Jasper County Democrat, Volume 10, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 September 1907 — GOVERNMENT PURCHASES. [ARTICLE]

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.

What do the law-defying trusts care about fines when the Republican tariff enables them to collect the fines from the people who are compelled to buy their goods. A sensible reform of the tariff will do more “trust-busting” than the Hon. Theodore Roosevelt ever dreamed of. -V ■ :• ■■

In carrying on his “straddling” campaign, Secretary Taft revives the old chestnut about the "good” trusts and the “bad” ones. We suppose if nominated he will accapt campaign contributions from the good trusts-that is, of course, the trusts that are good enough to “jar loose.”

When Cortelyou flew to the relief of Wall street with the people’s money how much of it went into the Rockefeller - Standard Oil banks? When Secretary Shaw did a similar thing about eighteen mouths ago, the Standard Oil institutions got most of it and doubtless they have been favored the same way again.

The simple, incoutestible truth is that under Mr. Roosevelt the Republican party has become an agent for carrying out some of the most desirable and essential ideas embodied in Bryauism.— Springfield (Mass.) Republican. What the Spriugfidld Republican calls “Bryauism” has surely taken a strong hold on the country when Republican papers make such admissions as the above.

Secretary Taft, who like Fairbanks. is candidatiug about the country, is t« lliug his audiences that the difference between Roosevelt and Bryan is, that Roosevelt has faith in the people, while Bryan is afraid to trust them. And yet Roosevelt is wanting practically all power to be exercised at Washington, while Bryan has from the beginning opposed centralization and contended for local selfgovernment for the people. Taft must be daft.

The state platform recently adopted by the Maryland Democrats, contains a plank favoring a tariff only for revenue and opposes the collection of more money from the people than is necessary to pay the expenses of economical government. The collection of $90,000,000 more taxes during the fiscal year ending June 30, than even the annual billion dollar appropriations called for was characterized as an outrage on the people. And so it is an outrage, but oongreßS when it meets next winter will find a way to spend ninety extra millions, The last congress spent two billions in two

years and the next probably will get away with two and a half or three billions.

No Democrats and few Republicans ever thought that Senator Beveridge was in Mr. Bryan’s class. The articles of the two men beiagprinted from month to month in the Reader Magazine on the leading queations before the country are proof that the great Democrat is in a class by himself. Mr. Bryan goes quickly and clearly to the root of things, while the superficiality of Senator Beveridge is painfully apparent, however entertainingly he may write.

Let’s see. President Roosevelt has talked about prosecuting rich railroad and trust men who have violated the laws. Attorney General Bonaparte has talked about the same thing. Secretary Taft, the Roosevelt candidate, mildly says, "me too.” But not a single criminal prosecution has been been begun against a rich law-breaker as an individual. A few hues against corporations have been imposed, but no trust has been "busted” and no personal punishment has been inflicted upon the men responsible for the corporation outlawry. And, furthermore, nothing of the sort is going to happen under the present administration. It’s all rather funny when you think about it.

The Indianapolis News, a tariff reform paper (at least between campaigns, when it can print the truth) occasionally says some good things along this line. But the people should not forget that the leaders in the republican party who manage campaigns and party policies are the protected tariff barons nnd will see that there is no genuine tariff reform that is inimical to the interests of the trust magnates. The following editorial from the News, however, is sensible and to the point, and voters shouldponder over it; Mr. HsldiSne, the British War Secretary, in response to a question asked him in the House of Commons, said that he “proposed purchasing army stores in America when he can get them there equally as good or better than elsewhere fit more satisfactory prices, without apologizing to the local protectionists.” This is a very natural attitude for a British official to take. He is simply claiming for the government the right which the government concedes to every citizen. Great Britain refuses to allow the private consumer to be held up by a lot of protected trusts, and refuses to, be held up itself. With us the question is not so easy. For we have adopted the policy of allowing the home market to be monopolized by protected industries, and we fine any citizen who seeks, by purchasing abroad, to break up the monopoly. And there is some reason in the demand that the (government shall pay the prices which it forces the people to pay. Iu England the government claims the same rights that the people enjoy; In this country it is argued that the Government ought to bear the same burdens that the people bear. In buying in free markets the British government is true to its policy; in buying in protected markets our Government is true to its policy. Borne time agoitwas announced that the administration would buy supplies for the Panama canal where it could buy them most cheaply. If we remember rightly there was later some awakening. The proposition provoked much discussion. We believe that the prevailing opinion was that the proposed action was right. We agree with that opinion. For though it is easy to make an argument to the effect that the Government ought to “take its medicine” as the citizen does, the argument is far from being conclusive. For the Government is not an entity separate and apart from the people. Whatever it buys the people pay for. The burden of high prices is on the people quite as truly as it is when they purchase commodities directly for themselves. Therefore, in suph a case, it i| not Bimply the Government but the people who are freed from , the exactions of the monopolists. Here is one chance of escape, and we think it should be made the the most of. The citizen acting through himself is unable to protect himself. Acting through his

Government, he can refuse to buy at monopoly prices. But tbe situation with us is difficult. Mr. Haldane may do as be pleases, without "apologising to the local protectionists,” but in our case the protectionists ran tbe Government. We not only have to apologize to them, but also to permit them to tax us as they pleaße; to write vour tariff schedules, and to say what prices we shall pay for what we buy. Our Secretary of War, therefore, has a problem of which his British brother knows nothing. There are many of out people, for instance, who would think it positively disloyal for him to buy powder abroad even at half tbe price he pays here, for the American powder trust is at least American. However, we believe that an educational process is going on that will have its effect. It may be many years before we rise to the level of Mr. Haldane’s sound business views, but it is certain that even now many people are about persuaded that our "infant” monopolies have somewhat overdone the thing—have pushed their advantage too far, used their power too relentlessly. After a while we may perhaps understand that you can not get anything out of the machine that you did not put in, that if some men are protected there are others who protect them, and that all that the former get is paid by the latter. In the matter of building navies and purchasing supplies it may be that even so rich a nation as ours will have before long to pay some attention to the economies.