Primary tabs



Chapter I: Section 1; -- Political parties in the United States. What They have Been; How They have Changed; and What They Are To-day

The first political divisions in this country arose out of the contest between the Colonies and Great Britian.

Those who wished to revolt against the unjust Laws of the Mother Country were called Whigs. Those who favored submission were called Tories. The feud between these two parties was excessively bitter. Such recreations as hanging one another were almost as common as "Gander Pullings" afterwards became.

They burnt each other's houses, took each other's cattle, repudiated their debts and made the life of the official a burden to him. Among these party pleasantries, that of "Tarring and Feathering" seems to have been a decided favorite. In most localities it took the cake.

SECTION 2. The Revolutionary War having succeeded, Tories vanished and Whigs ruled the day.

In 1787 the Convention at Philadelphia convened to revise the Articles of Confederation.


The delegates boldly disregarded their instructions and instead of mending the Old Constitution, they made a new one.

Strictly speaking they had no authority whatever to do their instructions limited their powers.

Like brave men they adopted the course they considered best the country and submitted their work to the People for ratification.

Naturally, furious divisions arose.

Patrick Henry, George Mason, James Monroe, Benjamin Harrison and many other distinguished Patriots opposed the New Constitution upon the ground that it created a consolidated, centralized Government.

George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their followers favored the New Constitution and secured its adoption This is the Supreme Law under which we now live.

Those who approved the New Constitution were called Federalists. Those who opposed it, Anti Federalists.

Before these New Parties, the Old Parties entirely disappeared.

SECTION 3. After the Government was organized under the present Constitution, New Parties almost immediately arose. Those who believed in a strict construction of the Constitution, to the denial of any surrender of power to the Central Government beyond the express terms of the Instrument, took the name of Republicans. Thomas Jefferson was their leader.

Those who believed in "implied powers" and the doctrine that the Government had a right to do all things necessary to carry out its legitimate purposes, retained the name of Federalists. Alexander Hamilton was their leader.

This brings us down to 1790.

In 1806, during Jefferson's second term as President, this party was sometimes called Democrat, but the more usual and accepted name even under Madison's administration continued to be Republican


Madison was Jefferson's friend and political lieutenant. He received his second nomination from the Republican caucus, May 12, 1812.

The Federalists ran Clinton against him. Madison was elected He was succeeded by James Monroe, who was also nominated and elected by the Republicans.

This brings us down to 1817. The Federalist Party now began to melt away. The Republicans had full swing. Monroe had no opposition in his candidacy for the second term.

SECTION 4. The Republican Party now began to divide upon questions of "Internal Improvements" and "Protection." Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun, (who afterwards reversed his position) favored Internal Improvements and Protective Tariffs.

Mr. Webster favored Free Trade. He afterwards reversed his position.

Jackson and Crawford did not oppose Internal Improvements altogether, but sought to limit and restrict them within Constitutional bounds -- as they construed it.

Adams was elected President. This was in 1825.

Great bitterness among the different factions of the Republican Party followed. One camp was known as the "Adams men." The other, as the "Jackson men." In a short while the Adams men were known as National Republicans; and the Jackson men as The Democratic Party.

At the next election, Jackson and his Democrats swept the field. This was in 1828.

SECTION 5. During Jackson's Second Term his opponents began to be known as Whigs. The Party was made up of remnants of the National Republicans, Anti-Masons, and the Anti-Jackson men generally.


Webster, Clay and Wm. Henry Harrison were among the early leaders of the Party. This was in 1836.

Van Buren was the candidate of the Democrats and was elected President. He received the nomination for a Second Term, but was snowed under by Wm. Henry Harrison, the candidate of the Whigs.

In this campaign, the Abolition Party cast 7,000 votes for James G. Birney. At the next election, (1844,) Polk, the Democrat was elected President. The Abolitionists cast 62,300 votes for Birney. During Polk's administration, the Whigs split all to pieces on the Slavery Question. The Democratic Party followed suit. A glorious row was had all around.

Gen. Zach. Taylor was nominated by the Whigs. No Platform was adopted by the Convention which put him in the race. Nobody seemed to know whether Taylor was a Whig or a Democrat. The situation was so beautifully mixed that the people didn't seem to care, and they just went it blind for "Old Zach," and elected him. The office hunters killed the old man soon after his Inauguration.

Fillmore, Vice President, succeeded. This was in 1850.

In 1852, the Democrats elected Franklin Pierce. The Whigs now disappeared from Political History. The Republican Party came upon the scene. The Know-Nothing Party also exerted a strong influence for a short while.

SECTION 6. The Whigs having melted away the Party names now became Democrat and Republican.

Buchanan, Democrat, was elected in 1856. Fremont, Republican, received 1.341,264 votes, while Buchanan received 1.838,169.

The New party had sprung to the front with the strength of a giant. In the campaign of 1860, the madness had full sway.

Democracy went all to pieces. They had two Tickets in the


field, while the .Know Nothings had one, and the Republicans had one.

Abraham Lincoln was elected.

SECTION 7. Thus the parties remained till 1872.

In that year Gen. Grant was the regular Republican candidate. Horace Greely was the nominee of a fusion between the Democrats and a portion of the Republican Party known as Liberals.

A small number of Democrats, who repudiated the fusion, nominated Charles O'Connor.

Grant was elected.

In 1876 the Democrats nominated Tilden. The Republicans, Hayes. The Greenback Party had in the meanwhile arisen. It nominated Peter Cooper, and gave him 81,737 votes.

The election was in doubt. Tilden appeared to have been elected. The Republicans disputed the point.

A Commission composed of eight Republicans and seven Democrats was created to determine the issue. The Democrats were silly enough to allow it.

Nobody doubted what the result would be. The eight outvoted the seven every crack, and Hayes took the Persimmon.

In the State Elections of 1876, the Greenback Party cast nearly 1,000,000 votes. It nominated Gen. James B. Weaver for President. Democrats nominated Hancock, Garfield, Republican, was elected.

In 1884, the Democrats elected Grover Cleveland. John T. St. John was the candidate of the Prohibitionists and received 150,369 votes. B. F. Butler was the nominee of the National Party, and received 175,370 votes.

In the Campaign of 1888, Cleveland, Democrat, was defeated by Harrison, Republican. Fisk, Prohibition candidate "received 250,000 votes, Streeter, Union Labor, 148,000.


Thus the parties stood, until all the disgusted and dissatisfied and oppressed elements of the Old Parties united to form the PEOPLE'S PARTY. It will have its nominee in the field for the first time this year, and its strength in the contest will be that of a giant. In old age the Ape is said to be greatly distressed by his tail. Its gets too long and too heavy and not only produces mental worry, but also physical discomfort.

It is much the same with old Political Parties. Both Democrats and Republicans have more record than they know what to do with just at present.

Their tails are in the way.


Chapter II: Contents -- Party principles. What They Are and How They Have Changed

SECTION 1. From the sketch thus given, it will be seen that Party names are ever changing. It becomes important therefore to inquire about the Principles upon which the Parties themselves have been founded.

It may be stated as a broad proposition (excluding local, temporary and special issue,) that there have never been but two Schools of Political thought in this Country since the present Constitution was adopted.

In one of these, it was taught that the General Government could only exercise powers expressly granted to it; that the individual citizen should have the freest possible scope without needless hindrance or direction by the Law; that rigid economy should be the rule in public expenditures; that equal and exact justice should be accorded to all and special privileges to none; that the Currency of the Nation should be in the control of the People, and not of a special moneyed class of National Banks or of any other Corporation; that monopolies should be forbidden; that both Gold and Silver should be coined upon equal terms; that commerce should be free, should not be built up at the expense of Agriculture, and that a large Standing Army and Navy were dangerous to our liberties.

These are the fundimental principles of the Party founded by Thomas Jefferson.


In the other school, it was taught that we needed a strong centralized Government; a strong National Banking System to interest the rich men in National affairs; a Bonded System perpetually Funding and Refunding the National Debt to the great advantage of the Capitalists; Protection of Manufactures at the expense of Agriculture; a Currency System in the control of the Banks; Internal Improvements upon a large scale, and a strong military establishment. In other words, it was sought to create a moneyed aristocracy supported by special privilege.

Alexander Hamilton was the founder of the School. He made no secret of the fact that he favored a Monarchy, and wished our system to be as nearly like the English Monarchy as possible. He wanted the President to hold office during life or good behavior; he wanted the Senate constituted the same way; he wanted the State Governors to be appointed by the Federal Government; he wanted the Militia of each State under the control of the Federal Government, and the Laws of the States subject to Federal veto.

The man who closely studies our institutions at this time will be sure to observe how dangerously near to predominance the Hamilton Doctrine of Class Rule has come.

It would be a tiresome task to trace the Principles of each Party as it rose and fell. We are concerned chiefly with the Parties of today, and I will proceed at once to this part of the subject.

SECTION 2. Jefferson had a mortal antipathy to National Banks.

Here is one quotation which will answer for many. In a letter to Albert Gallatin, dated Dec. 13, 1803, he says:

"This Institution, (National Banking System,) is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution."


