NEW ISSUES

The half decade between 1895 and 1900 may justly be considered one of the most important in American history. It witnessed the fiercest battle between political parties ever fought over the question of finance,â€”a contest exceeding in bitterness and the general participation of the people of the United States therein even the great struggle in which Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle were the opposing leaders. And, further, as the outcome of the war with Spain, it saw the birth and growth of an issue theretofore alien to American soil and portentous for its ultimate influence over the form and structure of our government. It was at once recognized as an issue overshadowing in its importance, and in the face of the greater danger the mutual fears of the friends of gold and the friends of silver were laid away in one common sepulchre.

On the part of the Democratic party the wraith of imperialism hovering over the Republic was recognized as the hideous and supreme exhalation from the poison swamp of plutocracy from which high tariff, trusts, and a gold standard had already sprung. Through all these policies, asserted the Democracy, through its recognized leader, Mr. Bryan, ran the common purpose of exalting the dollar and debasing the man. The Republican party hesitated long torecognize and admit the new issue, and when it finally took up the gage of battle it was on the declaration that a colonial policy, with alien and subject races under its dominion, had become the â€œmanifest destinyâ€ of the United States.

The cruelties and severities of General Weyler, the commander of the Spanish forces in Cuba, toward the insurrectionists who were in arms against Spainâ€™s authority, early in Mr. McKinleyâ€™s administration aroused the indignation of the American people. The fact that the Cubans were bravely fighting for liberty, that their rebellion was against the exactions of an old world monarchy, even as ours had been, won them an instinctive sympathy that grew stronger each day and that finally swept like a tidal wave into the cabinet meetings at Washington, bearing the demands of the people of the United States for the intervention of our government in Cubaâ€™s behalf.

On December 6, 1897, in his message to Congress, the President discussed the Cuban question at some length, arguing against any interference by the United States, on the ground that â€œa hopeful change has supervened in the policy of Spain toward Cuba.â€ Speaking of the possible future relations between this country and Cuba, the President used the words since so widely quoted against his subsequent policy in the Philippines: â€œI speak not of forcible annexation, for that is not to be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression.â€

The evident reluctance of the administration to recognize Cuban independence was shortly afterforced to give way to the compelling power of public opinion. On February 15, 1898, by the explosion of a submarine mine, the Maine, a first-class United States battleship, was destroyed in Havana harbor, with a loss of 248 officers and men. A fierce hatred for Spain was thereby added to the sympathy for Cuba, and war, or the abandonment of Cuba by Spain, became inevitable. A month after the destruction of the Maine Congress voted the President $50,000,000 to be used in the National defense. On April 11, President McKinley, in a message to Congress exhaustively reviewed the Cuban complications, disclaiming a policy of annexation and arguing for neutral intervention to enforce peace and secure for the Cubans a stable government. On the 20th, Congress declared Cuba to be free and independent, demanded that Spain relinquish her claim of authority, and authorized the President to use the land and naval forces of the United States to enforce the demand.

Congress expressly declared: â€œThe United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.â€

From such a lofty plane the United States entered into that brief but glorious combat with Spain that has rightly been called â€œthe war for humanity.â€ On April 23, the President called for 125,000 volunteers. One of the first who offered the President his services in the war for â€œCuba libreâ€ was William J. Bryan.Long before, Mr. Bryan had declared for intervention, saying, â€œHumanity demands that we shall act. Cuba lies within sight of our shores and the sufferings of her people can not be ignored unless we, as a nation, have become so engrossed in money-making as to be indifferent to distress.â€ Mr. Bryanâ€™s proffer was ignored by the President. He was later commissioned by Governor Holcomb, of Nebraska, to raise the Third Nebraska regiment of volunteers. This he did, becoming the colonel of the regiment. General Victor Vifquain, of Lincoln, a gallant and distinguished veteran of the Civil war was made lieutenant-colonel.

