. Treasury.The pet National Banks pay, practically, none of it.
YetTHEYhave the use ofYOURmoneyFREE. IfYOUget the use of a dollar of it,YOU MUST GO TO THEM FOR TERMS.
Tough, isn’t it?
No wonder the money supply is congested.So long as the GovernmentTAXES IT OUT OF THE POCKETS OF THE MANY, and delivers it overTO THE FEW, there isboundto be congestion.
Yet, the Pet National Banks are moving heaven and earth,RIGHT NOW, to haveCONGRESS LEGISLATE IN FAVOR OF GREATER CONGESTION. The power of the Few over the Many must beincreased by additional legislation. Otherwise, the bottom will drop out and Perdition will have us by the nape of the neck. When eminently respectable cabinet officers, congressmen, editors, etc., tell you thatTHE PRESENT SYSTEM OF RUNNING THE FINANCES IN FAVOR OF WALL STREET SPECULATORS AND PET BANKSis safe and sane, and that all we need is to make it a little more so,BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF IT AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
On the contrary, when some discredited crank tells you thatit is an infernal shameto use the law-making machinery in that manner,howl him down, at once.
Don’t lend to the taxpayer his own money at four per cent. That’s paternalism—and itSTINKS.
Take the taxpayers’ money andLEND IT TO THE PET BANKSwithout any interest.
That’s statesmanship—and itSMELLS LIKE ATTAR OF ROSES.
The case against Plutocracy gained an advance upon the Docket by the New York gubernatorial contest, but, unless I am much mistaken, two national figures came out of it with mud on their boots.
One of these is W. R. Hearst.
The other is W. J. Bryan.
When Max Ihmsen advised Mr. Hearst to come to terms with Murphy, the striped Tammany Boss, he disgusted thousands of sincere Hearstites, not only in New York but throughout the Union.
The deal wastoobad.
It took Hearst out of the class of Reformers and put him into that of self-seeking Politicians.
It created in the minds of his disinterested friends the suspicion that he posed as a Reformer to serve the purpose of a personal ambition.
***
Boss Murphy is a rich specimen of the Boss—the man who is in politics for Money, who cares nothing for Principle, who has no conception of Duty, who would not understand what you meant if you talked to him about Moral Obligation, who amasses wealth by screening from adverse legislation the rascals that rob the Public under corporate names, who makes it possible for invaluable public franchises to be stolen with impunity, and who renders it easy for the robbers that grabbed the property to use it to oppress and exploit the people from whom it was stolen.
Iknowthat Murphy is the worst representative ofthat class of Bossesbecause the Hearst newspapers told me so.
Iknowthat he has used his power, as Tammany Chief, to protect such robbers of the Public as Belmont, Morgan, Rogers and Ryan, because Mr. Hearst has told me so with “damnable iteration” and convincing emphasis these many years.
At the breakfast table, he reminded me of it in his morning paper,The American.
At the supper table, he recalled the fact to my memory in his evening paper,The Journal.
In fact, he gave me no chance to forget it.
Murphy, a protector of Crime, Murphy, a tool of the Plunderbund; Murphy, the stuffer of ballot-boxes; Murphy, the ally of Murderers and thieves; Murphy, the inciter to assassination; Murphy, who robbed New York in the interest of Ryan and Belmont;Murphy, who ought to be in the Penitentiary garbed in convict stripes—THISMurphy became so familiar to me in the Hearst newspapers that I would have felt the loss of something habitual, and therefore necessary, had my friend Hearst ceased to grind the coffee-mill.
CartoonDREAMING OF 1908.
DREAMING OF 1908.
Yet Max Ihmsen deliberately planned a coalition between denouncerand denounced, between the Angel of Reform and the Devil of Plutocracy, between the Champion of the “Common People” and the hireling of the Plunderbund, between the man who cried “Stop thief” and the rogue who was making off with the stolen goods.
It was too bad.
It shocked theSense of Rightof ten thousands of enthusiastic Hearstites who had believed in him as anhonestleader. * * *
Seethe Consequencesof this foul and fatal deal:
First—the loss of that most valuable asset, the real reformers of The Independence League;
Second—the revulsion of feeling among disinterested Democrats and Republicans who were supporting Hearston principle;
Third—the calling back to robust life of the almost defunct Boss, Murphy;
Fourth—the complete rehabilitation of Tammany;
Fifth—the surrender to the Plunderbund of the State Supreme Courtfor fourteen years;
Sixth—the restoration to his place of power and hurtfulness of Thomas Grady, the most debauched legislative corruptionist in America.
