Grand Rapids Herald-Review Newspaper, September 15, 1900, Page 6

w i Fi = oom) * 5 THE CAMPAIGN OPENED Governor John Lind Reviews National and State Issues in His Address at the Audi- torium in St. Paul. Facts and Pertinent Comment for the Consideration of the Electors of the State of Minnesota. Last Thursday evening the Audito- rium in the city of St. Paul was filled with an enthusiastic audience to listen to the presentation and discussion of campaign issues by Governor Lind, Mayor Gray, and others. The speech delivered by Gov. Lind was in accept- ance of the unanimous nomination ac- corded him by the democrats, populists and silver republicans for a second term as governor, and was as follows: _Ladies and Gentlemen and Members of the Conventions: Four years ago when the same parties, who have today honored me with the nom- ination for the most important of- fice in the state, first conferred upon me _ the same honor, the people of the state were not ready for the change of policy which my election would have implied; but not daunted nor discouraged, you again placed my name in nomination two years ago, and your action was ratified by the people by an overwhelming majority. Two years I have served as the chief execu- tive of the state. My every act has been subjected to the most searching scrutiny, } friendly and unfriendly. That youshould again, without solicitation and without seeking on my part, place my name in nomination in the same .manner for continuance in this great office, is evi- dence of confidence and approval more touching and gratifying to me than the mere political victory in which it may result if your selection is again ap- proved by the people of the state. I thank you all sincerely for the honor conferred. I also desire to thank you, and I congratulate our political friends and the people of the state, on the wise selection that you have made for the other positions on the state ticket. have not, as yet, had an opportunity to study the platiorm that you have adopted, but I assume that it is in line with our endeavors in the state, and na- tionally, in the past. If the people of the state shall see fit to approve of your choice. and I believe that a true regard for their own best interest will prompt them to do so, the state will have an administration that will be fair, just and efficient in every department. In view of the occasion and the pending campaign, you will pardon me, I am sure, for de- voting a few moments to the discussion of the questions awaiting decision at the polls. AMBITION OF THE FEW. Ever since the formation of our gov- ernment, two tendencies have been ap- parent and operative in every general election that the country has had. In fact, they developed in the convention which formed the constitution, and in that convention was laid the foundation for the existence of the political parties which have in turn directed the admin- istration of public affairs since that day. One of these tendencies, and it is a tendency inherent in every society and under every form of government, is the endeavor on the part of the few to con- trol the government and to so direct legislation and the administration of public affairs as to secure to themselves and to their class special privileges and economic advantages through govern- mental intervention. The other is the effort of the common people at self-pre- servation, politically and economically. This was the issue in the memorable campaign of one hundred years ago which resulted in the election of Thom- as Jefferson. The federal party of that day stood for the same principles and tendencies in government that Hanna- ism represents at the present time. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, represented, and in his administration of public affairs de- veloped and formulated, the principles of just and equal laws, fairly and effi- ciently administered, with equality of privilege and of opportunity to all men. The party lines formed thus early have continued, though not with iden- tity of name, to the present day. In 1830 Jackson represented the same prin- ciples contended for by Jefferson, and so did Lincoln in 1860. The slave- holding aristocracy of the south, with- out relinquishing the name of democra- cy, to which it was in no wise historic- ally entitled, had adopted all the vicious principles of the old federal party. Their trust was in the power of wealth and in privilege, with force in the background, as is that of the Republican party’ today. Lincoln, on the other hand, represented the principles of Jefferson and the aspi- rations and conscience of the common people, as we believe that our valiant leader, W. J. Bryan, does at the present time. Our political and economic sit- uation at this moment verifies this his- torical resume. Let us look at the actual conditions that confront the American people, and it is easy to determine what the real issues are in this campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that ours is the greatest, the most populous, the most intelligent, the most powerful and the wealthiest civilized country in the world, its entire industry has, with the aid and through the operation of class legislation, passed into the control of comparatively a handful of men. The enumeration of the trusts