In the meantime Admiral George Dewey commanding the United States Asiatic fleet, had set forth from Hong Kong, engaged the Spanish fleet in Manila bay on May 1, and completely demolished it. Manila was the capital of the entire Philippine archipelago, with its eight to ten million inhabitants, then nominally under Spanish sovereignty. The Filipinos themselves, of whom Admiral Dewey said, â€œthese people are far superior in their intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of Cuba,â€ were already in successful revolt against Spain, battling bravely for their independence. Under the leadership of General Aguinaldo, and at the invitation of Dewey and the representatives of the United States state department, the insurgents cooperated as allies with the American forces from the time of Deweyâ€™s victory until the surrender of Manila. They were furnished arms and ammunition by Dewey, and were led to believe that their own independence would be assuredon the expulsion of Spain from the archipelago. During this time they established a successful and orderly civil government throughout the greater part of the islands. But at home the United States government was already beginning to indicate its intention not to grant to the Filipinos, at the conclusion of the war, the same liberty and self-government as had been promised the Cubans. Rather, it was becoming evident it was the purpose of Mr. McKinley and his advisers to hold the islands as tributary territory, subject to United Statesâ€™ jurisdiction, while, at the same time, the inhabitants should be denied the â€œinalienable rightsâ€ proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution.

The American people were at a loss what to make of the situation. Their eyes dazzled by the glories of war and conquest, their cupidity appealed to by the vaunted richness of the â€œnew possessions,â€ there still was latent in their hearts the love for liberty as â€œthe heritage of all men in all lands everywhere,â€ and an unspoken fear of incorporating the government of alien and subject races as an integral portion of the scheme of American democracy.

Such was the situation when, at Omaha, Neb., on June 14, 1898, Colonel W. J. Bryan, shortly before the muster-in of his regiment into the service of the government, sounded the first note of warning against the insidious dangers of imperialism; the first ringing appeal to the Republic to remain true to its principles, its traditions, and its high ideals. In taking his stand on this great question Mr. Bryan acted with the boldnessthat has ever characterized him when matters of principle were at stake. He spoke against the earnest advice of numerous political friends, who warned him he was taking the unpopular side, and that his mistake would cost him his political life. Mr. Bryan, because he believed the policy of the administration to be radically wrong, paid no heed to all the well-meant protestations, but earnestly warned the people against the abandonment of the doctrines of the fathers of the Republic. These were his words:

â€œHistory will vindicate the position taken by the United States in the war with Spain. In saying this I assume that the principles which were invoked in the inauguration of the war will be observed in its prosecution and conclusion. If a war undertaken for the sake of humanity degenerates into a war of conquest we shall find it difficult to meet the charge of having added hypocrisy to greed. Is our national character so weak that we can not withstand the temptation to appropriate the first piece of land that comes within our reach?

â€œTo inflict upon the enemy all possible harm is legitimate warfare, but shall we contemplate a scheme for the colonization of the Orient merely because our fleet won a remarkable victory in the harbor at Manila?

â€œOur guns destroyed a Spanish fleet, but can they destroy that self-evident truth that governments derive their just powersâ€”not from forceâ€”but from the consent of the governed?

â€œShall we abandon a just resistance to Europeanencroachment upon the western hemisphere, in order to mingle in the controversies of Europe and Asia?

â€œNebraska, standing midway between the oceans, will contribute her full share toward the protection of our sea coast; her sons will support the flag at home and abroad, wherever the honor and the interests of the nation may require. Nebraska will hold up the hands of the government while the battle rages, and when the war clouds roll away her voice will be heard pleading for the maintenance of those ideas which inspired the founders of our government and gave the nation its proud eminence among the nations of the earth.

â€œIf others turn to thoughts of aggrandizement, and yield allegiance to those who clothe land covetousness in the attractive garb of â€˜national destiny,â€™ the people of Nebraska will, if I mistake not their sentiments, plant themselves upon the disclaimer entered by Congress, and expect that good faith shall characterize the making of peace as it did the beginning of war.

