Jasper County Democrat, Volume 3, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 October 1900 — PLAY THE LAST CARD. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

PLAY THE LAST CARD.

TRUST MANAGERS WORK AN OLD SOHEME. Claim They Are Talcing Contracts Subject to Cancellation if Bryan la Elected—Democrats Meet Monopolies on Their Own Ground. 'Washington correspondence: The trusts are playing their last and dangerous card in the campaign. Nearly every trust in the country is taking contracts subject to cancellation if Bryan Is elected. It is not an entirely new scheme, but it is being worked more aggressively and thoroughly than ever before. Employes are shown these orders and threatened with lack of work if McKinley is defeated. The Democratic voters propose to meet the, trusts on their own ground. There is already a widespread movement against buying goods from any trust which attempts to coerce its employes into voting for McKinley. As fast as the trusts send out these notices of ‘contract void if Bryan is the workmen pass along the word to their comrades and there are now thousands of voters of all parties eager to show their resentment at this high-handed proceeding of the trusts, by not purchasing their goods. The trust absolutely needs consumers for its products, but there are many trust products which the people can do without until after election, In order to nive a lesson. Workmen are not going to be scared this time as they were in ’96.. They know that their employerfl will continue to do business as long as they find it profitable, no matter who is elected. There are two points to be specially noted in relation to this clause which trust concerns are putting to their contracts. In the first place they are sending agents all over the country to [Mace bogus contracts. The orders with the coercion clause are, in many cases, placed only for campaign purposes. There is no intention of having them filled even if McKinley is elected. Bona fide orders would not be numerous at this time, because there is a depression lu all branches of trade. There is not one-fourth the demand for manufactured articles outside the absolute necessaries of life, that there was a year and a half ago. Workmen can rest assured that a vote for Bryan will not lessen their chances of immediate or future employment. A vote for McKinley in ’96 was followed by a year of The worst industrial depression ever known in this country. Then, too, a number us manufacturing concerns are threatening to close “permanently” if their workmen help to elect Bryan. The ■cold fact is that no business firm closes •down while It is making money. No political campaign is allowed to interfere with the accumulation pf profits. But there is a shrewd scheme concealed under this threat of closing. Many manufacturing concerns have produced more goods than they could sell. It would be a distinct business advantage for them to close down for a few weeks Just now. so as to work off the surplus. Trusts have put the prices of goods so high that the masses had to ■consume less, hence the overproduction. The refusal all along the lone to pay better wages, meant in the end, that the workman had nothing with which to make himself a profitable consumer. It will be remembered that in ’96 many of the firms that threatened to go -out *f business If Bryan were elected, actually did make assignments after McKinley was successful. The result would have been the same, no matter who was elected, once a firm became insolvent. There is a general revolt of wageworkers and consumers against trusts. A stand has to be made sometime if the privilege of a free ballot is to be kept intact. This is the campaign in which the trusts will get their object lesson. It is going to be a severe one, and the refusal to buy trust manufactured goods Is likely to be felt long after election. The coal miners are displaying remarkable fortitude and perseverance. Hanna thought they would jump at a 10 per cent advance in wages and forget that a recognition of their union was ■essential if the advance was to last beyond election day. The miners have learned by bitter experience that they have to meet orgen4zntlon with the same Instrument. Th?ir union is very feeble compared with the •coal and railroad combine, but it Is infinitely better than trying to deal with the trust as individuals. The miners are displaying great fortitude in thus refusing an ante-election bribe. A man has to be hungry to realize tlie sacrifice involved in turning away from a meal when it Is offered. These men, however, are firmly convinced that their condition will become worse and worse unless public opinion ami a Democratic President forcea the coal trust to do something more for them than carry out Hanna’s campaign plans. Wage workers, and, in fact, nil cla.tae>i of humane and right-minded arc applying the logic of the miners’ sipnation to their own case. They fej that all the trusts arc getting ready to cut wages and lengthen the hours lalxn, and put up the price of product*. On this account the miners are u>ceivlng much generous assistance. Thjy are fighting a battle against a trust the whole country. Indications art not wanting that they will hold out f;tr months if necessary, in ordef to secure some Improvement in their conditions which will be permarent. The Republican campaign pres* bureau is trying to make the workingmen "believe that President McKinley is a union man. la 1899 President McKinley was tgm-