He then proceeds to give the reasons at length.

In two letters to Jno. W. Eppes in 1813, he renews the fight -- opposing the Re-chartering of the Bank.

Of course it will be remembered that when Hamilton first proposed the National Bank, during Washington's Administration, Jefferson opposed it in a masterly paper.

Andrew Jackson was, after Jefferson, the most prominent foe to the System. The Old Hero fought it straight from the shoulder. He removed the Government deposits, vetoed the Act Re-chartering it, and made the issue that the Bank must go.

A heated political battle followed.

Hon. Wm. L. Wilson, (Democrat,) member of the Ways and Means Committee of the present Congress says in his Book on "The National Democratic Party:"

"The Bank subsidized newspapers, scattered documents, and used its power and influence wherever possible, but nothing could withstand the popularity of Jackson."

He was elected, and the National Banking System had to go up Salt River -- for awhile.

From the rise of the Democratic Party down to 1860, it always followed in Jefferson's footsteps on the currency question, and one of its permanent Platform Planks was this:

"That Congress has no power to charter a National Bank; that we believe such an Institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the Country, dangerous to our Republic and Institutions, and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power and above the laws and the will of the people.

No National Democratic Platform for thirty years has contained this time honored principle of Jeffersonian, Jacksonian Democracy.



SECTION 3. It is not necessary to adduce proof that the free coinage of both Gold and Silver was a Jeffersonian principle, was considered so manifestly just in those early days that Hamilton did not oppose it. All parties agreed upon Bi-metalism in its true sense of perfect equality in the coinage of both Gold and Silver upon a ratio of 15 to 1.

It is only of late years that the Money Power has grown insolent enough and shameless enough to demand that all financial power shall be given to one of the metals. And it is only of recent years that the Law making Power, composed of both Democrats and Republicans have grown servile enough register the commands of the Millionaire Bankers.

SECTION 4. It was a part of Hamilton's System of Favoritism, Special Privilege and Class Rule to levy a tax upon the laborers for the benefit of that class of capitalists engaged in manufactures Its legitimate result is seen today in the splendid luxury of Carnegie upon the one hand and the squalid misery of his work misery of his workmen on the other.

Jefferson opposed this System. He believed that free commerce was a natural right and that the taxing of one industry to build up another was wrong. This Free Trade Principle appears in the Platform of 1800. Hon. Wm. L. Wilson, in his work already quoted alludes to the "Protective Tariff" as one of Hamilton schemes which Jefferson opposed. The great commoner said that manufactures like agriculture and commerce, would thrive best when left free to individual enterprise.

Mr. Wilson states that the election of Jackson over Adams in 1828, was a triumph over the Protective Policy. The following clauses formerly occupied prominent places in the National Democratic Platforms:

"That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another."


In the Platform of 1848, the Country is congratulated upon the "noble impulse given to Free Trade by the Repeal of the Tariff of 1842." In the Democratic Platform of 1856, the Free Trade Principle is set forth in a separate resolution. This was reaffirmed in the Platform 1860.

Since the War the position of the Democrats and Republicans may be fairly stated thus: the Republicans come out flat footed for Protection -- with hypocritical reasons; while the Democrats practice Protection under hypocritical declarations against it.

Republican capitalists, like Carnegie, say they want Protection because they so love the Laborer. The practical result is, that Mr. Carnegie pockets one and a half million dollars annually, as clear profits from Protection, while his laborers groan under a ten per cent. reduction of wages, enforced with Winchester rifles in the hands of Pinkerton ruffians.

The Democrats dodge and shuffle and straddle.

In Pennsylvania, the "Tariff Reform" of a Democrat, like Samuel J. Randall, amounted to precisely the same thing as the "Protection" of Pig Iron Kelly.

They no longer place in the National Platform the old time Jeffersonian, Jacksonian declarations upon this great National Issue, which they adhered to so late as 1856 and 1860.


SECTION 5. The founders of the Jeffersonian Party bitterly antagonized the Internal Revenue System.

Excise Laws were their pet aversion.

In die early Platforms of the Democratic Party, it was denied that the General Government had the power to carry on a comprehensive system of Internal Improvements.

The Platforms of 1840 and of 1856 are specially strong on this subject.


It would have made these good old fashioned Democrats tear their hair to have been present a few days ago when the present Moguls of the Party pressed through the House the most lavishly extravagant River and Harbor Bill ever passed in the history of this Government.

Forty-Eight Millions of Dollars! And at a time when beggary invades the homes of a million Tax-payers.

SECTION 6. Briefly, it may be said that the Democratic Party of today faintly preaches Jefferson while it loudly practices Hamilton.

The Republicans are Hamiltonians from heel to head. They preach it and practice it.

The PEOPLE'S PARTY is the only organization which today is founded upon the old Jeffersonian doctrine of Equal Rights.

SECTION 7. In a letter written from Paris, in 1787, Mr. Jefferson tells Mr. Madison that one of his objections to our present Constitution was that it did not properly provide against standing armies and MONOPOLIES.

What a great man he was to see through the mists of the future and foretell the mighty march of combined capital!

What a prophet he was to predict the crushing force of Standard Oil Companies, Sugar Trusts, The Reading Coal and Railroad Combine, the Western Union Telegraph, the Associated Press Co. and the Great Whiskey Ring.

Did he dream that in 100 years or less his Party would be prostituted to the vilest purposes of monopoly; that red-eyed Jewish millionaires would be the chiefs of that Party, and that the liberty and prosperity of the country would be deliberated constantly and corruptly sacrificed to Plutocratic greed in the name of Jeffersonian Democracy?


Chapter III: Contents -- The Republican party -- Once a Popular Movement; Now an Aristocratic Decadence. Living on Dead Sectional Issues. The Record Overhauled. The Greenback Movement.

SECTION 1. With the settlement of the Slavery Question the vital principle left the Republican Party.

The aristocracy at the North had not sympathized with the abolitionists. The Pharisees of Boston had rancorously opposed the pioneers of that movement.

The rank and file of the people, however, joined the agitation and the Republican Party in its early days represented a great popular impulse. Its power became irresistible. As soon as the fact was demonstrated the money power usurped control of it, made it the means by which their designs were carried out and under specious pretenses enacted laws beneficial to themselves and ruinous to the people.

Under their guidance, the mass of voters which constituted the strength of the Republican Party were led to sanction a financial system they did not comprehend.

The attention of the Northern citizens was kept upon sectional issues. A great noise was kept up over "Secession;" "Amnesty for Jeff. Davis;" "Rebel Brigadiers;" "Southern


Outrages on the Negro," etc., etc., and while the voters of the two sections were lashed to fury over these issues, the bondholders stealthily riveted the chains upon white and black laborers alike. For twent- five years both sections have supported a lot of politicians whose stock in trade was to abuse each other in public, while in private they smiled and winked over the monstrous humbug by which they retained their power, kept the people divided and passed the laws which the plutocrats demanded.

SECTION 2. The Republicans have been the staunch friends of the National Banking System since they created it in 1863.

They have championed Protection in its most greedy, tyrannical and corrupt form. They have shamelessly permitted the manufacturers themselves to come into the Committee Room of the Ways and Means Committee and write down just what they wanted. In the McKinley Bill is schedule after schedule enacted into law, word for word, just as the manufacturers demanded. No wonder they put up the campaign funds by the million. It is only a small percentage of what the Republican Party allows them to wring from the Tay-payers.

Mr. Garfield told Prof. A. L. Perry, of Williams College, that while he was on the Ways and Means Committee in Congress "the individuals and delegations who came before the Committee to get new duties put on or old ones raised, came with the barest selfishness and without a thought or care but for the extra price of their products."

Yet these very men howl loudest against "Class Legislation!"

SECTION 3. During the war the Republican Party issued the Greenback as a matter of self-preservation.

The expenses of the Government amounted to one million dollars per day and there was no gold and silver to pay them with. The metals are great cowards and always hide during times of danger. The Banks had suspended specie payments and the Government


was compelled to issue legal tender paper money. The history, quality and tendency of this sort of money will be considered hereafter.

It is enough to say that the Greenback sustained the army which preserved the Union.

After the War the Bankers declared against the Greenback.

Both Democrats and Republicans joined hands in the policy of contraction.

The direct issue of cheap money to the business world was stopped and the Government compelled the people to receive their National currency through the medium of National Banks at a ruinous and unjust rate of interest.

Together with this policy went the Refunding System by which the revenues of sixty millions of citizens have been put into perpetual mortgage for the benefit of a lot of bondholders who speculated upon the disasters of their country and grew rich on her distress.

Both the old parties are deeply guilty for this series of crimes.

On every important vote the Record shows that both Democrats and Republicans obeyed the money power and were partners in guilt.

SECTION 4. -- At the time when both Democrats and Republicans were thus perfecting a Financial system which would bring into reality the moneyed aristocracy and class rule of which Alexander Hamilton dreamed and of which Thomas Jefferson was afraid, there sprang up a revolt among the industrial classes. It took the name of the Greenback Party.

Its National platform of 1878 contains the following Declaration of Principles:

1. That the power to create money is a prerogative of the Government and that the power to regulate its volume should not be given to any moneyed corporations.