â€œGoldsmith calls upon statesmen:

â€˜To judge how wide the limits standBetwixt a splendid and a happy land.â€™

â€˜To judge how wide the limits stand

Betwixt a splendid and a happy land.â€™

If some dream of the splendors of a heterogeneous empire encircling the globe, we shall be content to aid in bringing enduring happiness to a homogeneous people, consecrated to the purpose of maintaining â€˜a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.â€™â€

Shortly after this speech Colonel Bryan left Nebraska with his regiment to go into camp at Tampa,Florida, awaiting orders to Cuba or Porto Rico. Like most of the other regiments called out by President McKinley, Colonel Bryanâ€™s was not destined ever to come in sight of a battlefield. The amazing fact is that while the enormous number of 274,717 soldiers were mustered into service, only 54,000 ever left American soil up to the time the protocol was signed, August 12, 1898. The 220,000 were left through the sweltering summer months in unsanitary camps to broil under a southern sun. From May 1 to September 30, but 280 American soldiers were killed in battle, while 2,565 died in fever-stricken camps pitched in malarial swamps. The entire nation was aroused to the highest pitch of indignation, and the press, without regard to party, joined in denouncing the careless, cruel, and incompetent treatment of the volunteer soldier.

The New YorkHeraldvoiced the general feeling when it said: â€œâ€™Infamousâ€™ is the only word to describe the treatment that has been inflicted upon our patriotic soldiers, and under which, despite the indignant outbursts of a horror-stricken people, thousands of them are still suffering to-day.â€ TheHeraldfurther declared the soldiers to be â€œthe victims of job-and-rob politicians and contractors, and of criminally incompetent and heartlessly indifferent officials.â€

For almost six months Colonel Bryan remained with his regiment in camp. The quarters, the sanitative conditions, and the general arrangements of the â€œThird Nebraskaâ€ were the pride of the army. ColonelBryan was at once â€œguide, counselor, and friendâ€ to his men, winning the almost idolatrous love of each and all of them. He gave lavishly of his meager funds to secure the comfort of the sick and maintain the health of the strong. His days and nights were devoted to the service of the regiment, and more than one poor boy, dying of fever far from the wind-swept Nebraska prairies, passed away holding his Colonelâ€™s hand and breathing into his Colonelâ€™s ear the last faltering message of farewell to loved ones at home.

CHAS. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ SENATOR ALLEN â€„ â€„ â€„ ADLAI STEVENSON â€„ â€„ â€„ MRS. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ MISS POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ C. A. TOWNELEWIS G. STEVENSON â€„ â€„ â€„ WEBSTER DAVIS â€„ â€„ â€„ MRS. W. C. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ W. J. BRYAN â€„ â€„ â€„ GOV. POYNTERAT THE GOVERNORâ€™S MANSION, LINCOLN

CHAS. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ SENATOR ALLEN â€„ â€„ â€„ ADLAI STEVENSON â€„ â€„ â€„ MRS. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ MISS POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ C. A. TOWNE

LEWIS G. STEVENSON â€„ â€„ â€„ WEBSTER DAVIS â€„ â€„ â€„ MRS. W. C. POYNTER â€„ â€„ â€„ W. J. BRYAN â€„ â€„ â€„ GOV. POYNTER

AT THE GOVERNORâ€™S MANSION, LINCOLN

In joining the volunteer army, as when he delivered the first anti-imperialist speech, Colonel Bryan had acted against the advice of many of his closest personal and political friends. Despite his decisive defeat for the presidency in 1896, he had not only maintained but even strengthened his position as the recognized leader of the Democratic party and its allies. Undaunted by the result of the campaign, he had almost immediately resumed the fight for bimetallism. He had published a book reviewing the contest under the suggestive and defiant title â€œThe First Battle.â€ He had taken to the lecture platform and to the political hustings, vigorously, hopefully, and earnestly propagating the principles of democracy, unwavering, unwearying, and undisturbed by the general depression of his followers and as general exultation of his opponents. He was the incarnation of the spirit of conservative reform, and all parties had come to regard him as the prophet and supreme leader of the new movement back to Jeffersonian principles. His friends feared to have him accept a commission, not only on the ground that his doing so might later compel his silence at a time when his voice ought to be heard, but more largely because they dreaded the possibility of having his motive impugned. It was evident to them, as to Colonel Bryan himself, that by taking up the role of colonel of a volunteer regiment, he had much to risk and lose, and little, if anything, to gain. But the Democratic leader was not to be dissuaded. Content in his own knowledge that his motive was worthy and patriotic, he assumed and bore unostentatiously and yet with dignity the office of military leader of 1,300 of his Nebraska friends and neighbors. He remained faithfully with his regiment, living the slow and tedious life of the camp, until the treaty of peace was signed with Spain in December, 1898. That treaty provided not only for the cession of Porto Rico to the United States and Spanish relinquishment of all claim to sovereignty over Cuba, but further for the turning over of the Philippine Islands to the United States on the payment of $20,000,000. This last concession was wrung from Spain by the insistent and uncompromising demand of the American Peace Commissioners, under instructions from the state department at Washington.