controlling our industries, which is given in the Minneapolis Journal _Almanac, on pages 127 to 137, covers every form of ‘American industrial enterprise, and shows that their domination is com- plete. The capitalization of the trusts that had been formed before the present ear exceeded $7,000,000,000, and many tive been organized since the 1st of January. With the power of such wealth exempt from taxation, with the mon- opoly of patents and the control of transpertation facilities, with a tariff speciaily designed to accomplish their ends, it is not surprising that they con- trol the industry of the nation. PARTIES’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS TRUSTS. What is the attitude of the parties on this question? The Republican party, in its platform, pays a tribute to the virtues of the trusts | and extols their value in extending our foreign trade. It admonishes them to better behavior at home, it is true, but | the real position of the party on this, as | on other questions, is best defined by its | chairman and acknowledged leader, Mr. Hanna. He defined the party’s position on this subject, as I read from a dis- patch to the Pioneer Press, under date of Oct. 19, 1899: “The Democrats say Iam a fraud to talk about trusts. I am not going to talk about them. This combination of capital for one purpose and another is not a political question at all. It is a business proposition and ought not to have been brought into politics.” And then he continues: “The so-called trusts are not new; they have been found in England and Germany as far back as 200 years and are increasing. Therefore, from a business standpoint of view, the foundation of these combi- nations, in one sense, is a step forward. The Democrats would have us believe that they are terrible anacondas that would swallow us up. However, if the j tTusts are a menace to the country, what | party better than the Republican party will give us relief?” Yes, my friends, we do believe that the trusts are anacondas, and we believe they will consume the substance of our people; that they will undermine the in- | dependence of our citizenship, and de- stroy the opportunities that ought to exist for the individual in a free coun- try. On this point ex-Senator Wash- burn used the following language in an interview in the Chicago Times-Herald Sept. 11, 1899: “When I was a young man—I am now sixty-eight—I had the world be- fore me, and there was absolutely a fair field for me. Take all of our most suc- cessful business men of today and their experiences were like mine. They en- tered the race without a handicap, and their grit and capacity won. Now, this building up of trusts puts a stop to fair and equal opportunities for the young men of today. .The young man just out of college has no opening, as a rule. He cannot begin business on his own ac- count against organized capital. He must join the procession; he must con- tent himself with being a mere clerk, and the chances are that he will never get any further because there are so many in his class. This makes the situ- ation a serious one, and I am sorry for the young man of today. I have stud- ied the situation, and I am sure of what I am saying.” HANNA’S DEFENSE OF TRUSTS. I ask you, young men in this au- dience, whether this statement is true or not. “But,” say Mr. Hanna, “from a business standpoint of view the forma- tion of these combinations is in one sense a step forward.” This may be true from Mr. Hanna’s standpoint. It may be true from the business standpoint of Mr. Rockefeller; bug is it true from the business standpoint of the farmer, of the merchant, of the mechanic, or of the man in any occupation who lives by the labor of his hands or of his brain? Let us see what this “organized in- dustry” has accomplished, for instance, for the farmer, who is a great producer and the foundation of the wealth and prosperity of this state. He produces for the competitive market at home and abroad. There is no trust to govern the prices of what he sells, and, in the na- ture of things, there cannot be; but every article that he buys, from the matches on the shelf to the coal in his stove and the lumber in his barn, from the salt on the table to the fencing for his stock, is controlled by the trusts, and the prices of these commodities, and hundreds of others, are arbitrarily fixed, without reference to market value or cost of production, Taking the farm value of a bushel of wheat as worth at an average through- out Minnesota ro cents less than the Minneapolis cash price, ten bushels would buy, at the wholesale prices quoted by the Commercial Bulletin, the official trade journal of Minneapolis jobbers, the following goods on the dates named: Kerosene oil (Minnesota state test), Jan. 1, 1898, 101 gallons; Jan. 1, 1899, 70 gallons; Jan. 1, 1900, 56 gallons. Granulated sugar, Jan. 1, 1898, 157 Ibs.; Jan. 1, 1899, 118 lbs.; Jan. 1, 1900, 104 Ibs. Common salt, Jan. 1, 1898, 9% bbls.; fats 1, 1899, 6% bbls.; Jan. 1, 1900, 5 bbls. Lumber (16 ft. 2x4). Jan, 1898. 