Iknowthat Grady is that kind of man, because the Hearst papers have assured me of it so often that no doubt upon the subject disturbs the absolute serenity of my fixed opinion.
***
As thesenet resultsof the New York election loom up clearly above the dust and noise of the conflict, it is natural that Mr. Hearst will be seen to have dimmed his halo very considerably; andthe fact that Murphy, after securing to himself and his gang all the benefits of the coalition,turned upon Hearst at the last moment and put the knife into him, will cause no tearsANYWHERE.
That’s just what Hearst ought to have known would happen—for he had said things about Murphy whichno man, born of woman,could possibly forgive.
***
But Bryan put a shadow uponhisradiance, also.
He swallowed the Hearst programme all the way through—from soup and fish to cheese and coffee.His stomach balked at nothing.The ousting of Democratic delegations which had been elected to the Buffalo Convention; the packing of that Convention with delegations which had not been elected; the throw down of The Independence League; the guillotining of the Independent candidates; the repudiation of the honest labor-champion, Thomas Rock, and the endorsement of the Plunderbund corruptionist, Thomas Grady; the fix-up of the Judiciary ticket in which three Judges were allotted to Hearst while Murphy calmly pocketed seven—Bryan’s gorge rose at none of these things. One and all, they slid down his gullet like rain-water down a tin valley.
Just think if it!
In 1904, Bryan was making 60 speeches a day for Parker—Judge Alton B. Parker—whom he described as “the Moses of Democracy.”
In 1906, he was writing, telegraphing, telephoning and so forth for W. R. Hearst,the exactCONTRASTto Parker.
Heavens, what a leap!
From Parker to Hearst—from Greenland’s icy mountains to India’s coral strand.
Neversaw such a jump before in my life.
And Bryan is going to find that it will require considerable dexterity to fit his crown on straight, afterthattrouser-splitting leap.
Hearsthas not changedin principle;Parkerhas not changedin principle; yet within two short yearsMr. Bryanhas advocatedEACH OF THEMwith equal fervor.
Quit playing Politician, William, or you will do yourself irreparable injury.
Fly your flagas Reformerand hold your swordstraight before you.
Don’t again call such a man as Parker “the Moses of Democracy.”
Don’t endorse Hearst,when he isWRONG!
Condemn the wrong, and thus encourage Hearst to mend his ways, to retire Max Ihmsen, andTHUS MAKEhis powerful newspapers,more useful, more effective in the grand cause of Reform.
The Pennsylvania politicians decided that the state needed a new Capitol. The people were told that unless a better state house were erected Pennsylvania would be pointed at with scorn, viewed with alarm, and otherwise treated in a disrespectful and uncomfortable manner.
So, the politicians, contractors, material men, jobbers, lobbyists, dead-beats, plain thieves and so forth, went forward and in due time a new capitol for Pennsylvania was evolved.
Costing how much?
Thirteen million dollars, my son.
The house, itself, cost only $4,000,000.
But, then, you see, it had to be furnished.
The “furnishings” of the new state house cost the tax payers of Pennsylvania $9,000,000.
As a sample of said furnishings, consider the one item of flag staff.
What would such a magnificent new capitol be without a flag flying above it?
Of course, the state house must be surmounted by the flag.
And how can the flag do itself credit, away up there in the heavens, without a pole to fly from?
Of course, there must be a flag pole.
So, the pole was put in place, and the flag was braced to the pole.
At what cost, please?
Why, the flag pole cost $850. Not $8.50, but $850.
So, at least, it appears upon the expense-account.
What was the flag pole made of?
Why,it was just the round body of a large pine tree.
Nothing else, my son.
The probability is that any sawmill in the country would have furnished such a tree for $25.
The labor of preparing the tree for use as a flag pole might have cost another $25.
Fifty dollars ought to have covered the entire cost.
But then, you see, the gang that was bossing the job needed money; therefore, the State of Pennsylvania was supplied with a fifty-dollar flag pole for the moderate sum of $850.