Shortly after the treaty was signed, President McKinley blasted the fond hopes for independence that had been planted in the Filipinosâ€™ breasts by issuing this proclamation:

â€œWith the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiariesat Paris on the tenth instant, and as the result of the victories of American arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In fulfilment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired, and the responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands become immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained by the United States in the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory.â€

Prior to this time, and later, the President explained his position on the Philippine question, and we quote from him at some length.

At Chicago, in October, 1898, he said: â€œMy countrymen, the currents of destiny flow through the hearts of the people. Who will check them? Who will divert them? Who will stop them? And the movements of men, planned and designed by the Master of men, will never be interrupted by the American people.â€

At the Atlanta (Ga.) Peace Jubilee in December of the same year, he said: â€œThat [the American] flag has been planted in two hemispheres, and there it remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who will withhold it from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds? Who will haul it down?â€

At Savannah, a day or two later he said: â€œIf, followingthe clear precepts of duty, territory falls to us, and the welfare of an alien people requires our guidance and protection, who will shrink from the responsibility, grave though it may be? Can we leave these people who, by the fortunes of war and our own acts, are helpless and without government, to chaos and anarchy after we have destroyed the only government that they had?â€

At the Home Market Club, in Boston, on February 16, 1899, he explained himself more fully, saying: â€œOur concern was not for territory or trade or empire, but for the people whose interests and destiny, without our willing it, had been put in our hands. It was with this feeling that from the first day to the last not one word or line went from the Executive in Washington to our military and naval commanders at Manila or to our Peace Commissioners at Paris that did not put as the sole purpose to be kept in mind, first, after the success of our arms and the maintenance of our own honor, the welfare and happiness and the rights of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity? If we can benefit these remote peoples, who will object? If, in the years of the future, they are established in government under law and liberty, who will regret our perils and sacrifices? Who will not rejoice in our heroism and humanity?â€

One more quotation. At Minneapolis, October 12, 1899, President McKinley delivered himself of this utterance: â€œThat Congress will provide for them [the Filipinos] a government which will bring them blessings,which will promote their material interests, as well as advance their people in the paths of civilization and intelligence, I confidently believe.â€

With such phrase-making as this, concealing in sonorous periods the most un-American of sentiments, Colonel Bryanâ€™s utterance, delivered immediately after he had resigned his commission, stands out in bold and pleasing relief: â€œI may be in error, but in my judgment our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign ideaâ€”the colonial idea of European nations. Heretofore greed has perverted the government and used its instrumentalities for private gains, but now the very foundation principles of our government are assaulted. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy, such as is now pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. To borrow a Bible quotation â€˜A house divided against itself can not stand.â€™ Paraphrasing Lincolnâ€™s declaration, I may add that this nation can not endure half republic and half colony, half free and half vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests, and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest....

â€œSome think the fight should be made against ratification of the treaty, but I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected, negotiations must be renewed, and instead of settling the question accordingto our ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possibility of international complications. It will be easier, I think, to end the war at once by ratifying the treaty and then deal with the subject in our own way. The issue can be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation upon this subject. The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress could reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba, and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Porto Rico. Such a resolution would make a clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of imperialism. We should reserve a harbor and coaling station in Porto Rico and the Philippines in return for services rendered, and I think we would be justified in asking the same concession from Cuba.

â€œIn the case of Porto Rico, where the people have as yet expressed no desire for independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island, if the citizens desire annexation, but the Philippines are too far away and their people too different from ours to be annexed to the United States, even if they desired it.â€

In making this statement, and in his subsequent active support of the treaty, Mr. Bryanâ€™s course was again opposed to the wishes and advice of many of his close political friends. In fact, before Mr. Bryan took his firm stand probably the majority of Democraticleaders in and out of Congress were opposed to the ratification of the treaty because of its Philippine clause. But Mr. Bryan, while as strongly opposed to this clause as anyone, was anxious to see the war finally ended. He knew that for the Senate to reject the treaty would prolong the war perhaps a year or more, and, further, that it might lead to endless and unpleasant complications. Once the war was ended, he held, the American people themselves could dispose of the Philippine question.