723 feet; Jan. 1, 1899, 536 feet; Jan. 1, 1900, 418 feet. Wire nails, Jan. 1, 1898, 4 1-3 kegs; Jan. 1, 1899, 3 1-3 kegs; Jan. 1, 1900, 1% kegs. Barbed wire (common painted), Jan. 1, 1898, 435 Ibs.; Jan. 1, 1899, 310 Ibs.; Jan. 1, 1900, 133 Ibs, The above figures are based on the wholesale prices of oil, salt, sugar, lum- ber, nails and barbed wire at Minne- apolis. Freight, handling, and retailer’s profits would probably make these ar- ticles cost, on the average, at the farm about 20 per cent more, and the amount of each of these articles which ten bushels of wheat would buy would be correspondingly less. Ten bushels of wheat, like any other preaat are worth what they will buy. The prosper- ity of the farm is not measured by the volume of its product, nor even by the market value of the product, but by the net, purchasing power of the commodi- ties produced. WILL BRING SERFDOM. It needs no argument to convince you that the continuation of this condition of affairs will rapidly reduce the mass of the America people to a condition of absolute serfdom. Will you have that condition or will you not? It is for the people to answer at the polls. Hanna says: “However, if the trusts are a menace to the country, what party better than the Republican party will give you re- lief?” This is great comfort and might carry some weight were it not for the fact that the Republican party has been in absolute control of every power of the government during the last four years and is today. If it were desirous of destroying the trusts and protecting the people, why has it not done so? To this the Republicans answer: “We pro- posed a constitutional amendment and the Democrats would not help to pass it. We are helpless; we can do noth- ing.” What was the aim of that con- stitutional amendment and what was its purpose? The aim and effect of that proposed constitutional amendment would have been to deprive the states of every vestige of power that they now possess to protect the people against the oppression of these combinations. Its purpose was to defer action upon the question upon a plausible pretext until Hanna had had an opportunity to again call upon the trusts for the exi- gencies of this campaign. Every citizen knows that it takes years and years to bring about an amendment of the con- stitution. Is our constitution such a failure that it vests congress with no power to protect its own people against oppression? To admit that, is to admit that it is a lamentable delusion. The very men who argue to this effect insist that the congress of the United States has the power to govern other peoples of their origin, that they have no water in their stock and that they have not attempted to monopolize any branch of business or the production of any article of merchandise, and the whole constitutional power of congress over interstate commerce, the mails and all modes of interstate communication shall be exercised by the enactment of comprehensive laws upon the subject of trusts. “Tariff laws should be amended by putting the products of trusts upon the free list to prevent monopoly under the plea_of protection. “The failure of the present Republican administration, with an absolute con- trol over all the branches of the na- tional government, to enact any legis- lation designed to prevent or even cur- tail the obsorbing power of trusts and illegal combinations, or to enforce the anti-trust laws already on the statute books, proves the insincerity of the high-sounding phrases of the Republi- can_ platform. “Corporations should be protected in all their rights and their legitimate in- terests should be respected, but any at- tempt by corporations to interfere with the public affairs of the people or to control the sovereign which creates them should be forbidden under such penalties as will make such attempts im- possible.” BELIEF IN FREE LIST. If Bryan is elected what is here indi- cated will be acccomplished, With re- gard to many of these trust commodi- ties, the simplest and easiest way to af- ford the people relief would be to put them on the free list. I saw an editorial statement in the Minneapolis Journal some six weeks ago to the effect that the sugar trust had raised the price of sugar five times since the 1st of May last, and each time it cost the country $8,000,0c0. When you bear in mind that the sugar trust is protected by a GOVERNOR JOHN LIND. and countries against the convictions of | Is our constitution such “plain duty.” a perversity that under it congress can legislate for the oppression of foreign peoples, but is powerless to legislate for the protection of our own? Such logic will not appeal to the American voter. CONGRESS CAN THROTTLE TRUSTS. With absolute control over interstate commerce, with obsolute control of the power of national taxation, congress has the power to drive every trust that ever existed into oblivion. Congress, by proper legislation, regulated the transportation of commodities manu- factured by prison labor among the states. Isn’t it absurd to say that it has not the like power to regulate the transportation of trust products? When congress saw fit to abolish the issue of paper money by state banks it put a tax of 10 per cent on the issuance of such notes, and state bank notes came suddenly to an end. Thank God the Kansas City convention did not stand terror stricken before this anaconda threatening the future of the American people! In language that cannot be misconstrued or misunderstood it said in its platform: “Private monopolies are indefensible and intolerable. They