***
But the country is adorned with numerousother flag poles of the same variety.
One of them isPaul Morton, President ofThe Equitable Assurance Society.
No institution in this land of the free has a flag pole that is more expensive.
Paul Morton costs the policy holders of the Equitable $80,000 per year. Not $8,000—which would be a fair price—but $80,000—which is a gouge.
Just how many men, equally capable, could be found to fill his place at $10,000 per year, it would be impossible to say; but there is no doubt whatever that Paul himself wouldhave served the Society just as well upon a salary of $25,000.
But then, you see, he wanted more. So he took it.
Flag poles come high—under certain circumstances.
***
Life Insurance, properly done, is of vast benefit to the Insured. Life Insurance, improperly done, is of vast benefit,—to the Insurer. Those Eastern Companies got too gay. Their higher officers became corrupt. Under various flimsy pretexts, they began to plunder the Insured.Local agents, who did the hard work, got small pay.State agents and National officers drew princely salaries,—and did little to show for it.
Some of those Eastern Companies have been building Insurance Business on the same principle that gave an exhibition of itself in the building of the new State House of Pennsylvania.
Everybody knows that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania have been robbed. Everybody knows, equally well, that the Policy-holders of those Eastern Companies have been plundered.
From the standpoint of such rascals as the McCurdy gang, the Policy-holder resembled an Irish potato, in thathe had eyes yet saw not.
The blind Policy-holder,who could never see that he was being robbed, became a jest among the thieves who spent his money in riotous living.
Life Insurance is all right—when the Insurer is.
Beforeyou allow the Insurance Company to examineYOU,examine the Insurance Company.
The process of making a saint out of Abraham Lincoln goes bravely on. His latest biographer, Mr. Hill, clears him of the charge of “telling stories just to amuse people.” Mr. Hill—a sober and worthy man, no doubt—produces a witness by the name of Ewing, who being duly sworn, deposes and says:
“I never heard Mr. Lincoln tell a story for its own sake or simply to raise a laugh. He used stories to illustrate a point, but the idea that he sat around and matched yarns like a commercial traveller is utterly false.”
Why should the Lincoln biographers strive and strain to establish the fact thatHE NEVER “SAT AROUND AND MATCHED YARNS LIKE A COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER?”
Is it any disgrace to sit around, occasionally, and swap yarns, “like a commercial traveller?”
If so, the men who areTRULY RESPECTABLEare the dull fellows who can neither tell a joke, nor enjoy one. Some of the best and brightest men that ever lived have prided themselves upon their gifts in that very line. To be a good story-teller is to possess the golden key that unlocks almost every social door.
Daniel Webster revelled in a good story; so did Clay; so did Tom Corwin; so did Robert Toombs, and Alexander H. Stephens.
As a mental relaxation and recreation, there are, in fact, few things that serve better than “to sit around and match yarns like a commercial traveller.”
***
The truth about Lincolnis that he was a man, anda great man, but no saint.
The last time I was in New York (November, 1905), my friend, Hon. T. H. Tibbles, of Nebraska, was there,also, and we talked of Lincoln, whom Mr. Tibbles had known.
Andone of the very things which Mr. Tibbles had seen and heard Mr. Lincoln do was “to sit around and match yarns like a commercial traveller.”
***
Mr. Tibbles told mehow, being at a certain place, his attention was attracted by repeated bursts of loud laughter, coming from a certain room. His youthful curiosity being excited, he followed the sound to the room from which it came. The sight that met his eyes was this: Abraham Lincoln was sitting in a chair, with his big feet upon a table in front of him; around him were grouped a number of men, to whom Mr. Lincoln was telling side-splitting yarns.
Tibbles joined the audience and got his share of the fun.
What of it?
Does that lower Lincoln in any sensible man’s eyes?
No. Let the Miss Nancy brigade go off to one side and talk about the nebular hypothesis, or some other nice, well-bred subject. For my part, I would prefer,occasionally, “to sit around and match yarns like a commercial traveller.”
***
I asked Mr. Tibbles whether the stories that he heard Mr. Lincoln telling were smutty.
At some future time, when I find, after a careful field-glass scrutiny of the horizon, that I have no other row on hand, and am feeling the need of oneverybadly,I am going to tell you Tibbles’ answer.