2. That the National Banking System should be abolished and free legal tender currency substituted in its place.

3. That the Resumption Act of 1875 should be repealed.

4. That equal taxation of all property whatsoever should be imposed.

5. That transportation companies should be controlled in the interest of fair rates and to the putting down of discriminations, combinations and the granting of rebates to special shippers.

6. That the public land should be held for the actual settler; that subsidies should be discontinued and lands improperly granted, reclaimed; that the hours of labor should be limited, the convict system of prison labor should be abolished.

7. That the demonetization of silver; the contraction of the currency; the exception clause in the Greenback; the forced resumption of specie payments, were crimes against the people.

8. That the coinage of silver should be placed upon an equal footing with that of gold.

9. That a graduated Income Tax be imposed.

10. That no monopoly should be legalized.

11. That useless offices should be abolished and rigid economy enforced in public expenditures.

Viewed with respect to the surroundings, no grander political platform was ever written. The spirit of Jefferson breathes in its every principle.

Bear in mind that up to this time neither Democrats nor Republicans had complained of the demonetization of silver.

That neither party had dared ask for an Income Tax. In 1873 they had joined forces in repealing it.

That neither party was declaring war neither upon monopoly nor upon railroad spoliation.

That neither party had declared against Resumption. In fact


both the old parties were hurling sham denunciations at each other for not "Resuming."

That neither had dared demand equal taxation upon all classes of property.

That neither had dared to utter a word against National Banks, nor to claim that the Government should issue legal tenders in proportion to the requirements of trade.

It was a bootless task to explain why the party based upon this splendid assertion of principles failed.

In the eyes of the world it failed -- just as Kossuth seemed to fail; just as Grattan, O'Connell and Emmett seemed to fail; just as Wycliffe and Sydney and Wallace seemed to fail; just as the Chartist movement in England and the Revolution of 1789 in France seemed to fail.

As a matter of fact such movements never fail. Put down they may be; disrupted and dispersed they may be; shivered by Bonaparte's cannon or pierced by Austrian bayonets they may be -- but they never fail!

God's truth once set in motion is as restless as the sea -- more resistless than the tides -- more eternal than the hills!

Hungary today lives bouyantly in the Home Rule for which Kossuth fought; the seed bed, prepared by Wycliffe and Zuinglius germinated the Reformation of Luther; the principle for which Sydney died is now an undisputed truism in all civilized Governments; Scotland was free before Wallace's bones were dust; all save one of the demands made by the Chartists is English Law this day; fifteen millions of French peasant home owners bless the revolt which struck down the land monopoly and feudal class rule in France; and on the lips of every Irishman on this great earth the battle cry of Emmett still peals forth the call to action; and the great souls of Grattan and O'Connell yet direct policies whose final success no man can doubt!


So the Greenback Movement did not fail. It sowed the seed, and today the golden harvest ripens through all the land. The trend of thought; the sincerity of conviction; the zeal of ardent endeavor which inspires the industrial movement at this hour is but the offspring of the great upheaval of 1876 and 1878 and of the inquiry it set on foot.

All honor to the old Greenbackers!

No Mayflower ever bore more fruitful cargo across the deep than did the Greenback Platform of 1878.

Even now as in the days of old, the Mailed Knight may lie dead upon the field of battle where his enemies bore him down. But if, indeed, he be a Roland, spotless and brave; if, indeed, he spent his blood for the honor of his flag and his country, then do younger warriors catch the swift inspiration of the example; then, indeed, do they ask to be knighted on the same field by the dead hand of him who seemed to fail; and then, indeed, do they go forth with a zeal no discouragement can dampen, no danger appall, no toil deter.

A thousand Rolands spring up from the example of one; a thousand Kossuth's are born through the parentage of one; a thousand Garibaldi's live where before there was one; a thousand patriots learn hatred of tyranny where Emmett died; and the principle that the popular will should live in the Law was never so immortal as the day when the blood of Sydney spurted up around the headsman's axe!


Chapter IV: Contents -- Photographs of Democratic and Republican Managers. Their Characters and Records. Modern Systems of Legalized Thievery.

SECTION 1. That the inconsistency between the professions and the practices of both the old parties may be understood; that the causes which necessarily bring about this inconsistency may be seen, I will sketch the "make up" of each of them and show where the source of control really is.

The tree being carefully classified, its fruit becomes a matter of certainty.

A stream being traced to a sewer its sickening qualities are no longer a cause of surprise.

The present Chairman of the National Democratic Executive Committee is Calvin Brice.

A few years ago he was a village lawyer in Ohio. By rail road speculation he rapidly accumulated a fortune. Having plenty of money he bought a seat in the United States Senate. He had never held any subordinate office in Ohio or anywhere else. He is a Wall Street stock operator; a rail road king, an ally of Jay Gould in corporate combines; the part owner of a convict camp in Tennessee; is a Gold bug; holds the same financial views as John Sherman, and is as shameless a buyer of votes as Matthew Quay.

Senator Gorman of Maryland was chairman of the committee preceding Mr. Brice.


He voted to re charter the National Banks in 1882. He opposes the Free Coinage of Silver. He favors the "Protective" system. Is a millionaire, and heavily interested in the coal and iron mines of West Virginia, which derive such a greatly increased profit from the Tariff Taxes. According to newspaper accounts, Gorman has as corrupt a machine in Maryland as Hill has in New York.

When that much is said the power of description is exhausted, and the English language in a state of collapse.

Imagination has to do the rest.

The Chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee, until recently, was another millionaire -- Roswell Flower. He is a National Banker of the Wall Street "set."

Another great Democratic influence is the Belmont family of New York. They are millionaires and National bankers. They are Jews and are connected in many a business transaction with the Rothchilds.

Mr. Cleveland, of course, is well known.

He is honest, courageous and lives up to his professions. He deserves the highest credit for the impulse he gave to Tariff Reform.

But, most unfortunately, he imbibed the financial views of Wall Street; repudiated the Free Silver Platform upon which he was elected; allowed the National Banks the use of the Public Funds without interest, and threw his whole influence against financial reform. His views upon Finance are those of Mr. Windom, John Sherman and other Republicans.

Mr. David B. Hill is also well known -- very well known indeed. What his real principles are no man can tell. It would be hard to prove that he has any. He is the political executor of Tweed, and is supported by the same crowd of plunderers. His machine methods are unscrupulous and intensely selfish.


If he is for Free Silver he will not say so. His orders issued to this Congress were that no Silver Bill should be passed. So far he has been obeyed. His closest friends in the House oppose Free Silver constantly and bitterly. Hill himself dodges the issue.

What his views on Finance, Banking, etc., are, we are not told.

Democracy has, it seems, reached that peculiar stage when a politician can become a great leader, a Presidential candidate, without stating his position upon any of the vital questions upon whose proper solution depends the welfare of the country. Mr. Hill, like most Congressmen, has drawn thousands of dollars this session (in violation of the statute) for service in the Senate when he was absent electioneering and oiling up the Tammany machine.

These are only a few of the Democratic managers. If the entire gang were catalogued there would be found a miscellaneous mixture of Rail Road Kings, National Bank Presidents, Standard Oil Magnates, Coal and Iron Barons, Millionaire Manufacturers, Rich Convict Lessees, Stock Gamblers, Whiskey Ringsters, Trust Pirates, Monopoly Robbers, Tammany Boodlers, and Lottery Swindlers.

From such a fountain head how can the people expect a stream of pure government?

SECTION 2. In the Republican Party we have the sequel story -- the companion picture.

It's hardly necessary to waste words describing Quay. If there is one politician the American people have made up their minds about it is Quay. Let him pass.

There is Blaine the millionaire, the "bosom croney" of Carnegie; who got so enormously rich while receiving the Congressional salary of $5,000 per year; who said that Trusts and Combines were private affairs not to be meddled with by Law; who defended Gould's Rail Roads in the United States Senate from


Thurman's attempt to have them pay back in easy installments of 5 per cent. annually the enormous debt they owed the Tax-payers.

"Mulligan Letters" bob up in the mind at the mere mention of Blaine's name; Chilian guano ventures ask remembrance, the scandals which have clung around his name rise up so rapidly that one pauses in disgust and leaves the subject with the well-known words, "Burn this letter."

Wanamaker, the pious, who contributed $100,000 to buy votes with, and who thereby jumped from a retail store to a Cabinet position; Stephen B. Elkins, famous for his land grabbing propensities, one instance of which is in a fair way at this time to develop scandalous exposures; John Sherman, who grew rich off the use of public funds in his bank; Stanford, who through the modern system of robbery by Law found his way to a colossal fortune -- all of which came from the Tax payers of the land.

Why multiply examples. The story is ever the same. Boodlers, Monopolists, Gamblers, Gigantic Corporations, Bondholders, Bankers. These are the controlling factors in the Party and everybody knows it.

In each of the old parties we find the protected classes; the few who fatten on special privilege; the Untaxed Capitalist; the Favored Bondholder; the Professional Corruptionist; the Unscrupulous Ring; the Greedy Combine; the Heartless Trust.