destroy competi- tion, control the price of all material, and of the finished prodact, thus rob- bing both producer and consumer. They lessen the employment of labor and arbitrarily fix the terms and condi- tions thereof, and deprive individual en- ergy and small capital of their oppor- tunity for betterment. They are the most efficient means yet devised for ap- propriating the fruits of industry to the benefits of the few at the expense of the many, and unless their insatiate greed is checked all weajth will be aggregated in a few hands /and the republic de- stroyed. “The dishonest paltering with the trust evil by, the Republican party in state and national platforms is conclu- sive proof of the truth of the charge that trusts are the legitimate product of Republican policies; that they are fos- tered by Republican laws and that they are protected by the Republican admin- istration in return for campaign sub- scriptions and political support. “We pledge the Democratic party to an increasing warfare in nation, state and city against private monopoly in every form. Existing laws against trusts must be enforced and more stringent ones must be enacted providing for publicity as to the affairs of corpora- tions engaged in interstate commerce and requiring all corporations to show, before doing business outside the state tariff of 1 95-100 cents, practically two cents a pound, and that the price of raw sugar is usually about two cents a pound, you can readily see how this grievance could be removed by putting sugar on the free list. And I ask you, earnestly and candidly, why in the world should this not be done? It was good Republican doctrine when I was a Republican; why is it not good doctrine now, as well as common sense? It would save the American people hun- dreds of millions of dollars and bring additional comforts to the table of every American home; but the sugar trust controls the administration and it can- not be done. THEY WANT THE EARTH. But these interests, these privileged classes, are not content with our own country. They want more worlds to conquer. They want to control popu- lations that have less power of resist- ance than the white race—lands where their dominion may be complete, and so, taking advantage of the conditions growing out of the Spanish-American war, they are now endavoring to estab- lish imperialism by fastening upon our institutions a colonial system and a large standing army. Our people know intuitively that there is menace and danger in this new departure. To over- come this feeling they appeal to the pa- triotism, to the national pride and to the selfishness of the people. They say that the glory of our flag and the prestige of our name demand it. They say that, besides, there is money in it. This lat- ter they rely upon as their most con- vincing argument. Did the Spanish people find imperialism profitable? Did their colonial empire tend to the up- building of their industries, their trade and their progress? On the contrary, it had the opposite effect. From being the most powerful state of Christendom, the most enlightened and in many re- spects the most progressive, before it embarked in the venture of colonial em- pire, its power, its resources and its peo- ple had been dragged down to the low- est depths of degradation before we forced it to abandon the system. Shall we disregard the example of Spain and adopt the very system that destroyed her power and impoverished her peo- le? Ls Nations can grow and expand, as ours has, to their political and eco- nomic advantage. But such national growth always has been, and always wili be, through the occupation and ac- quisition of territory, not already occu- pied by a dense population, and_ by the planting therein of the expanding na- tion’s own people and its own institu- tions. Such was our expansion over the territory acquired from Spain in the southern part of our country, and from France in the south and to the west of us. The same is true of Alaska. But the white race never has and never can permanently occupy and inhabit land within the tropics. : INTEGRAL PARTS, NEVER. _ We can never hope to make the Phil- ippine islands integral parts of our Un- ion, occupied by people of our race, with cur political and social ideals, as we have in Florida, Louisiana and Caj ifornia. Our occupation of these is- lands will be military and the govern- ment colonial, thus converting our own institutions from a republic, resting up- on manhood suffrage, governed by laws of the people’s own making, in other words, governed by the consent of the governed, to a military empire. Such changes in the institutions of nations in the past have always proven destructive of the liberties of the people, and in the end, of their national existence., This historical fact is well expressed by Froude, the historian, in his introduc- tion te his “Life of Caesar.” He says: “To the student of political history, and to the English student above all others, the conversion of the oman re- public into a military empire, com- mands a peculiar interest. Notwith- standing many differences, the English and the Romans essentially resemble one another. The early Romans pos- sessed the faculty of self-government beyond any people of whom we have historical knowledge, with the one