THE BY-ELECTIONS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR." _I SrD,—I entirely agree with Mr. W. M. Cooper (Spectator, July 31st) about the by-elections. We had an election in Cleveland not long ago. Although I detest the Budget, I voted for Mr. Samuel on the sound principle that the lesser of two evils should always be chosen. I considered Mr. Samuel to be the lesser evil because his opponent promised to continue, and even to increase, the expenditure on pensions, insurance, &c. It was a demoralising competition of promises of State bounties. In addition, the Tariff Reformer placarded the constituency with bills informing workmen that they were being swindled out of work by foreign imports. I have seen a good deal of electioneering, but grosser appeals to ignorance and stupidity and jealousy of the foreigner I never witnessed. Mr. Samuel sickened me with his talk about social reform, which merely means taxing one class to give so-called benefits to another class for which they have not worked ; but as soon as I began to waver, the hideous Protectionist placards made me stick to the position I had, rightly or wrongly, taken up. Men like Sir Hugh Bell, who at the last supported Mr. Samuel, must have been influenced in the same way. The taxes in the Budget will, I suppose, filter down through the community ; the landlords will pass them on, and all will be poorer, as always happens when taxes are raised. The taxes of the Tariff Reformer have the additional evil that they create new tax-gatherers in the form of manufacturers and landlords, with the risk of the enormous corruption that flourishes, as I can personally testify, in the United States. Therefore I came to the conclusion that, as the other man was quite willing to compete with Mr. Samuel in Socialistic promises that are really a repetition of the old vicious system of subsidising wages, Mr. Samuel himself was the lesser of two evils.—I am, Sir, &c., A CLEVELAND FREE-TRADER.
Previous page