In each of them we find the men who, under forms of Law, come down from their splendid castles of special privilege and levy tribute upon Commerce, upon Agriculture, upon Labor.

At all cross roads of trade they halt the producer and he must "stand and deliver" -- for the Law commands it.

Infinitely more complete than any federation of Freebooters; infinitely more cruel than any nation of Buccaneers: infinitely more voracious than any horde of Goths or Vandals, they meet the toiler in every field of labor and plunder him of his reward.


Through cunningly devised tax systems, bond systems, currency systems, bank systems, transportation systems, wage systems, these modern Highwaymen get boundless booty with minimum risk.

In the olden days, if one chose to fight for his purse he had the chance. That was a risk the robber must run.

They have improved the plan. The traveler must shell out without the liberty of resistance.

The only man who can travel the Highway of Modern Commerce without being plundered is he who has already been robbed by Tax Laws or Wage Systems before he took the road.

The People's Party is the protest of the plundered against the plunderers -- of the victim against the robbers.

Under Tariff Systems a tax is laid upon every article the laborer uses and the proceeds put into the pocket of his employer; under the right to levy freight rates to suit themselves the corporations puts its hand into the toll dish of every business and takes out all but the "nest egg." The "nest egg" is left to encourage the hen. Otherwise she might possibly quit laying.

Under the Banking and Bonded Systems all the Roads of Produce lead to the Rome of Imperial Plutocracy and the ends of the earth may be sought without finding any place where the tyranny is not felt.

Under the exercise of the right of "Eminent Domain," under the specious pretext of fairly obtaining a right of way, the Rail Road's seize your lands, eject your family, and if necessary, to "quiet the title" have you shot down like dogs!

Such is the modern system of piracy, land grabbing and highway robbery.

As I said, it is a great improvement over the crude methods of Rob Roy and Captain Kidd, Claude Duvall and William the Norman.

The booty is great and the risk is nought.


Chapter V: Contents -- Party Platforms. The Jeffersonian Republicans. The Jacksonian Democrats. Whigs. Democrats. Abolitionists, or Free Soldiers. Republicans.

SECTION 1.The principles of the Jeffersonian Republicans have already been outlined.

The subsequent adoption of these principles (in substance) by the Jacksonian Democrats will now be shown:

Let the reader bear in mind the Federalist Principles of Hamilton and he will be able to trace them into the platforms of both Republicans and Democrats at a later time.

SECTION 2. Jackson Democrats.

"The election of General Jackson," says Thomas H. Benton, (Democrat) "was a triumph of Democratic principle and an assertion of the people's right to govern themselves. It was also a triumph over the Protective policy, the Internal Improvements policy, the loose construction of the Constitution of the Democracy over the Federalists, and was the re establishment of the parties on Principle, according to the landmarks of the early ages of the Government."

In Jackson's first Message, he declared against Internal Improvements.


Also, against Re Chartering the National Bank.

He vetoed the Bill for the Re Charter in 1832. His veto killed the Bill.

In 1833 he removed the Deposits from the Bank, and put them in State Banks.

The National Bank had become a factor in politics, was using its money to corrupt politicians, subsidize newspapers, and plunder the people.

Hon. W. L. Wilson (Democrat) in his able work, "The National Democratic Party," says:

"Thus ended his memorable struggle with the Bank. The power it displayed in this contest must always be a justification of its overthrow. It had become a danger to Democratic institutions. Its continued existence would be at the expense of the people and in diminution of their pecuniary and political rights. Before it grew too great, Jackson throttled it."

So he did -- the brave old soldier of New Orleans -- the stout successor of Jefferson!

Where is the Democratic hero today who dares "throttle" the National Banks which have sprung up since then, and which are thriving "at the expense of the people and in diminution of their pecuniary and political rights?"

Why, bless you soul, the National Bankers are now the Democratic Bosses, and rule the roost, from Wall street to every country town.

During Jackson's second term, the Compromise Tariff of 1833 was passed.

Its Preamble declared that "after March 3, 1840, all duties should be equal, and solely for the purpose of providing such revenue as may be necessary to an economical expenditure by the Government without regard to Protection or encouragement of any bounty of domestic industry whatever."


After July 1, 1842, there should be a uniform Tariff of 20 per cent.

In 1836 there was a surplus in the Treasury. By Act of January 1, 1837, it was provided that all Surplus Revenues exceeding $5,000,000 should be divided among the states as a loan to be recalled by direction of Congress.

Under this law some $28,000,000 were distributed among the States.

In 1888 the Democrats again had a surplus.

Did they divide it among the States?

Not much!

They divided it among the bondholders. They squandered $60,000,000 in paying premiums on bonds, not due at a time when there was unprecedented distress among the tax payers to whom that surplus belonged.

I have thus dwelt on Jackson's preaching and practice of Democracy in order that it may be fairly compared with the Tammany Hall Democracy of the present era.

Many an editor, many a stump orator, many a cross road politician, many a ward heeler, cries, "Hurrah for Andrew Jackson Democracy," without having the faintest idea that he is thereby condemning himself and his modern bank ridden, class ruled Democracy.

Oh, for an hour of that stern old warrior, before whose Militia Rifles the veterans of Waterloo melted away, and before whose fiery wrath the combined money kings bit the dust!

SECTION 3. Whig Platforms:

The Cardinal Principles of the Whigs may be fairly stated, thus:

1. Protection to American Manufactures.

2. Support of the National Banks.

3. A general system of Internal Improvements.


4. A distribution among the States of the proceeds of Sales of Public Lands.

5. Wise economy in the Public Service.

6. A single term for the Presidency, to prevent executive usurpation.

7. The Reserved Rights of the States.

Even under the brilliant leadership of Clay and Webster this party went clown. National Banks and High Tariffs were loads too heavy (in those days) for giants such as they.

Jackson put down the Banks, curbed the Tariff and set a limit to its exactions. Polk was triumphantly elected to the sound of the slogan of "Free Trade and Sailor's Rights," and thus the Democrats came into power as the Revolt of the Masses against the Classes.

One of the most deplorable results of the Civil War was the enthronement of monstrous tariffs and of a national banking system, before whose towering strength the Bank which Jackson fought was a dwarf.

Under a cunning distribution of forces the privileged classes control both Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats, year by year, are compelled to vote for laws which Jackson abhorred.

Republicans, year by year, are compelled to vote for laws which Lincoln abhorred.

SECTION 4. The Democratic Platform of 1840 is, as follows:

1st. Resolved. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers.

2nd. That Internal Improvements are unconstitutional.

3rd. That assumption of State Debts by the Government is unconstitutional.

4th. That the Government should not foster one industry at the expense of another. Equal rights should be accorded to all.


5th. That economy in the Public Service should prevail.

6th. That Congress has no power to charter Banks; that they are of "deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to Republican institutions and to the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country in the control of a concentrated money power and above the laws and the will of the people."

7th.That Congress has no power to interfere with slavery.

8th. Demands that public moneys shall be taken out of the Banks.

9th. Reaffirms the Principles of the Declaration of Independence.

Let the student compare this Platform with that of the same Party in 1876 or 1888.

The Democratic Platform of 1844 was a repetition of the foregoing, with the following additions:

1st. That Proceeds of Public Lands should not be divided among the States, but should be applied by Congress to the National objects specified in the Constitution.

2nd. opposes the taking of the Veto power from the President. Asserts that this Veto power "has thrice saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States."

3rd. Demands the re occupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas.

The Democratic Platform of 1848 is the same as the preceding, with these additions:

1st. The Veto power is commended for the additional reason that it has saved the American people "from a corrupting system of general Internal Improvements."

2nd. approves the Mexican War; desires peace, and applauds the splendid services of the soldiers.


3rd. Congratulates France upon her recent Revolution; remembers that Washington and LaFayette fought side by side; reasserts the right of the people to rule; denounces legislation which favors the few at the expense of the many.

4th. Thinks this doctrine so good that a copy must be sent to Paris at once. Delay might take some of the foam off.

5th. Congratulates the country upon Polk's election, which defeats the "declared purposes of their opponents (the Whigs) in creating a National Bank."

Also upon "the noble impulse given to Free Trade by the Repeal of the Tariff of 1842 and the enactment of the more equal, honest and productive Tariff of 1846."

The Democratic Platform of 1852 was a repetition of the foregoing on all material questions. Declares rather more strongly in favor of Slavery.

(Buchanan Ticket.)

1. Declares its trust in the people -- denounces the creed and practice of Federalism.

2. Declares Internal Improvements unconstitutional.

3. Denounces the Assumption of State Debts.

4. Denounces the fostering of one industry at the expense of another. Demands equal rights.

5. Demands Economy.

6. Demands that Proceeds of Public Lands be applied to National objects, and not divided among the States.

7. Denounces National Banks in strongest terms.

8. Demands separation of Public Moneys from the Banks.

9. Defends the Veto power for the reasons previously given.

10. Approves the Declaration of Independence, and favors unrestricted immigration.


Among the additional Resolutions are these:

1. Denouncing the Abolitionists.

2. Re affirms the Compromise of 1850.

3. Declares resistance to further slavery agitation.

4. Reaffirms the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1797 and 1798.

A further series of Resolutions follows on the Kansas-Nebraska question.