Most men are presumed to have sense enough to know when the sun is up, and when it is down.
To no mortal on this earth is it a matter of vital importance to know the exact moment it rises and sets.
Even if any inquisitive lunatic wanted to know, he couldn’t find out, for the simple reason that the hour of sunrise and sunset varies with every mile of the earth’s surface, and is earlier to the man at the foot of the mountain than to the man on top.
In the military establishments of the world, however, it is considered to be a matter of life and death to know just when the sun rises and just when he sets. So extremely indispensable is this piece of daily information that a gun, a cannon we mean,mustbe fired to proclaim the tidings.
“Boom!”—the sun is up.
“Boom!”—he’s down.
Whereupon, your true soldier can sleep with a conscience childlike in its freedom from care.
Otherwise not.
If that gun (mind you, acannon) wasnotfired, solemnly and formally fired, every time the sun rose and every time he set, the military breast would be racked with rude alarms, and the military mind would be tossed to and fro with dread forebodings.
To fire off a musket wouldn’t do; wouldn’tbeginto do.
It would be unconstitutional, if not actually anarchistic and revolutionary.
To start the day without firing a cannon—why the military establishment could no more perform its traditionary functions without a cannon salute to the coming and going of the sun than one of the old parties could exist without stuffed ballot boxes.
Therefore, the custom is fixed—rooted, as it were, in the soil of ourcivilization. It is one of the greatest advantages we have over our untutored ancestors.
However muchtheymay have yearned to shoot the sun up and shoot it down, they couldn’t do it. They had nothing to shoot with. They were so completely engulfed in the currents of stupidity and barbarism that they just had to trust to their eyes to know when the sun was up, or was down.
You might ask how the soldiers doon cloudy days. You might ask, with unseasonable levity, if the army doesn’t have to go by the clockwhen the sun is not to be seen. And you might, out of your desire to be smart and show yourself off, ask whether the army couldn’t go by the clock as well on fair days as on foul ones.
But such questions as these will do you no good, and they would cause you to lose friends. They are irrelevant impertinences.
For, you see, when anything has been done a long time, the presumption is that there is sense in doing it that way.
Therefore, all nice and respectable people put salt in the fire when the screech owl twitters, and make a cross mark and spit in it, whenever they turn back in their tracks. We all do this because the custom has age and good sense on its side.
If you think you can prance through the world smashing steady old customs which have been handed down to us from time immemorial, you are in a fair way to get yourself into trouble.
Consequently, if you don’t like the way the armies of the world spend the people’s money shooting for the sun, you had just as well make up your mind to the wisdom of laying low, and paying your share of the expenses.
Every two years, your chosen representatives in Congress approve the item in the Military Appropriation Bill which gives $20,600 to the army to shoot the sun-shoots with.
Now, if you don’t like it what are you going to do about it?
The soldiers are not going to go by clocks or by eyes—they are going to shoot those cannon, at all the military posts, every time the sun rises and every time he sets.
And you will continue to pay the expenses, as formerly.
What else are you here for?
“Boom!”—the sun’s up.
“Boom!”—he’s down.
And it only costs $20,600.
See how great a thing it is to be civilized.
We shouldn’t be surprised if the sun had lots of amusement watching us fools down here.
Boom!!!
What else could the President have done?
He is Commander-in-Chief of the Army: certain members of a certain battalion “shoot up” a certain town destroying property, terrorizing a peaceful community and committing murder.
The Commander-in-Chief endeavors to discover the identity of the guilty parties. He fails. He thenappeals to the honor of the battalion, asking that the innocent point out the guilty. By no other method can the red-handed rioters and murderers be identified and brought to Justice.
The battalion is deaf to the appeal.
The innocent refuse to point out the guilty.
The innocent elect to make a common cause with the guilty.
Therefore,THEY, THEMSELVES, BECOME GUILTYof the highest crimes, asAccessories after the Fact.
In law and morals, there isnot an innocent man left in that battalion, whose every member deliberately conceals the murderers, aids and abets them after full knowledge of the crime.
Considering them all as guilty, the President ordered their dishonorable discharge.
Why not?
They had committed crimes involving turpitude, degrading the uniform.
They had sullenly defied the President’s appeal to their honor, and hence his notice to disband them.