Largely owing to the aid extended the administration by Mr. Bryan, the treaty was ratified by the Senate. Those senators who were opposed to the imperial policy of President McKinley supported the â€œBacon resolutionâ€ as a declaration of this nationâ€™s purpose toward the Philippines and Filipinos. This resolution declared:

â€œThe United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, and assert their determination, when a stable and independent government shall have been erected therein, entitled in the judgment of the government of the United States to recognition as such, to transfer to said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of the islands to their people.â€

The Democratic policy, as outlined by Mr. Bryan, was the support of the treaty and of the foregoing resolution. The treaty was ratified, but the resolution,though supported by practically the solid Democratic, Populist, and Silver Republican strength in the Senate, and by a number of Republican senators who were opposed to the imperial policy, was defeated by the deciding vote of Vice-President Hobart. Had the resolution been adopted, and the Philippines been given the same promise of independence and self-government as had already been given Cuba, it is believed that the long, bloody, and costly war in the Philippine Islands might have been averted, and the abandoned old-world heresy of the right of one man to rule another without that otherâ€™s consent would not now have regained a footing on the soil of the great American Republic.

In the meantime the Presidentâ€™s proclamation of December 21, 1898, to the Filipinos, asserting the sovereignty of the United States over them and theirs had provoked a veritable hurricane of indignation among that people.

The characteristic that distinguishes the Filipinos from all other Asiatic races is their fierce, inherent love for liberty. For three hundred years they had been intermittently battling with the Spaniard to regain what they had lost, and the palm of victory was within their eager reach on the day that Deweyâ€™s guns first thundered across Manila bay. Knowing as they did that the United States had gone to war to secure liberty for the Cubans, why should they doubt the securing of their own liberty as well?

The Presidentâ€™s proclamation came like a thunder clap. General Otis, who was commander-in-chief ofthe American forces in the Philippines, reported its effect as follows:

â€œAguinaldo met the proclamation by a counter one in which he indignantly protested against the claim of sovereignty by the United States in the islands, which really had been conquered from the Spaniards through the blood and treasure of his countrymen, and abused me for my assumption of the title of military governor. Even the women of Cavite province, in a document numerously signed by them, gave me to understand that after all the men are killed off they are prepared to shed their patriotic blood for the liberty and independence of their country.â€

The revulsion was complete. Before the proclamation was issued, it is true, there had been growing among the Filipinos a feeling of distrust of the Americans, and of doubt whether, after all, they were to be conceded their independence. For, at the surrender of Manila, although its capture had been impossible without the aid of the insurgents, they were studiously excluded from any share of the honor, and thus given the first intimation of the final treachery of the administration. Later the Filipinos were refused a hearing at Washington, and again before the Peace Commission which was to dispose of them like chattels.

Actual hostilities broke out February 4, 1899, and are thus referred to by President McKinley in his message to Congress December 4, 1899: â€œThe aggression of the Filipinos continually increased, until finally, just before the time set by the Senate of theUnited States for a vote upon the treaty, an attack, evidently prepared in advance, was made all along the American lines, which resulted in a terribly destructive and sanguinary repulse of the insurgents.â€

The report of General Otis, reads as follows (page96): â€œThe battle of Manila commenced at half past eight oâ€™clock, on the evening of February 4 (1899), and continued until five oâ€™clock the next evening. The engagement was strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents, and one of vigorous attack by our forces.â€

Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, in a letter to the Springfield (Mass.)Republican, January 11, 1900, is responsible for this statement regarding the first battle: â€œThe outbreak of hostilities was not their fault, but ours. We fired upon them first. The fire was returned from their lines. Thereupon it was returned again from us, and several Filipinos were killed. As soon as Aguinaldo heard of it he sent a message to General Otis saying that the firing was without his knowledge and against his will; that he deplored it, and that he desired hostilities to cease, and would withdraw his troops to any distance General Otis should desire. To which the American general replied that, as the firing had begun, it must go on.â€