Then comes this golden nugget:

"The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of Free Seas and progressive FREE TRADE throughout the world."

The "Monroe Doctrine" is re-asserted Government aid is promised the Pacific Rail Road.

The Platform of 1860 re-affirms that of 1856 with the FREE TRADE Plank. Pledges Government aid to the Pacific Rail Road.

Demands the purchase of Cuba.

Democratic Platform, 1868.
(Seymour & Blair Ticket.)

Demands Equal Taxation on all Property, including Bonds.

Demands that Soldiers and Pensioners be paid in as good money as Bondholders.

Demands economy; amnesty for political offences; regulation of the elective franchise by the States; the restoration of all the States to their rights in the Union.

Declares that the Bonds should be paid in lawful money of the United States, and not paid in coin alone, unless so specified in the contract.

Declares the subordination of the Military to the Civil Authorities.

Declares in favor of Tariff for Revenue.


Demands a discontinuance of the "Inquisitorial Modes of Assessing and Collecting Internal Revenue."

As the Income Tax was collected in this manner, the words would seem to demand a Repeal of that Tax. The millionaires have always alleged that it was very "Inquisitorial." Poor creatures, how they do hate the Tax Collector!

Can laborers and tenants get rid of tax by saying it is "Inquisitorial?"

Democratic Platform, 1872.
(The Greely Ticket.)

1. Declares for the Equality of all Men before the Law without regard to race or color.

2. Declares in favor of maintaining Emancipation and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

3. Demands removal of political disabilities.

4. Demands Local Self-Government.

5. Demands Civil Service Reform.

6. Dodges the Tariff Question and nervously begs that the people fight it out among themselves "in their Congressional Districts."

7. Denounces Repudiation.

8. Demands a Resumption of Specie Payments.

9. Gives Taffy to the Soldiers.

10. Demands the stoppage of Land Grants to Rail Roads and the holding of Public domain for actual settlers.

The horse being already gone and the thief secure, the accomplices of the robber solemnly declare that the stable door must and shall be locked!

Democratic Platform of 1876.
(Tilden & Hendricks.)

Arraigns the Republicans as usual.


Declares for the Bankers thus: "We denounce the failure for all these eleven years of peace to make good the promise of the Legal Tender Notes which are a changing standard of value in the hands of the people, and the nonpayment of which is a disregard of the plighted faith of the nation."

Denounces the Republicans for not resuming Specie Payments and for not hoarding gold and silver, to pay off and retire the greenbacks.

Denounces "the present" Tariff. It is always the "other fellow" whose Tariff is wrong.

"Our Tariff" is always right -- an unmixed blessing and a fountain of joy.

Demands frugality and reduction of Taxation and the stoppage of the waste of public land.

Demands Civil Service Reform, and that an end be put to sectional issues.

Demands "care, protection and gratitude" for the soldiers, their widows and orphans.

Accuses high officials of using their offices corruptly for private gain.

It is remarkable that this Platform utters no word of condemnation of the demonetization of silver which took place in 1873 and 1874.

It utters no word of condemnation of the contraction of currency or repeal of the income tax.

Mr. Tilden, the Presidential nominee, was a nice, respectable old Rail Road wrecker who, by patient application to modern piratical methods, amassed a fortune of Ten Million Dollars.

He was one of the many lawyers who (according to the decision of the courts) did not have sense enough to write his own will. It was "busted." The family had a beautiful row over the swag. It is now being enjoyed by the men who did not make it, and whom Tilden said should not have it.


Of such are the beauties of modern systems composed. The millionaire who is admitted by his family to have sense enough to write his own will has not yet appeared.

Stewart's will was contested; Vanderbilt's was contested; Tilden's was set aside, and Astor's daughter says she will knock his higher than a kite.

In each instance, judging from the way the cases are settled, it seems to be merely a matter of calculation as to whether it is cheaper to buy off the contesting heirs at law, or to divide with the lawyers and judges.

Democratic Platform, 1880.
(Hancock & English.)

Reaffirms Platform of 1876.

Declares against Sumptuary Laws; in favor of Common Schools, Home Rule, Tariff for Revenue only.

Demands "Honest money, consisting of gold, silver and paper, convertible into coin on demand."

Mr.English, the nominee, for Vice President was a National Banker. Probably he wrote the above plank. It sounds like him.

Declares for Free Ballot.

Demands Civil Service Reform.

Demands Free Ships, and against the discrimination of transportation lines, companies, and monopolies.

Declares against Chinese immigration; in favor of "Public money for public purposes, and land for actual settlers."

Assures the laborer it will protect him against the cormorants and the commune.

A list of the cormorants is not furnished. Generalities are always safe. Specifications are awkward. Democratic cormorants might possibly get places on the list.


Democratic Platform, 1884.

Claims credit over the Republicans for its liberal pensions to the soldiers.

Blames the Republicans for not protecting the manufacturers.

Arraigns the Republicans for not removing War Taxes.

Declares for Custom House Taxation; heavy on luxuries; lightest on necessaries.

Denounces, as usual, "the present" Tariff.

Declares that the Internal Revenue Taxes should be made a fund to defray the expenses "of the care and comfort of worthy soldiers, disabled in line of duty."

Declares against Legal Tender Greenback Money, by saying, "we believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulating medium, convertible into such money without loss."

Declares for equality before Law, regardless of color.

Declares for a Free Ballot and a Fair Count.

Opposes Sumptuary Laws "which vex the citizen."

In this tender phrase, the Bar-keeper is soothed.

Democratic Platform, 1888.
(Cleveland Ticket.)

Adopts Platform of 1884. Cleveland's Tariff Reform Message accepted as the true Tariff doctrine.

Boasts that Cleveland's Administration has paid out more money "for pensions and bounties to the Soldiers and Sailors of the Republic than was ever paid before during an equal period."

Protests against excessive Taxation. Promises a "fair and careful" Reform of the Tariff.

Demands Civil Service Reform. Favors Common Schools.


Declares against Chinese immigration, monoplies, waste of Public Lands and extravagance.

Let the student now turn back and compare the later Democratic Platforms with the earlier ones. Let him compare that of 1884 or 1888 with that of 1856 -- or with that of 1844, or with that of Andrew Jackson. He will then be able to measure the distance the Democratic Party of today is from its ancient landmarks.

SECTION 4. -- Abolition Platform.

In the Platform of 1852 the Independent Democrats, who were afterwards called Republicans, declared:

1. That Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the Governed.

2. That the true mission of American Democracy is to maintain the liberties of the people by the adherence to the principle of equal rights, strict justice and economical administration.

3. That the Federal Government is one of limited powers.

4. That the Government has no more power to make a Slave than to make a King.

5. That the demands of the slave power for more slave. States and the nationalization of slavery must be answered by the sentiment, "No more Slave States; no nationalized slavery."

6. That Slavery is a sin against God and a crime against man.

7. Denounces Fugitive Slave Law.

8. That human Laws are always subject to modification.

9. Denounces the Compromise Measures of 1850.

10. Demands that the National Government cease to protect Slavery, and leave it to the States and to the State Laws.

11. Declares that all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil; that this is a sacred right.


12. Public lands should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people.

13. That Government Funds should be kept out of banking institutions.

14. Favors River and Harbor Improvements.

15. Favors Unrestricted Immigration.

"We inscribe upon our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Tabor, and Free Men, and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."

SECTION 5. -- The Republican Platform, 1856.

1. Denies the right of Congress to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory.

2. Declares that Congress should prohibit Slavery in the Territories -- also Polygamy.

3. Denounces the "Crime against Kansas"

4. Demands the admission of Kansas as a State, with her free Constitution.

5. Denounces the Ostend Circular.

6. Demands Government Aid to the Pacific Rail Roads.

7. Favors "Internal Improvements."

8. Invites co operation from all parties.

Republican Platform, 1860, reaffirms the foregoing.

Deals mostly with Slavery issues.

Declares for Protection.


Deals chiefly with War Issues.

Does not forget that Pacific Rail Road.


1. Congratulates on success of Re-construction.

2. Guarantees equal suffrage to all.


3. Denounces Repudiation and demands fullest payment of the Public Debt

4. Demands equal Taxation.

5. Demands extension of time in payment of National Debt, at lower rate of interest.

6. Wants our Credit improved, to encourage capitalists to lend us money at lower rates.

7. Demands Economy.

Declares for liberal Pensions; Just Immigration Laws.


Congratulates itself on its achievements.

Among other things, its grants to the Pacific Rail Road.

Opposes further grants of Public Lands to Corporations.

Declares for Protection.

Favors speedy Resumption of Specie Payments.


Demands Specie Payments.

Favors Public Schools.

Favors Tariff.

Opposes grants of land to Corporations.

Declares against Polygamy.

Declares that the "Woman's Rights" question should be "treated with respectful consideration."

Declares for liberal Pensions.

Deplores Sectional feelings.

Denounces the Democrats as usual.