The innocent had elected to share the guilt of the guilty, and thusthe whole battalion was guilty.
***
Fanatical friends of the blacks say that the Presidentshould not have punished the innocent.
Nor did he.
He who conceals a murderer giving him aid and comfort, is himself a party to the crime.
What legal principle is older and sounder than that?
The fanatics overlook it.
The President did not.
Nor will those who consider the facts without passion and seek to judge the case without prejudice.
Apparently, the fanatics intend to convulse the Congress and the country over this matter of the Negro Troops.
Let it not be forgotten thateven now the fanatics do not propose that the originally innocent negroes shall be required to point out those originally guilty.
The fanatics demand that the President back down, and that the order for the dismissal of the negroes be countermanded.
Thus, the originally guilty will be forever screened, and the crimes they committed will forever go unwhipt of Justice.
The President has been right and should be sustained.
To allow these fanatics and these negroes to triumph over the President,would be to exalt the criminal and to degrade the Just Judge.
If that had been a battalion of white men, nothing would have been said about it.
But it was a lot of negroes—consequently the fanatics got busy.
AFAT MANwho was talking loud enough to disturb his fellow-passengers on the train, said:
“What we need now is the Ship Subsidy, and the Panama Canal and”—the rest was of the same sort. He had read something like this in a newspaper, and hadSEEN IT THERE SO OFTENthat he had come to the conclusion it must necessarily be true.
In this way some men get what they call their opinions.
NotYOU, of course. You get yoursBY THINKING FOR YOURSELF.I knowthat this is so, becauseYOU TOLD ME SO YOURSELF.
“We need a Ship Subsidy,” declared the fat man, with emphasis and decision. So “WE” do—but who are the “WE?”
TheWEwho need a Ship Subsidy are the Privileged, the beneficiaries of Class Legislation, the Trusts which gorge themselves upon unjust advantages.
In order that we may enable theManufacturing Classto enjoy a Monopoly at home while they undersell the foreign Manufacturer in the foreign market, we have put a fictitious,UNNATURAL VALUE TO THE MATERIALS OUT OF WHICH SHIPS ARE BUILT.
Consequently it costsMOREto build a ship in the United States than anywhere else in the world.
Now, our Navigation laws will not allow the national flag to protect an American vesselUNLESS THAT VESSEL IS BUILT IN THE UNITED STATES.
Result:
The foreigner has comeWITH HIS CHEAPER VESSELand borne off our carrying trade.
Our infernal Tariff and Navigation laws have driven our flag from the seas, by making itIMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AMERICAN MERCHANT TO BUY HIS SHIP ABROAD, OR TO BUILD ONE AT HOME ON SUCH TERMS AS WILL ENABLE HIM TO COMPETE WITH THE FOREIGN-BUILT SHIP.
Isn’t that plain enough,WHEN YOU STOP TO THINK IT OVER?
But the fat mandeclared that whatWEneed is the Ship Subsidy Bill.
WhatISthe Ship Subsidy Bill?
Why, it is a proposition that the Government shall, in effect, take money out of the National TreasuryTO MAKE GOOD TO THE SEA MERCHANT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOREIGN AND HOME PRICE OF THE SHIP.
That’s theGISTof it, my son.
At your expense, the government has created the Trust which makes itimpossible for an American to build a ship that can compete for ocean-going freight.
At your expense, that impossibility is to be abolished.The difference in pricebetween the cheap foreign-built ship and the dear home-built shipIS TO BE MADE UP OUT OF YOUR MONEY.
At your expense, the Trust will therefore beABLE TO COMPETEfor the ocean business.
At your expense, the Trusts themselves will scoop the Carriers’ profit upon the transportation of the Trust-made goods whichARE SOLD ABROAD CHEAPER THAN THEY ARE SOLD AT HOME.
You catch it all around, don’t you, son?
***
Yes, the fat manwas right.
WeDOneed a Ship Subsidy—we Trusts.
We want to maintain our monopoly at home, and we will do it. We want to continue to undersell the foreigner in the market and we will do it. We want, furthermore, to rake into our own coffers the profits now reaped by the foreigner who controls ocean transportation.
WeCOULDdo thisby lowering the Tariff, but that would derange our entire Class-law fabric.That would endanger our monopoly of the home market.
