DEPEW ON IMPERIALISM. HOW HE ASSAILED M'KINLP.Y'S PR£S ENT POLICY IN ILSB. Ills Vigorous Picture of tlio Folly and the Crime of Keeping tlio Philippines and of the Awful Consequences to Cs—Means Centralization. In the Chicago Times-Herald on May 22, 1808, Senator Chauncey M. Depow had the following Interview, obtained and signed by George Grantham Bain and copyrighted: When I asked Mr. Depew what he thought should be done with the Phil ippine Islands he drew in his breath and said: "That's a pretty big ques tion." Then he pushed back his chair from his desk and swung around until he half faced me. "If we should keep the Philippine Islands," said Mr. Depew. "we would reverse the traditions of this Govern ment from its foundation. We would open up a new line of policy. "Let us see what that would mean. In the first place it would mean the establishment of a military govern ment over possibly ten millions of peo ple 0000 miles away from us; it would mean the increase of our navy to the proportion of the navies of Europe." "Not to the proportion of England's navy," I suggested. "To the navy of France and Ger many," said Mr. Depew. "It would mean the increase of our army to 150,- ©oo—more likely to 200,000 men. It would menu the increase of our annual expenditures to double what they are now. It would mean that the United States Government would be brought in closer contact with the people than ever before in the history of this coun try. "We have known that there is a Federal Government only as represent ing our flag, our nationality and glo rious traditions, but we have not felt the burden of its support or been con fronted with the possibility of the pay ment of an enormous annual mllitury tax. except during the Civil War. In Europe, where great armies and navies are maintained, the people are taxed directly for their maintenance. Our revenues have been obtained hereto fore by indirect taxation, with the ex ception of a slight tax on whisky. "But with the increase of our expen ditures by 100 per cent, the taxes to support the Government would be felt in our homes and in our offices. We would feel them in both the necessa ries and luxuries of life—in our houses, in our tools, in our food, in our cloth ing, in our carriages and in our wag ons, in our c.tecks and notes and bonds and transfers of property—in every transaction of our every-day business life. For if we are to maintain great armies and navies like the powers of Europe we must raise the revenue for them by the means mentioned, and also by a stamp tax that will face us at every turn. "These conditions are contrary to our present form of government. To day we know that the customs collec tor exists. He sits in his office at the custom house and few of us ever think of him—fewer still have ever seen him or felt the taxes collected through him. Under the new regime tnx collectors would necessarily be excise men with offices everywhere. They would be known not only in New York and the other great centres of commerce, but in every town, village and hamlet in tile United States. Our people respond with patriotic alacrity to every bur den, sacrifice or tax for the successful carrying on of war. Whether they would with equal cheerfulness do the same for the new policy of the colo nial empire furnishes food for consid eration. "What also does a world-wide policy mean to us? It means a centralization which would change materially the re lations of the United States to the Federal Government. The control of those populous colonies would be cen tred at Washington, and we should have a centralization of power far be yond what the old Federalists ever dreamed of. You cannot have empire without all its attributes, and that means a practical revolution of our form of government and an abandon ment of tile beliefs which tile fathers held when they established tlds Gov ernment in 1770." I asked Mr. Depow if it was not pos sible to derive from these proposed col onies a revenue greater than the addi tional expenditure which their posses sion would involve. "How," said Mr. Depew, "by taxa tion? Every time you attempt to col lect a tax from these people they would rise, and you would have to call on your military force to suppress I them. And suppress them for what? For doing what John Hancock did? They might quote ngaiust us our im mortal declaration 'that taxation with out representation is tyranny.'" Are There No Trusts? Are there no' trusts? Ask the men who used to work in the rolling mills. Are there no trusts? Ask the men who used to work in the bicycle factories. Are there no trusts? Ask the inde pendent manufacturers or the small merchants, or anybody, in fact, except M. A. Hanna. No trusts, indeed! The woods are full of trusts und every one is a men ace to labor. But, there's away to get rid of 'em and that way isn't by voting the Itepubllean ticket, either.— Toledo Bee. A l!elutc