Is substantially the same as the others. Is more rhetorical, and sounds more like a stump speech; but, in substance, is the same old "seven and six."


It is proud that it has restored the "payment in coin of all National obligations."


Declares its purpose of regulating Rail Road rates by Inter State Commerce Laws.

Declares that this is a Nation -- with a capital N.

Demands Free Ballot and Fair Count.

Stands by the Tariff; says a good word for the sheep, and promises to spend the Surplus.

Which, by the assistance of the Democrats, they did.

Favors a wise system of general education.


Denounces the Democrats for Demonetizing Silver.

This is rich.

Both the old Parties denouncing the other for a crime in which they participated and which for twenty years has gone unpunished and unatoned for.

Denounces the lending of Government money without interest to "Pet Banks" by the Democrats.

Demands Civil Service Reform.

Denounces Polygamy.

Demands an increased Navy.

Demands restoration of unearned Land Grants, and that the Public Domain be kept for settlers.

Declares against Chinese Immigration.

Demands Reduced Postage on Letters.

Protests against Free Ships.

Renews its pledges to preserve the Protective System; denounces the Mills Bill; promises to remove Taxes from Whiskey and Tobacco; declares against Trusts; demands liberal Pensions.

This completes the Review of Party Promises.


Let the student study them and compare them.

Then, let him ask himself if the old Parties have redeemed their early pledges and kept faith with the people.

In Napoleon's time, this saying became common, "It lies, like a bulletin."

We might modernize the adage, and say, "It deceives, like a platform.


Chapter VI: Contents -- Vicious Legislation Repeal of the income Tax. Who Did It? Who Is Responsible for Not Re Enacting It?

SECTION 1. A Tax upon Profits is surely the easiest of all to pay.

If a citizen is compelled to pay a heavy tax upon a stock of goods when there is no net income from those goods, it is a hardship.

If he has to pay upon a tract of land at a time when he is actually losing money, farming on that land -- such payment is a burden which he most keenly feels to be unjust.

When he has to pay tax upon cotton or corn or wheat, which cost him more than it will bring, it is an addition to his misfortune which necessity alone can induce him to tolerate.

How much more bitterly must these burdens be resented when the citizens who pay such taxes are aware of the fact that those who are making the profits are exempted from tax.

The great Bondholders pay no tax.

The great National Bankers pay one per cent. and are allowed to salve their wounded feelings by making the people pay from eight to twenty five per cent.

The great Tariff Barons, as will be shown hereafter, not only lose nothing by taxation, but gain by it immensely.

The Rail Road Kings pay no Federal Taxes whatsoever, but upon the other hand, compel a four per cent. tax from the people upon $4,500,000,000 watered stock.


These are the men whose astonishing wealth has been so rapidly accumulated.

Practically, they reap all the profits of all the industrial classes of America.

Practically, they are the moneyed class, numbering a few thousand for whom sixty millions of people toil.

The Income Tax would reach them -- therefore they oppose it.

Under their dictation, the Income Tax Law was repealed in 1871.

The Repeal Act passed the Senate January 26, 1871; by a close vote, Yeas, 26, Nays, 25.

Seven Democrats voted for Repeal. Only Two voted against it!

Those voting for the Repeal were: Messrs. Anthony, R., Bayard, D., Buckingham, R., Cameron, R., Carpenter, R., Casserly, D. Cole, R., Conklin, R., Corbett, R., Fenton, R., Flannigan, R., Fowler, R., Hamilton, of Maryland, D., Hamilton, of Texas, R., McDonald, D., Osborn, R., Pomeroy, R., Rice, R., Scott, R., Stewart, R., Stockton, D., Sumner, R., Thurman, D., Trumbull, R., Vickers, D., Yates, R.

So, it will be seen that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this crime.

This Income Tax Law passed Congress July 1, 1862. It did not go into effect till 1863.

By its terms all incomes in excess of $600 and under $10,000 were taxed at 3 per cent; over $10,000, at 5 per cent

This was surely very moderate.

The Tax was collected under the Internal Revenue System.

From this source the Government collected $2,741,857 in 1863.

For the Fiscal Year, ending June 30, 1864, it collected $20,294,733.

On the 3rd day of March, 1865, the Act was amended so as


to substitute 5 per cent. for the 3 per cent. on the smaller incomes and 10 per cent. for the 5 per cent. upon the larger ones, commencing with an income of $5,000.

Under these acts the Government collected $32,050,017.

In 1866 this tax yielded $72,982,395. In 1867, it yielded $66,014,429.

In 1867 the Law was amended. The tax was diminished in effect one half. The Amendment also provided that the Act was to expire with the year 1870.

In 1868, $41,455,599 was the sum collected. In 1870 it was $34,791,857. On July 14, 1870, the Tax was extended one year, and reduced to 2˝ per cent.

This was repealed, as before stated, by an Act which passed the Senate January 26, 1871, and the house on March 3, 1871.

The Yeas and Nays were not taken in the House.

Taxes already due before the Repeal of the Act continued to be collected in 1871 and 1872 and 1873. The last were not in till 1877.

The total amount collected under this very moderate Income Tax was $346,906,738.

Does anyone doubt that it would now be practicable to collect enough revenue from this source to run the Government?

Fortunes have so amazingly increased in the hands of the millionaires; profits so stupendous have accumulated in the hands of Standard Oil Magnates, Coal Barons, Rail Road Kings, Sugar Trust Operators, Steel and Iron Combiners, that a good, heavy tax on incomes above $10,000 -- the tax growing heavier as the income was larger would be phenominal in its yield.

The reasons why such a tax would be better than any we now have are sufficiently obvious.

1. It would put the burden on the class most able bear it.


2. It would put the support of the Administration upon those who derive the greatest benefits under the Laws.

3. It would interest the most powerful class in the cause of Economy. Rich men get particular when they know they must fact the bills.

4. It would put the Pension debt on the men who got rich off the victories of the soldiers.

5. It would discourage the accumulation of enormous fortunes and would afford a legal method of checking the growth of concentrated wealth.

6. It would abolish the Tariff, which, as a system of collecting taxes is the most costly, one sided and monstrous the world ever saw.

7. It would supplant Internal Revenue Taxes upon Whiskey and Tobacco -- which subjects of taxation should be relegated to the States.

8. It would give to tax oppressed people all over the land a relief from the crushing burden of indirect, cowardly and illegal taxes which are wrung from them in the name of the Law for the benefit of privileged classes.

The nations of Europe recognize the justice of the Income Tax.

In England it yields about $60,000,000 annually; in Austria, $12,000,000; in Italy, $45,000,000; in Prussia, $30,000,000.

SECTION 2. On June 15, 1878, an attempt was made to re enact the Income Tax.

It was proposed to commence with a Tax of One Per Cent. on Incomes exceeding $2,000, and to gradually increase it as the Income grew larger. On Incomes exceeding $100,000 the tax was to be 10 per cent.

This was defeated. Yeas, 94; Nays, 139.


Of the Yeas, 66 were Democrats and 31 Republicans.

Of the Nays, 58 were Democrats and the balance Republicans.

It will be seen that this Act would have been passed if the Democrats or the Republicans voting No, had cast their votes the other way.

Hence it is perfectly clear that both the Old Parties are responsible for the failure to reimpose this Tax just as they were both responsible for its repeal.

Among the Democrats voting No, were Messrs. Blount, of Georgia; Carlisle, of Kentucky; A. S. Hewitt, of New York; Hooker, of Mississippi; W. M. Robbins, of North Carolina; W. M. Springer, of Illinois; Tucker, of Virginia; Fernando Wood, of New York.

Among the Republicans voting No, were Cannon, of Illinois; Keifer, of Ohio; Kelly, of Pennsylvania; Garfield, of Ohio; Blair, of New Hampshire, and Jay Hubbell, of Michigan.

It should be stated that this Bill came up while the Internal Revenue Bill was under discussion, and that Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, who was endeavoring to secure a reduction of the Tobacco Tax from 20 cents per pound to 16 cents per pound, requested all the friends of his Amendment to vote against the Income Tax. In other words, his Amendment of four cents a pound on Tobacco was bigger, in his eyes, than an Income Tax on millionaires which might have yielded sufficient revenue to run the Government, and thus not only have removed all the taxes from Tobacco but also from the 3,000 articles loaded down with Tariff duties.

Of such short sightedness has our statesmanship since the War been composed. An immediate and pressing local want is allowed to overide and subordinate questions of the greatest magnitude -- full of promise of the most beneficent general results.


No Democratic National Platform has demanded the Income Tax. No National Convention of that Party has denounced its repeal.

The same is true of the Republican Party.

The Greenback Party was the first to denounce the Repeal and to demand its re enactment.

The People's Party is the only political organization which today declares in its favor.

As long as the Old Parties are dominated by the influences which now control them, the Income Tax will remain a dead issue -- a monument to the servile party spirit which makes laws in the interest of plutocracy.


Chapter VII: Contents -- Subsidizing Railroads and Squandering the Public Lands

SECTION 1. As shown by Mr. N. A. Dunning, in his "Political Tickler," the first Land Grant Bill to aid a Rail Road corporation was introduced by Stephen A. Douglass, Democrat in the United States Senate, January 3, 1850.