Consequently, the only way for us to get whatWEwant, is to have the Government grant us a Subsidy which will make good to usTHAT DIFFERENCE IN PRICEbetween home-made and foreign-made vesselsWHICH OUR TRUST-CREATING TARIFF HAS CAUSED.
Thus we, the Privileged, will unload upon the UnprivilegedBOTH LOADS,—that of the Trust, and that ofOURescape fromTHE ONE CONSEQUENCEof the trustWHICH HURTS US.
***
There is only oneincident to the Protective system which is a drawback to the Trusts.
That isTHE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONTROLLING OCEAN TRANSPORTATION.
EveryOTHERincident to the Protective SystemHELPS THE TRUSTS AND HURTS THE PEOPLE.
The one incident whichHURTS THE TRUSTS AND HELPS THE PEOPLEmust be dealt with.
We must so manage that ocean transportation shall likewise belong to the Trusts.
How?
CartoonNOW YOU SEE WHY YOU DON’T GET THE PARCELS POST.
NOW YOU SEE WHY YOU DON’T GET THE PARCELS POST.
By giving to the merchant marine a sum of money out of the public treasury, over and above the freight which is earned.
Then, indeed, every incident of the Protective System will present a harmonious color-scheme, forTHE TRUSTS WILL HAVE HOGGED THE WHOLE BUSINESS.
And that donation out of your tax money, which is intended to save the Trusts from the injurious burden of their own damnable Tariff System is the Ship Subsidy which the fat man said we need.
So long as the Protective System hurts the Common People it is a national blessing and must be gratefully sustained:but the moment the samesystem pinches the Protected Interests, they mustrob youunder the form of Ship Subsidy to get back what they lose by their own tariff.
Signs are plentiful that tens of thousands of honest Democrats and Republicans are profoundly dissatisfied with the trend of recent events.
We look to the State, and no beacon light gives us confidence.
The time was when our rulers loved the people, trusted the people, worked for the people. Those were the times when there was light on the hearth, plenty on the board, and hope in the hearts of the people.
Those were the times when our rulersremembered that our forefathers came here to build a temple, a government,differing in all vital respects from the hateful systems of the Old World.
For this very purpose—that of establishing a system entirely different from that of Europe—our forefathers braved the perils of the deep; fought hunger and faced death; battled with the wilderness and the savages it held; determined to die free, rather than live slaves.
In Europe they were fettered by class laws, class privileges, class tyrannies.
They were crowded out from a fair competition for a share of nature’s bounties by monopolies, chartered wrongs, statutory abuses, legalized spoliations.
Braver than we, their degenerate sons, they counted life worth nothing unless freedom went with it, andtheir coming here was a sublime protest against the Old World system of Class-law and special privilege.
What have we, today,as the result of all their heroism, and suffering and success?
We have our rulers aping everything Europe does, and fitting upon us, forever, the abominable system our forefathers fled to escape.
Where are class laws more insolently dominant than here?
Where is Special Privilege more tyranically exacting than here?
Where are monopolies more contemptuous of law and public welfare than here?
What people are greater slaves to misgovernment than you whose low-priced products must bear the strain of untaxed bonds, useless offices, and a steady growth of ever increasing salaries?
Who paynine-tenths of all the taxes?
The many who toil.
Who getsthe lion’s share of all the wealth produced?
The few who do not toil.
In what country do the laborers, inshop and mine and mill and field, produce more of the good things of life than ours?
It cannot be named.
In what country has nature opened her royal hands with a more regal bounty?
It cannot be named.
Has there been any failure of harvest?
No.
Has there been pestilence, invasion, or civil strife?
No.
Then why is it that the signal guns of distress sound all along the commercial seas, telling of brave ships going down?
Why is it that the feet of the homeless and the unemployed beat the pavements of our great cities with a never-ending march?
Oh, brothers! why are so many hearths chill and dark, so many hungry mouths unfed, so many despairing souls weighed down with the nameless dread of the unknown future?
We have left the beaten track of our fathers. We have let the old landmarks be forgotten. We have gone after strange gods.
We have foresworn the faith upon which our republic was founded, and are being led back to the system our ancestors came here to shun. Why can’t we all see it? Why can’t we all act together? Why can’t we lay down prejudice, pride and passion, and devote our noblest efforts to the salvation of our country?