ex- ception of ourselves. In virtue of their temporal freedom, they became the most powerful nation in the known world, and their liberties perished only when Rome became mistress of con- quered races, to whom she was unable or unwilling to extend her privileges. “If there ke one lesson which history teaches it is this, that free nations can- not govern subject provinces. If they are unable or unwilling to submit their dependencies to share in their own con- stitution, the constitution itself will fall in pieces from mere incompetence for its duties.” The rightfulness of the proposition to govern other peoples against their will ought not to be open for discussion by the American people, whose govern- ment rests upon the proposition that government by force, against the will of the governed, and not instituted by the consent of the governed, is tyranny. The only answer that we can get to this proposition is that the Philippines are ours—that we have acquired them by purchase and by conquest. I deny the validity of each of these claims. There was a time when human beings could be bought and sold under our laws, but happily that time is past. Mc- Kinley’s statement, that conquest is criminal aggression and cannot be per- mitted by our code of morals, is as true to-day as when he uttered it. Why did not he stick to his original code of mor- als? Why did he permit Hanna to re- vise it? WILL NOT DISCUSS IT. The truth of the matter is that we cannot enlist our opponents in an ear- nest discussion of this question, at least not upon the moral side of the con- troversy. They will not listen to it. If we appeal to the constitution, they say we have outlived it. If we refer to the Declaration of Independence, they say that that document is a collection of glittering generalities, good enough in their day, but not applicable now. If we cite them to the maxims of Wash- ington, Jefferson and Lincoln, they say that these men are dead. Our only re- course, therefore, is to demonstrate to the people the falsity of the claim that imperialism will pay. A colonial em- pire may prove profitable to the trusts and to the army and navy contractors, and to the favored individuals, but it never can and never will profit the country or the people as a whole. The only way in which the American people could secure gain from the pos- session of the Philinnines would be by the expansion of our trade with them. The profit of such trade, in the nature of things, could not be greater than the value of the commodities that would pass in exchange. The total value of the exports and imports of the Philip- pine Islands have in no year exceeded $30,000,000. The profit on such trade cannot be many millions, and suppos- ing it were doubled, trebled or quadru- pled, the profit would not be large enough to bear the expense of the in- creased military establishment for one month. But whether the profits were great or small, one thing is certain: Those profits would not return into the pockets of the same people who have to bear the burden of maintaining the ar- my and navy necessary for and incident to colonial empire. But the whole ar- gument is fallacious. As was well said by Mr. Bryan, you need not own a peo- ple to trade with them. A friend is a better customer than an enemy. If we want the trade of the Philippines, let us secure it as we secure other trade, by the superiority and cheapness of our products, by fair treatment and by the establishment of mutual confidence and relations of good will. These are the conditions that bring trade—not con- quest, not war nor oppression. But in considering the question of the profits of imperialism you must not lose sight of the expense of its companion evil— the large standing army. THE LARGE ARMY. When I was a member of congress, when we were building and providing for the navy which fought and won the victories of the Spanish war, when we had the same regular army establish- ment that we had at the commence- ment of that war, the total appropria- tion for the army and navy in no year during my term of service exceeded $80,000,000. This amount was not ex- ceeded in any year prior to the Spanish war, except 1897, when it reached $82,000,000. That the standing army that we then had was ample and suffi- cient for the protection of our country and institutions is a matter of history. When the war with Spain broke out, and the President made a call upon the states for additional forces, that call was responded to almost before it was made. And it is no exaggeration to say that if the exigencies had demand- ed, ten men could have been had for every one that was required. A large standing army may be necessary for the purpose of imperialism, but it is not necessary for the protection of repub- lican institutions, and its necessity had never been urged until imperialism made its appearance. A pegnler gov- ernment, while it should have a small number of trained and efficient regular troops and a sufficient number of offi- cers for manning its defenses, for emer- gencies, and to form the nucleus in case of need for larger forces, should rely in the main for the defense of its insti- tutions on its volunteer citizen soldiery. This we have done in the past, and this is in harmony with the theory of our in- stitutions and the views