It was a donation of public lands to the State of Illinois to aid the Central Rail Road.

The line was from Chicago to Mobile and the lands donated lay in the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Illinois.

The Act passed the Senate, May 2, 1850.

Yeas. -- 18 Democrats and 8 Whigs.

Nays. -- 6 Democrats, 1 Free Soiler and 7 Whigs.

It passed the House, September 17, 1850.

Yeas. -- 48 Democrats, 48 Whigs, and 5 Free Soilers.

Nays. -- 43 Democrats, 29 Whigs, and 3 Free Soilers.

Stephen A. Douglass likewise introduced the first bill in behalf of the Pacific Rail Roads. It passed the Senate but was not acted on by the House.

The Act under which the Pacific Rail Road System was inaugurated passed Congress July 1, 1862, by an almost unanimous vote.

A more stupendous piece of jobbery was never legalized by forms of Law.


By a series of acts commencing with the above and ending with the Texas Pacific Act of March 3, 1871, Congress gave away to the corporation's 144,538,134 acres of the people's land.

"Where did the General Government get this land?

1st. By patriotic gifts from the States.

2d. By purchase from France and Mexico.

3d. By war with Mexico.

4th. By purchase from Texas.

Virginia alone gave the Government 165,659,680 acres; Georgia gave 56,689,930; North Carolina 29,0000,000.

By purchase from France (the Louisiana Purchase) we acquired 757,000,000 acres.

By purchase from Mexico (the Gadsden Purchase, 1853) we obtained 65,000,000 acres.

By the war with Mexico we got 334,000,000 acres.

By purchase from Texas in 1850, 65,000,000 acres.

When money was the price, the taxes of all the people furnished the payment.

When the blood of the soldier was the price, the ranks of the people was the source from which it was drawn.

When the old States gave up their lands to the Government in such a splendid spirit of patriotism, it was surely with a view of benefiting all classes for all time to come.

Let's see how special privilege and favor has stepped and violated the generous purpose.

Under the first land grant act already referred to, Illinois got 2,595,000 acres of this land -- the donation being 1,965 acres land to every one mile of road. By charter, Illinois stipulated that the road must pay her from 5 to 7 per cent. of its gross annual income. Up to 1880 the State had thus derived $8,000,000. The future annual income from the same source was estimated at $350,000.


Yet after this yearly payment was allowed, for, the road had such a fat thing of it, (growing out of the original grant) that its stock commanded a premium of $45 in the market.

Under the same act the Mobile & Ohio Rail Road got (through the States of Alabama and Mississippi) 1,156,000 acres.

Under Act of 1852 the San Francisco and the Hannibal & St. Joseph Roads got 3,000 acres land to every mile of road they actually built.

The aggregate was nearly 2,000,000 acres.

The miles of road built aggregated 584.

It would be tedious to detail each grant and its result in miles of Rail Road, but I will give a few samples of net result.

Arkansas got the benefit of one mile of Rail Road for every 3,900 acres of land.

Florida was made happy with a result of one mile of road for each 7,000 acres.

Alabama got one mile for each 3,385 acres.

Louisiana had to look as happy as possible while the Rail Road swindlers gave her one mile of road for each 7,000 acres of land donated by the General Government.

Wisconsin got one mile for each 5,400 acres.

So it goes, all through the list.

Let it be kept in mind that this land belonged to all the people; was a sacred trust to supply future generations with homes; was granted by the Government to the States to aid them in having Rail Roads built; was granted to the corporations by the States and that the corporations in return managed to gobble up on the average about 4,000 acres of the most fertile soil in America for each mile of road they constructed.

SECTION 2. In a speech made in Congress, March 11, 1884, Hon. Win. S. Holman sums up the Land Grant business as follows:


Number of acres donated to 58 Rail Road Corporations, 85,000,00ft acres.

Number of acres given to the Pacific Rail Roads, 139,403,000.

How many brave men died in battle with Mexico when we tore from her that territory of 334,000,000 acres?

How much money belonging to all the people was poured out like water in defraying the expenses of that war?

Who today holds the lion's share of the land which we thus obtained at so terrible a price?

The Rail Road's.

But the chapter is not yet ended.

They were not satisfied with land alone. They asked for money also. They got it. They generally get it.

The Government guaranteed the interest on the Bonds of the Rail Road's.

On July 1, 1876, the roads owed the people $25,000,000, which the government had paid as interest on these Bonds.

On January 1, 1883, the sum had grown to $41,000,000.

By the last official statement of the Secretary of the Treasury, the amount now due by these Corporations to the Tax payers of this country is nearly seventy millions of dollars -- for interest already paid.

That's a very neat sum. It is what Joe Gargery would pronounce "cool."

Jay Gould and Huntingdon and Stanford and millionaires of that stripe control the Corporations which owe the people this money. These men and a score of others have made colossal fortunes out of this magnificent property.

Yet the Tax payers whose land and whose money built those Roads find it impossible to collect the debt.



Corrupt legislators; venal judges; subsidized newspapers! That's the answer; none other is possible.

Who is responsible for this fearful outrage upon public justice? Both the Old Parties. Democrats and Republicans ran over each other in their haste to vote these subsidies.

The National Platforms of both the Parties, as has already been shown, pledged Government aid to these Corporations. The pledge was most fully kept.

The Corporations had a contingent in each Party sufficiently strong to compel a redemption of the political pledge so readily given.

That National scandals should have grown out of these transactions was quite natural. I do not care to go into them. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the Credit Mobilier stench of a few years ago. It was a most noisome scandal. Statesmen, lawyers, judges, editors were implicated in a gigantic fraud and conspiracy, and the name of Oakes Ames became a byword in all the land.

How Stanford and Huntington made their "piles" may be seen from one quotation from the Official Report made during Cleveland's Administration, known as the Pattison Report:

"On the face of the books the barren fact appeared that Leland Stanford and C. P. Huntingdon have taken from assets of this Company, over which they have absolute control, the sum aforesaid, $4,818,355."

Precisely. That's what they took at that special time and in that special way.

It's not all they took, by a jug full.

At this good hour Huntington, instead of being behind the bars as a convicted thief, is one of the Grandees of Plutocracy, and Stanford, instead of being in jail, is in the United States Senate!


Of course. Had these men stolen a bunch of cattle, they would have been shot down without ceremony.

Had they robbed a "Smoke House" in Georgia or Tennessee to get food (perhaps for hungry children), they would have been slaving in the Convict Camp of those precious Democrats, Joe Brown and Calvin Brice.

But they showed better judgment.

They stole enough to buy Judges, corrupt Legislators, and muzzle the Press.

Net result: -- One is a Grandee, and lives in clover; the other is Senator, and makes laws for the people.

Jay Gould, another of the Gang has no political ambition like Stanford.

He is a modest sort of a Buccaneer.

It satisfies him to ride over the Seas in a dandy yacht which a king might envy; or to whirl along the rails in a palace car, all brilliant with gildings of silver and gold and rich in tapestries of velvets and silks.

He has robbed the public in a more skilful manner than Boss Tweed -- therefore he is in no fear of having to run away.

He has been more artistic in his marauding than Jesse James, therefore he has no apprehension that a price will be set upon his head.

Quite the reverse! When he approaches a city in his palational car he expects a royal reception -- and gets it!

Merchants, editors, officials, and a general miscellany of flunkeyism crowd and push, and cring and fawn, in the promiscuous competition of cowardice and servility and meanness and Golden-Calf-ism!

Decency veils her face, and the man in the moon stuffs cotton in his nose!

The very buzzards hurry by with impatient and nervous wing.

Even a buzzard knows when it has enough! Flunkeyism never does.


Chapter VIII: Contents -- How the Surplus was Squandered. Pet Banks. Special Priviledges.

SECTION 1. By the operation of the Federal Tax Laws the Revenues of the Government during Cleveland's Administration largely exceeded its Expenditures.

Not that the Expenditures were small. By no means. They were some Three Hundred and Fifty Millions of Dollars. But the Taxes were so heavy, the Tariff burden so great, that the people were compelled to pay into the Treasury upwards of One Hundred Millions of Dollars over and above its needs.

In other words, vicious legislation forced this annual excess out of the pockets of the people and put it where the Politicians, the Boodle sand the Privileged Classes would have full swing with it.

As I have already stated, a similar condition had once before existed but on a much smaller scale.

Under Jackson's Administration in 1837, the Surplus had been fairly divided among the States as a Loan.

But under Cleveland, the Wall Street influence was supreme and the idea of putting out the surplus among the States was not thought of. Some $59,000,000 of it was put in the National Banks so that they could enjoy the benefit of lending the Tax money to the Tax payers to whom it belonged at a high rate of interest.

The Banks paid the Government nothing.


I doubt if the history of the world furnishes a parallel to this as a matter of Government Favoritism. Some $60,000,000 of this Surplus was paid away in Premiums to the Bondholders in the purchase of Bonds not due.

