upon the pretense that said protection would "protect" the workingman. As the upcome of that Protection, what has happened to the workingman? Take a year's figures from Ohio. One year is as good as any other. Ohio had invested in manufacturing $856,585,023. It employed in those manufactories 354,298 men. To these men it paid an annual wage of $182,249,425, or under $500 a man. Quite a step from that income of $500 to a Carnegie income of $25,000,000!

The year's product of those Ohio manufactories sold for $960,811,857. Of this, $432,365,134 was the raw returns from Protection. That was under the Dingley bill. And the Payne-Aldrich bill was revision upward.

With a round intake of $960,811,857, of which. $432,365,134 was "Protection," the aggregate wages paid the 354,298 workmen was only $182,249,425! Plainly, somebody other than the workingman got most of that fat Protection.

Also, at the time of that Protection, the products of those Ohio manufactories, in the guise of locomotives, bridges, steel rails, agricultural implements, and a hundred other expressions, were conquering a competing world. They won their trade. battles in China, in Siberia, along the Nile, on the Black Sea, in every corner of the earth.

Is there no second Protection thought in that?

Carnegie's Trust Remedy

MR.

R. CARNEGIE, before the Stanley Committee, urged the commission plan as a method of trust reformation. There has been for years an Inter-state Commerce Commision for the rebating railroads to hide behind. Mr. Carnegie thought that a trust commission should be created for the criminal trusts to hide behind. Especially should the Sherman law-he said -be sent in an amendatory spirit to the congressional dentists to have its teeth pulled.

Mr. Carnegie, in his recommendation of a trust commission, advanced nothing new. The commission idea in government is an old one, and came originally from Criminal Money. The people have never yet asked for a commission. Government by commission is always a failure. Which is pre

cisely why Criminal Money believes in and urges it. "No commission!" should become a general war-cry.

When a public officer goes conniving something against the people's interest, and is afraid to face the storm that he knows his wrongdoing will provoke, he saves himself by jumping sideways and recommending a commission. He risks nothing. For incidentally, the commission being created, he usually names the commission. What river, even of principle, rises higher than its head? Thus does our conniving officer do through a commission what he fears to do in person. He gets the work done, the commission gets the blame. Commonly, your commission is but a law-born Oliver Twist, conceived in commercial sin, brought forth in official weakness if not iniquity, which the Bill Sikeses of Special Privilege shove through the window, to open to their burglarious entrance the door of public weal.

The Free Trade Spear

THE Democrats and progressive Repub

licans in Congress, instead of listening to the trust-commission singing of siren Carnegie, should pattern their antitrust action upon the stark example of the long-ago Dutch. The enemy was in Holland. The Dutch cut the dikes, and making an ally of the ocean, drowned out the foe.

Let the Democrats and progressive Republicans make a list-there should be no difficulty about it-of what trusts ask more for their wares here at home than they ask for them abroad. As launching that list, they might, with propriety and perfect safety, set down the Salt Trust, the Beef Trust, the Sugar Trust, the Spool Cotton Trust, the Leather Trust, the Steel Trust, the Paper Trust, the Sewing-machine Trust, the Harvester Trust, the Oil Trust, the Cotton Trust, the Woolen Trust. Having arranged the cormorant muster-roll, they should free-list what commodities are produced by those trusts. That indeed would be a gallant cutting of the dikes! It would let in as to those especial trust robbers the competition of the world. The late Havemeyer declared, that "Protection is the mother of trusts.' What St. George rides forth to slay the trust dragon must fight with a free-trade spear.

railroad, they raised freight and passenger rates, cut wages, reduced the service, let the equipment go to wreck and ruin-did everything, in brief, that would bring a dollar, save a dollar. When the employees went on strike, they cried "Anarchist!" and called for bayonets and injunctions.

When the overcapitalization-the gold brick-occurred in steel or sugar or beef or oil, the public having been robbed by direct sales of the bogus stocks and bonds, and the employees robbed by wage cuts, congresses were corrupted and "protection" was obtained. Also, White Houses were controlled in the selection of United States judges.

Hark!

There comes a shocked voice, saying "Speak no ill of the bench!" The rebuke is proper. Some little boneless trust pettifogger, who had bowed before the breath of our trust-manipulating Hungry Joes like a willow before the wind, would of course become as bendless as an oak, once he ascended the bench. The mere touch of the black-too often a very proper color, that! -robe, as it lay on the judicial shoulders, would change the man to superman. Also,

What is the difference between overcapitalization and "green goods"? Or between overcapitalization and "raising" a check? Or between robbing a bank from the outside with centerbit and jimmy, and robbing it from the inside with watered stock? Or between picking your pocket, and forcing you through overcapitalization to pay for railway, street-car, telephone and telegraph service tenfold more than you should? You are against green goods, bank robbery, forgery, pocket-picking. Why, then, should you not be against overcapi

talization which, including within its evil self every crime that has been named, corrupts, in the courts, the legislatures, and the chief magistracies, the very wellheads of government?