of the fathers. Gen. Knox, a Revolutionary soldier, who was the first secretary of war un- der Washington, and under whom our army establishment was organized, used this language in his first report, which was forwarded to congress by President Washington with his approval: “It is the intention of the present at- tempt to suggest the most efficient sys- tem of defense which may be compati- ble with the interests of a free people. * * * The modern practice of En- rope with respect to the employment of a standing army has created such a mass of opinion in their favor that even philosophers and advocates for labor have frequently confessed their use and interest in certain cases. Whoever se- riously and candidly estimates the power of discipline and the tendency of military habits will be constrained to confess that whatever may be the effi- ciency of a standing army in war, it cannot in peace be considered as friend- ly to the rights of human nature. * * * “A small corps of well disciplined and well informed artillerists and engineers and a legion for the protection of the frontiers and magazines and arsenals are all the military establishment which may be required for the present use of the United States. The privates of the corps to be enlisted for a certain period, re- and after the expiration of which to turn to the mass of the citizens. energetic and national m: regarded as the capital security of a free republic, and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the commu- nity. It is the introduction and diffu- sion of evil and corruption of manners into the mass of the people that ren- ders a standing army necessary. It is when public spirit is despised and avar- ice and indolence and effeninacy of manner predominate and prevent the establishment of institutions which would elevate the mind of the youth in the paths of virtue and honor that the standing army is formed and riveted to- ever. WHY ANY INCREASE? Are the people of the United States prepared to turn their back on these words of caution from the past? What reasons are assigned for the increase of our standing army to 100,000, according to the imperialistic programme? They say that we have grown to be a great populous nation, and, as such, should have a respectable army like the other powers of earth. If empire and con- quest are our programme for the future, perhaps, yes. If the protection of our institutions and the development of our industries and commerce is our aim, then I say, no. There may be good reasons for an increase in the naval es- tablishment, for the states have no na- val militia, but there is none for the ma- terial increase of our standing army. But instead of arguing this proposition on theoretical and political grounds, let us look at it from the taxpayers stand- point. Let us count the cost of our present military establishment. Let me cite you to the last report of the secre- tary of war. He says, on page 60: “The summary of expenditures for the fiscal year 1899, appropriations and allotments for 1900, and estimates for 1901, is as follows: 53 3/8 8] Ss Bis = ge 1s 3) gs = as = S ES Se | ot 4 Go =| 23 z ms wid ad z fgud | 5 Rogs\s 2) es.” |8 5) Bigg |n | x] Op la as = |e |% Saue\la = & £222 |2 % 32/2 Po bah: pia acters ot Soo | & 22212 2 83/5) 5 aessi— < si a3 HS mS § a) 2 h 8 Bios as iw *€ bad BOE 3 a] 4 | ce | 25 73 as neh =: oe SS 22: es te ga: ag 5 [apes gé a 1s OPP: 5 i 12369: 3 a SSB: £3 iS) 1 SineG 33 a Spam : 38 4 s86365: FE S /Sg8o8: 23 a e235: 3) ha £Sg28: gi? a aencag $! wP SEgy27038 S| a: oS SAges 8/25 SasEeesg 35 s acd = Zi ss Epatse 3/38 Seeosa Eas mSasns OO] ba 2 8 cA ma a _ “The appropriations for the year end- ing June 30, 1900, were made on a basis of a military force which has been greatly exceeded by the exercise of the authority conferred under the act of March 2, 1899, and the raising, equip- ping and transporting to the Philippines of additional troops and supplies. It will therefore be necessary to ask con- gress for a deficiency appropriation of about $51,000,000, bringing the total amount of the appropriation for the current year up to about the amount of the estimates which have been sub- mitted for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901.” The appropriations for the year end- ing June 30,1899, embrace the cost of the Spanish war and cannot.be con- sidered. But the last two years show the requirements for the imperialistic peace establishments. From the totals given should be deducted $35,000,000 per annum,on account of river and har- bor improvements. This leaves the annual expense of the present army establishment in round numbers $150,000,000. Add to this the annual cost of the naval establishment, which is in round numbers $75,000,000, and we have a total expenditure, for army and navy and for the instrumen- talities of war, of $225,000,000, and this in times of peace! These figures do not include expenses that may be incurred in the Chinese difficulty. These are the appropriations for imperialism on a peace footing. This sum of 15,000,~ 000 is so immense that the ordinary hu- man mind can hardly grasp it. Let us express it in the leading products of the Northwest. eal | to the last re- port of the secretary of agriculture, the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, ap