Thus began the War in the Philippine Islands. It has cost thousands of lives and millions of treasure. It has burned the homes and uprooted the fields of a frugal, intelligent, and industrious people in whose minds and hearts have been seared the ringing words of Patrick Henry: â€œGive me liberty or give me death!â€It has not brought to the United States either riches or glory, but, on the contrary, lost to us much in taxes on our people, more in the death of our youth, and most of all in the sullying of the noble and lofty ideals which animated the Fathers of the Republic and made their lives sublime. An American soldier writing to the MinneapolisTimes, in describing a captured city, thus simply sets forth the enormity of our national offense:

â€œEvery inhabitant had left Norzagaray, and no article of value remained behind. The place had probably been the home of fifteen hundred or two thousand people, and was pleasantly situated on a clear mountain stream in which a bath was most refreshing. It was not a city of apparent wealth, but in many houses were found evidences of education. In a building which probably had been used as a schoolhouse were found a number of books, and a variety of exercises written by childish hands. Pinned to a crucifix was a paper upon which was written the following in Spanish: â€˜American soldiersâ€”How can you hope mercy from Him when you are slaughtering a people fighting for their liberty, and driving us from the homes which are justly ours?â€™ On a table was a large globe which did not give Minneapolis, but had San Pablo (St. Paul) as the capital of Minnesota. On a rude blackboard were a number of sentences, which indicated that the teacher had recently been giving lessons in the history of the American revolution.â€

The demoralizing effect of this war against libertyon the American conscience became early apparent. If it were permissible to make war on the Filipinos because they would not yield to our government, it was no far cry to withhold from the Porto Ricans the protecting aegis of the Constitution, to levy a discriminating tariff against them, and to tax them without their consent. And it of course became impossible for the United States to express sympathy for the Boers in their war against British aggression, or even to maintain neutrality between the two. As a consequence horses, mules, arms, and ammunition were permitted to be freely shipped from our ports for the use of British soldiers, while British ships were permitted to intercept and capture American ships laden with American breadstuffs, when consigned to the Boers. In fact, an â€œAnglo-Saxon allianceâ€ was more than hinted at by John Hay, then United States Ambassador to Great Britain, and later Secretary of State, when he said at London, on April 20, 1898, speaking of England and the United States:

â€œThe good understanding between us is based on something deeper than mere expediency. All who think can not but see that there is a sanction like that of religion which binds us in partnership in the serious work of the world. We are bound by ties we did not forge, and that we can not break. We are joint ministers in the sacred work of freedom and progress, charged with duties we can not evade by the imposition of irresistible hands.â€

To this sentiment Joseph Chamberlain, the BritishSecretary of the Colonies, replied in kind on May 13, at Birmingham, saying:

â€œI would go so far as to say that, terrible as war may be, even war itself would be cheaply purchased if, in a great and noble cause, the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack should wave together over an Anglo-Saxon alliance. At the present time these two great nations understand each other better than they ever have done, since, over a century ago, they were separated by the blunder of a British government.â€

So we come to the close of the recital of the most salient events which gave rise to the greatest issue save that of independence, and later, of slavery, with which the American people have ever stood face to face.

Contemporaneous with the growth of the question of imperialism, and allied to it, another great issue arose,â€”the problem of the trusts.

A â€œtrustâ€ may be defined as an industrial combination of such huge proportions as to enable it not only arbitrarily to fix the price of the finished product in which it deals, through the stifling of competition, but frequently to determine alone the price of the raw material it uses and to fix the rate of wages of those whom it employs. Of these great and dangerous combinations there were formed, during the years 1897 to 1900, a number exceeding all those already in existence. That this was permitted to be done with the Sherman anti-trust law on the Federal statute books has puzzled many. Its explanation may be found in the following candid admission made by Dr. Albert Shaw in theReview of Reviewsfor February, 1897:

â€œThe great sound-money campaign of 1896 was carried on by money contributed by corporationsâ€”money voted by the directors out of the funds held by them in trust for the stockholders. Nobody, probably, would even care to deny that this is literally the truth.â€

When the â€œgreat sound money campaignâ€ was concluded, it was but fair, of course, that those who had given so lavishly should be allowed to replenish their depleted coffers. And so neither anti-trust laws, supreme court decisions, nor the cry of protest rising from the people was allowed to stand in the way of those generous corporations to whom President McKinley owed so much.

