Newspaper Page Text
THE ATLANTIAN
5
Hirshburg,
The Official Photographer
FOR
THE ATLANTIAN
34 A WHITEHALL STREET
The Making of the Tariff
The New York Tribune, speaking, perhaps, with the voice of
the majority of the Republican party, lately said that the tariff had
grown gradually and must fall, layer by layer, lest business suffer.
What business? The monopolies of taxation—the license to rob?
Senator Nelson lately told from his seat that the making of a
tariff bill was exactly like the prescription for an appropriation bill
—the parties at interest sized up the available cash and made com
promises by dickering with each other. Where support was ex
pected a hand was allowed to reach the treasury; where a kicker
was powerful enough he was placated by concessions; the money
from the pockets of the people, collected in the law, is disbursed
without regard to national needs or propriety, but as a matter
of favoritism and of party necessity.
It will be claimed that the party has kept its pledges and com
plied with the demands of the people—the tariff will stand re
vised. But what have the people received other than the demon
stration that all the claims made by the Republicans in this con
nection for a generation are utterly false and misleading? We
have free hides; do we wear hides? The manufacturers of shoes
will get the raw material cheaper, but who expects better quality
or cheaper prices in shoes as a consequence? We have free oil—oil
is already as cheap as water can be after transportation is paid;
much cheaper than the mineral waters that flow freely from the
earth and only demand passage to the hospitals and the homes
of the sick. Oil and the waters both come from the earth, hut
wells must be dug for the oil, and then it must be doubly and
Irebly refined and distilled as well as transported, yet oil comes
much cheaper than the water which is taken exactly as it comes
from the spring when we can be so happy as to get it in the natural
state. Will the people be helped when oil is absolutely free of taxa
tion? For a long time oil has been practically free of protection
save in its by-products.
The Senate won and the Senate lost; the House won and tlie
House lost. The party can claim that it did all it could to protect
its friends, and so he prepared to demand support in contributions
again. There will he gratitude either for favors extended or for
favors about to be received. Each of these powers can show that
an attempt was made to free the people from an unjust burden, and
yet that burden was placed upon the people by the Republican party
and maintained as long as possible. It galls and withers yet. If it
be unjust what shall be the fate of the party that wrought the
injustice and refused to heed the protests after an oppression
enduring for a generation and more? Who is responsible for the
wrong and for the deception?
The will to do good often counts for much when the ability to
accomplish results may be lacking. Side by side with the tariff
as an abomination disgraceful to civilization and the twentieth
century, lives our financial system, still what is, was and has long
been. As an instrument of oppression and corruption the two are
twin brethren, but it has happened that confession on the tariff
was forced before amendment on the currency was authoritatively
demanded. If the desire to make good in spirit and in truth be
abroad, why is one evil cut down a peg while the other flourishes in
its original ugliness? When the House deplores the sins of the
past as to the tariff, why does it make no promises for the revision
of the cun*ency and the redemption of Republican promises not
less ardent and not less emphatic on that subject?
If we must applaud a burglar who agrees not to burgle quite
so boldly and extensively when confronted with a popular uprising,
why not give us a chance to promise ourselves something less bad
than our financial system after other civilized lands have showed
us the road and given results as proofs of effectiveness?—Exchange.
Is Protection Unconstitutional
We can easily believe that when Jefferson proposed a tax for
the raising of a national revenue with incidental protection for
infant industries he had no conception of a possible violation of
the constitutional provisions he valued so highly, but the title of
llie Aldrich bill brings a new objection to the fore. That title
reads: “An act to provide revenue, equalize duties and encourage
the industries of the United States.” The Republican party is in
the habit of treating the constitution with such little respect that
it may be excused for ignoring it altogether among friends, but
Congressman Cullop, of Indiana, rises to remark that the bill must
be void and of no effect because of its title. The constitution does
not. give Congress the power to protect American industries, and
some effort will be made to change the title so as to save us from
the open declaration that Congress can set aside the constitution
like Mr. Roosevelt. Perhaps Senator Aldrich is willing to prove
that when lie chooses Congress can do as much as a president along
that line.
To the Republican mind the form is all—the substance matters
nothing. Congress has been protecting industries for many years,
but that does not disturb Mr. Cullop of the Second Indiana Dis
trict; he is convulsed on learning that Mr. Aldrich professes openly
the desire to do what Congress has long been doing without open
profession. Nor is the critic disturbed by the claim that the Aldrich
hill wishes to “equalize duties”—a task it would abhor. Merely
to change the title a bit would obviate the objection without chang
ing the nature of the operation, but Mr. Cullop would keep the
slate clean of paralyzing profession. Mr. Taft has made a note of
the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not a practical
working instrument—it would be too bad if the theory of protec
tion proved as bad as the Declaration which we celebrate once a
year. Perhaps all that fuss and fury at Washington is mere empti
ness, but what would become of Congress if the people decided to
economize at the expense of pretense and form?—Exchange.
State Labor Bureau
The last session of the General Assembly established a State Labor
Bureau. We have not had the opportunity to investigate the law, but
presumably it has made all necessary provisions for an efficient admin
istration of the new bureau in the interests of the laboring classes of
our State, and therefore in the interests of the whole public.
It is to be hoped now that the-men who offer for the position of
Commissioner of Labor will be of the right calibre, and that the one
chosen may set a pace which, in coming years, will make the Bureau of
great value. The mere fact that a man is identified and active in the
cause of labor is not sufficient. He must be well-informed—he must
he well-balanced—he must be prudent, and yet aggressive. It will
take a strong man to fill the position as it ought to be filled; and it
will be well for the Bureau, if the voters scrutinize carefully the nrn
who offer themselves for its head, and make a wise selection. An
unfortunate selection would not only minimize its influence in the
present day, but would depreciate its value for many years to come.