There are remedies, but no state could either contrive or apply them. It will require the strong federal eye to detect, and the long, strong federal arm to arrest in their villainies our stock-watering Hungry Joes.

Distributing Wealth by Law

But you wealth by law, for example,

can distribute

a Payne-Aldrich law.

There lies the heaped-up production of the country for a year. The people, those who produced and piled it up, gather about. Not one must touch a dollar until he has the law-word so to do. The law superintends the distribution. The law lifts its wand. Mr. Rockefeller steps forwardsmug, benevolent, a Bible under his arm, income $40,000,000-and takes what is equal to the shares of eighty thousand common people. Mr. Carnegie has fifty thousand common people's shares; Mr. Morgan has forty thousand. So on through the Schwabs, the Armours, the Dukes, the Havemeyers, the Weyerhaeusers, the Guggenheims, down to the last and latest in the hungry file of "protected" and trust-mongering multimillionaires. Ten thousand individuals are given half the total production of the country. The other half, now the big wolves are fed and have departed, is scrambled for and wrangled over by the remaining 91,990,000.

For all that, as Mr. Lodge says, you cannot produce wealth by law.

A

Varieties of Honesty

PROPOS of the Harmon canvass, Mr. Haskell of Louisville asks somewhat feverishly "Is Governor Harmon honest?"

Absolutely!

140.000.000. INCOME A YEAR

BIBLE

Mr. Harmon is honest. And yet, to be wholly safe, Mr. Haskell should not forget a bias. An illustration of what is meant might be found in those oft-quoted words of the late Colonel Morrison:

"There are two kinds of honesty," said Colonel Morrison. "Sam Randall, who used to fight my tariff efforts in the House,

he should serve Big Business and not the people, Money and not mankind?

Why so Mute Mr. Bailey?

White House, is honest. Also, for the sake of argument, we'll say that I am honest. But there's this difference: if I were to die, a lot of rich men wouldn't give Mrs. Morrison several hundred thousand dollars as they did Mrs. Randall. Or if I were to blunder into bankruptcy, a lot of rich men wouldn't fish me out, as they fished out Mr. McKinley. And for this reason: My kind of honesty never did that kind of fellow a blanked bit of good."

Mr. Harmon is honest.

And yet was it written that in his honesty

Senator Bailey of Texas? The papers these days do not carry his name. It was known that at the expiration of his term he would lose his seat, but no one supposed that, pending that seat loss, he would lose his voice. Time was, and not so long ago, when no day went by without Mr. Bailey engaging himself in some fashion of Senate calisthenics. He was the right arm of Wall Street in Washington, the Congressional champion of the trusts.

Mr. Bailey, in his latter days, aimed to construct for himself the reputation of

being a Senate bad man. He was given to lip-ferocities and verbal thunderings. To be sure, such action by Mr. Bailey was but a bluff, and meant to frighten timid Senators. An empty terrorist, a face-maker, Mr. Bailey, to succeed, must be feared. With folk who had no fear of him-and their name, like their fast-growing number, was legion-Mr. Bailey was powerless.

The military education of the oldtime Chinaman favored hideous masks, and fearful noises and a dragon-like front as a best method of battle. You were to fill the foe with terror, frighten him from the field. By the same argument, all whom you failed to frighten you were to fly from. Thus taught the ancient Chinese.

If there be aught in the old Greek's claim concerning the transmigration of souls, Mr. Bailey, in some former life not too remote, must have flourished as a Chinaman. Instead of the bad man, he became the Chinaman of the Senate, with all of the

TANDAR 014

old-day Chinese war methods and war instincts. He first tried to frighten, and, failing to frighten, he fled. For all that, he contributed greatly to the gayety of nations and there are many among us who regret that he is these days so mute. Perhaps Mr. Bailey, after the manner of a gray squirrel, has but gone to sleep, outspread, upon some sun-bathed Senate bough. It would be taken gratefully if some Senator, not otherwise engaged, would with some club of rhetoric pound upon the tree of Mr. Bailey's greatness, and wake that Lone Star statesman up.

Unnecessary Bills in Congress

CONGRESS is complaining of a multiplicity of bills. As exhibiting something of the length and breadth of what one might call the bill-resolution industry, some genius has discovered that, during a late and not overbusy Congress, thirty-six thousand bills and resolutions were offered in the House and about nine thousand in the Senate.

The congressional day begins at noon, and might last five hours.

But does it?

Give each bill and resolution twenty minutes for consideration and a vote, and figure up the chance of any particular bill.

Many bills are introduced by Congressmen for apparently no reason other than just to see their names in print. There are bills that the authors, however addled of a baseless optimism, could have had no hope of passing. Take the bills, offered regularly with the beginning of every Congress, to abolish mileage. charges. Our statesmen are paid ten cents a mile, going and coming, between the capital and their humble homes. In a more elastic and less watchful public hour, there have been enterprising publicists who did not