In the last six months of 1898 the movement toward centralization that meant monopoly was most alarmingly pronounced. During this time there were filed articles of incorporation by more than one hundred companies of abnormal capitalization. The most important trusts were:

Among those classed as â€œmiscellaneousâ€ were trusts in leather, starch, lumber, rubber, dressed beef, lead, knit goods, window glass, crockery, furniture, crackers, sheet copper, paper, acids and chemicals, wall paper, typewriters, axes, bolts and nuts, salt, saws, rope, twine, thread, stock yards, matches, refrigerators, potteries, marbles, packing and provisions.

After the formation of each trust the first step was almost invariably to limit production by shutting down a portion of the mills controlled by the combination, thus reducing the number of wage earners. And almost as invariably the next step was to increase prices. By thus reducing expenses and increasing receipts the result was, though much of the trust property had been put in at an enormously inflated valuation, the watered stock yet earned exceedingly large dividends. The evil was not only that these unnatural dividends were earned at the expense of the laborer and the consumer, but that concentration of profits was leading to congestion of capital in certain sections of the country at the expense of other sections.

The great friend and helper of the trust-promoter was, of course, the high protective tariff. Without the tariff, to shut out competition from abroad, it would be impossible for the domestic concerns to form a close corporation and arbitrarily to fix prices. But Congress, instead of attempting to remedy the evil by lowering the tariff, deliberately raised it, being particularly careful to see that the percentage on trust-controlled goods was made sufficiently high to render foreign competition impossible. This led the PhiladelphiaLedger, a Republican newspaper, to remark:

â€œIf Congress had any genuine regard for the interests of the people, or if it were sincere of purpose respecting their common welfare, or in regard to the proper protection of labor, it would promptly transfer to the free list every product controlled by a conscienceless and predatory trust which reduces production, cuts off working people from work and wages, and increases prices to the tens of millions of consumers.â€ The correctness of this view was testified to, before the United States Industrial Commission, in June, 1899, by no less a personage than Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the sugar trust, who said:

â€œThe existing [tariff] bill and the preceding one have been the occasion of the formation of all the large trusts with very few exceptions, inasmuch as they provide for an inordinate protection to all the interests of the countryâ€”sugar refining excepted. All this agitation against trusts is against merely the business machinery employed to take from the public what the government in its tariff laws says it is proper and suitable they should have. It is the government, through its tariff laws, which plunders the people, and the trusts, etc., are merely the machinery for doing it.â€

The showing regarding trusts made in the â€œCommercial Year Bookâ€ for 1899 was startling. Its salient features may be thus tabulated:

This shows an increase for the year of 76 per cent. in the number of institutions and of 60 per cent. in stock and bonded debt. But it shows more than this. According to the census of 1890 the entire capital employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries was $6,525,000,000. A comparison of this figure with the stock and bonds of trusts for 1899 shows that the capitalization of these gigantic combines was equal to 90 per cent. of the entire manufacturing investments of 1890.

It was such significant figures as these that woke the country to a realization of the imminence and great importance of the trust problem. It was felt that the most stupendous industrial revolution in the history of the world was on, because it was realized how closely our industrial system had approached to complete absorption under monopolistic control. Industry at large was becoming organized into a system of feudalized corporations. Each was stifling competition, discouraging enterprise, and padlocking the gates of opportunity. Together they were in absolute mastery of the industrial field.

The menacing danger of the situation was early realized, and the â€œanti-trustâ€ movement progressed side by side with the opposition to imperialism. The fight was to be one of individualism against a gigantic and arrogant plutocracy, the forces of individualism contending for the doctrines of liberty and equal opportunity as against the reactionary tendencies of which trusts and imperialism were the supremest manifestations. In this Titanic struggle it was but fitting that the Jeffersonian hosts should be marshaled under the leadership of the brave, aggressive, eloquent, and inspired evangel of the doctrines of the Fathersâ€”William J. Bryan.

DAVID B. HILL

Back to Index Next