porarlly made an honorary member of the Bricklayers’ Union, on the occasion of his placing the corner stone of the Federal building in Chicago. The Republicans are sending out an elaborate story of the ceremony. It is proving a boomerang. Union labor fs pointing to the President's approval of martial law in Idaho and his neglect to have his Congress pass any labor legislation. The mention of the Bricklayer incident has set'the whole labor press to analyzing President McKinley’s non-union attitude toward labor. Hanna the Whole Thing. Mr. Bry an called attention to the peculiar significance of Mark Hanna’s attitude in public life when he declined Hanna's challenge to a joint debate on imperialism by stating that while he, as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, would be willing to meet Mr. McKinley, the Republican candidate, in such a debate, he could not consistently debate with one whose responsibility is less than his own. “If the Republican committee will certify,” said Mr. Bryan, “that Mr. Hanna is to be President in ease of Republican success, I shall willingly meet him in joint debate.” This is a fair and legitimately dignified position for the Democratic standard-bearer to take. It must be so recognized by all fair-mind-ed persons, just as would a refusal on the part of Mr. McKinley to enter into a joint debate with Chairman Jones of the Democratic National Committee, who occupies the official position in the one party's campaign organization filled by Mr. Hanna lu tliat of the other. Senator Hauna, however, differs from Senator Jones in that he arrogantly stands before the American people as the creator and master of the man whom the American pimple elected to the Presidency of the United States, and as the real power in American government if Mr. McKinley shall be again elected. It was the most natural thing in the world for Senator Hanna to challenge Mr. Bryan to a joint debate. To the mind of the boodle boss of the Republican party and its puppet President, the fight of 1900 is a fight between Hanna and Bryan. Mr. McKinley is a mere figurehead in that fight, manipulated by Hanna and subject to Hanna's orders. It is Hanna, therefore, who steps into the arena as the Republican chanyilon in the battle of 1900, challenging the Democratic champion to combat, entirely Ignoring the polite fiction that Mr. McKinley is the leader of the Republican hosts. Mr. Bryan has done well to direct public attention to this usurpation by Hanna of rights that properly belong only to Mr. McKinley as Mr. Bryan’s antagonist. The trust instrument in public life should pull himself together. He has for the moment forgotten and abandoned the role in which he was past by the trusts for the fooling of the American people. He has come out in bls true character of McKinley’s boss —the real President—and is kicking the Republican fat in the fire.—St. Louis Republic.

Democracy unit Lalxir. In Ills great speech nt Elmira, N. Y„ Hon. David B. Hill said: “I call the attention of [he workingman to the fact that for the first time In the history of the country, one of the great political parties, tp-wlt, the Democratic party, had adopted a plank in its national platform favoring the establishment of a Department of Labor In the cabinet of the President. If this proposition shall meet the approval of the American people by the election of the Democratic candidates, a Department of Labor will be established, which will aid materially In advancing the interests of workingmen and adding to the Importance and dignity of labor.” The plank In the Democratic platform wblcb Mr. Hill refers to Is as follows: “We are opposed to government Uy injunction; we denounce the blacklist, and favoi arbitration as means of settling disputes between corporation* and their employes. “In the Interest of American labor and the upbuilding of the workingman

as the corner stone of the prosperity of our country, we recommend that Congress create a Department of Labor, in charge of a secretary with a seat in tlie cabinet, believing that the elevation of the American laborer will bring with it increased production and increased prosperity to our country at home and to our commerce abroad.” On this subject, William J. Bryan recently said in one of his public addresses: "But the laboring man is even more interested in the proposition to establish a labor bureau with a cabinet officer at its head. Such a bureau would keep the executive in constant touch with the wage earners of the country, and open the way to the redress of their present and future grievances. If labor is given a place in the President's official household, the man selected will necessarily be a worthy and trusted representative of the people for whom he speaks, and his presence at cabinet meetings will give for those who toil for their daily bread assurance that their interests will be properly guarded.” • Victims of the Trust. To-day I went to Banning. It was the old stcry of keen want. Men haggard. unkempt, grimy; women wan and pale, with anxious grief and worry; children thin, worn of feature, emaciated of limb; foodless, hungry, starving children, these! Here is a story of the Banning district. It is all true. There was in this hovel a miner, his wife and dttle children. The little ones were actually dying of hunger—starving! They were worn almost to transparency. I stopped and gave them a dollar. The man all but broke down. It was the first money he had seen in three months. I saw some meat of queer sort in the one room. “\V>at is that meat?” I asked. The man looked disconcerted and abashed. He said nothing; the woman, with a baby at her breast, began to ’weep silently. What was it? Dog’s meat? This is as true as we live; their supper was the flesh of a dog.—The Verdict.

More and More Muddled, The contortions of Hanna in the effort to extricate himself from a bad position are amusing. He denies having said certain things in alleged Interviews, but tlie fun begins when N> attempts to explain just what he did say. Hanna’s revised logic finally sifts itself down to the proposition that there are no trusts, because the fiberman law and statutes in several States prevent the existence of illegal trusts. In other words, there are no trusts, because there are some legal ones. As Is usually ti.e case with orators who do not weigh their* words. Hanna gets more and more muddled the mote he “ex plain a’’—Boston Globe. Again Swing, to Bryan. The vote of New York State is east alternately for the candidate cl the two great parties, with the regularity of the swing of a pendulum. Tlnlt history records It: To Seymour over Grant in 1868. To Great over Greeley In 1872. To Tilden over Hayes in 1876. To Garfield over Hancock in 1889. To Cleveland over Blaine in 1881. To Harrison over Cleveland In 1888. To Cleveland over Harrison in To McKinley over Bryan In 1896. IN THE SOUP.

—Philadelphia Time*.