These Bonds were drawing a low rate of interest, 4 and 4˝ per cent.; they still had a long term to run; yet the Administration could find no better way of disposing of a fund which belonged to all the people than to adopt a policy which resulted in paying off National obligations before they were due and giving the National Creditors a bonus of $60,000,000 for being kind enough to accept payment in advance of pay day.

What brilliant Democratic Finance!

At the time this policy was put into practice under the lead of Mr. Mills, of Texas, the Taxpayers of the Country were in a distressed condition; were groaning under a Mortgage Debt of stupendous size, and were paying exhorbitant rates of interest.

They began, most respectfully, to ask the Government to consider the proposition that in the distribution of the National Currency, Bonds alone should not be regarded as the only respectable collateral, but that Lands, and non perishable Produce be treated as fairly as that species of Mercantile Paper called Bonds.

With a howl of derision they were put aside.

They were told by Roswell Flower, the Democratic National Banker of New York, to "go home, attend to their business, work harder and talk less."

Almost the same language was held on the floor of the House yesterday, by Hon. Joseph D. Taylor, of Ohio, a Republican National Banker.

"Work harder and talk less" -- and the National Banker will consider you a more valuable slave than he even now does.

In Premiums on Bonds, as I have stated, the Democrats


managed to donate some $60,000,000 of the People's money to a Privileged Class.

When the Republicans took hold, their plan was different, but it got there just the same.

They voted it away in Appropriations to Sugar Bounties, Ship Subsidies, Navy Enlargements, River and Harbor Bills, etc.

The people to whom the money belonged got none of it.

However much the Old Parties might differ upon other matters, on this they were agreed; -- that the Tax payer himself was the last man who had a right to seek the benefit of that money?

It was constitutional to donate part of it to the Chicago Fair and to the Bondholders; legal to lend part of it to National Banks free of Interest.

But to talk of donating a part of it to the Drought stricken Farmers in Texas and Nebraska to buy seeds to plant their lands was all bosh and nonsense. No decent man, anxious to be called a "Statesman" would countenance such a scheme.

To lend part of it to these Farmers on lands or produce was even more criminal in its demoralizing tendencies.

Such suggestions were promptly squelched.

How much of that Surplus of Tax money had the Bondholders paid into the Treasury?

Not a cent.

How much of it had these Farmers paid in?

Precious near all of it. Yet the men who paid it in could get none of it as a Loan, while those who had paid none of it got it as a Gift.

The man who gives away money to a class who have no right to it is a "Statesman."

The man who would lend that money to the class to whom it belongs, is a Demagogue.

Such is life.


John Sherman, of Ohio, is a recognized Leader of the Republican Party.

In the Democratic Campaign Book of 1880, it is charged that while he was Secretary of the Treasury he was Partner in the First National Bank of New York; that he gave this Bank the inside track on the refunding of the Ten Forty Bonds into Four-percents; that "he and his Partners made $115,000,000 off the Government by the operation; and that to prevent further exposures he issued an order that the employees of the Treasury Department should give no news to the Press.

Thus it goes. Democrats making out the case on the Republicans and the latter making it out on the former.

Pot and kettle all around. Mr. Sherman has been in Federal Office many years; could not possibly have become a millionaire on his legitimate earnings as a salaried official; and the very fact that he is so enormously wealthy shows that he has used his official advantages to fill his pockets.

As an illustration of the Class Legislation prevalent in both Political Parties, consider the favors shown the Great Western Whiskey Ring.

They have unlimited capital and deal in a Product which no one claims makes this country happier or more prosperous. It would be easy to charge up to them a heavy proportion of poverty, disease, wretchedness and crime.

It would seem they might be modest enough to take their places among other Tax payers and fare as they do.

Not so: They obtain from Congress a Loan of many millions of dollars annually at 5 per cent. interest at the expense of the other Taxpayers. The Tax on Distilled Spirits is 90 cents per gallon. The production is so great that the annual revenue aggregates $65,000,000.


Under the Bonded Warehouse Law the Whiskey Ring has the privilege of borrowing this neat sum of money for three years by paying 5 per cent. interest on it for two years. They get the Loan one year free of charge. The result of this is to hold back $65,000,000 of Taxes for three years.

Does any other Tax payer have that privilege?

Not much. Suppose a farmer or a merchant should ask to his Tariff Taxes or his Tobacco Taxes loaned to him for three years -- would he get them?

Not much. In the mad whirl of Class Legislation which has grown to such shameless proportions since the war, it is hard point out a more glaring example than this.

The law simply allows the Whiskey Ring to say to the Tax Collector:

"I don't feel like paying you today; -- call again, three years from now."

The Collector bows humbly and walks off -- rejoiced to have escaped without being kicked in the rear.


Chapter IX: Contents -- The National Bank Law. Analysis of it.

SECTION 1. The Act of Congress which really constituted the basis of the present National Bank System was passed June 3, 1864.

The title reads as follows:

"An Act to provide a National Currency, secured by a pledge of United States Bonds and to provide for the circulation and the redemption thereof."

SECTION 1. Provides that a separate Bureau shall be established in the Treasury Department: that its Chief Officer shall be known as the Comptroller of the Currency. Salary $5,000 per annum. Shall have a Deputy at $2,000 per annum. Shall also have a force of clerks.

The Comptroller must give Bond of $100,000.

Deputy must give bond of $50,000.

SECTION 2. Provides for Seal of Office; Certified Copies of Papers, &c.

SECTION 3. Provides that the Comptroller shall have suitable rooms in Treasury Building and shall have Safe and Fire proof vaults.

SECTION 4. Provides that "United States Bonds" shall mean all registered Bonds now or hereafter issued.

SECTION 5. A Bank must be composed of not less than five persons associated together.


SECTION 6. Such persons shall sign a certificate stating:

1. The name of their Bank.

2. Its location.

3. Amount of Capital and number of Shares.

4. Names and residences of Shareholders and their respective Shares.

5. Statement that such Certificate is made to obtain "the advantages of this Act."

SECTION 7. In cities of 6,000 people or less a Bank may be Incorporated with a Capital of not less than $50,000. Where the population exceeds 50,000, the Capital of the Bank must not be less than $200,000. Between these limits of population the Bank must have a Capital of $100,000.

SECTION 8. Banks so incorporated run for 20 years. Have authority to discount, negotiate Bills, Notes. &c., receive Deposits, &c., &c., Can lend money on Personal Security

SECTION 9. Must have not less than Five Directors, who are sworn to discharge their duties and obey the law.

SECTION 10. Relates to Election of Directors.

SECTION 11. Relates to Votes of Shareholders.

SECTION 12. Stock divided into Shares of $100 each. Stockholders liable to the public to the extent of the par value of their Stock.

SECTION 13. Increase of Capital Stock provided for.

SECTION 14. Fifty per cent. of Stock must be paid in before commencing business; after that, 10 per cent. per month.

SECTION 15. Provides for selling Stock of delinquent Shareholders.

SECTION 16. Such Bank shall deposit with the U. S. Treasurer, Bonds to an amount not less than $30,000; nor less than one third the Stock paid in. Such Bank can take up its Bonds so deposited by retiring its Circulating Notes as hereafter provided.


SECTION 17. Conditions having been complied with, the Comptroller authorizes the Bank to commence business.

SECTION 18. He gives it a Certificate which must be published.

SECTION 19. The Bonds are to be held by the U. S. Treasurer in Trust for the Bank. A memorandum is made on each Bond stating that it is held in Trust and for the benefit of the Bank and as security for the Circulating Notes of the Bank.

SECTION 20. Prescribes how transfers of Bonds so held can be made.

SECTION 21. The Bonds having been thus deposited as a Security and papers having been signed up to that effect as already shown, the Comptroller issues Notes to the Bank equal in amount to 90 per cent. of the par value of the Bonds.

SECTION 22. Entire amount of such Notes limited to $300,000,000.

These Notes shall be printed on Government Plates in the best manner in various denominations from One Dollar to One Thousand Dollars.

They shall state on their face that they are secured by Bonds, deposited with the U. S. Treasurer. This Certificate shall be signed by the Treasurer and the Register of the Treasury and the Seal of the Treasury shall be attached.

On the face of the Note shall also appear the promise of the Bank to pay -- signed by its President, or Vice President and Cashier.

SECTION 23. After these Bank officers shall have signed the Notes, they are authorized to issue the same as money.

They shall be received at par in all parts of the United States in payment of Taxes, excises, public lands, and all other dues to the United States -- except for duties on Imports.


They shall be received for all salaries, and other demands owing by the United States to individuals, corporations and associations within the United States -- except interest on the Public Debt and in redemption of the National Currency.

SECTION 24. The Bank can obtain new money for worn or mutilated notes. Also for lost notes.

It is very remarkable that this privilege is confined to the Bank itself. Hence all notes destroyed or lost in the hands of individuals added to the profits of the bank.

SECTION 25. Provides that the Bank may annually examine the Bonds so deposited.

SECTION 26. The Bonds are expressly to be held as Security only; the interest on them is to be paid the Bank just as if they were not on deposit.

Bonds are surrendered when the Circulating Notes are returned.

SECTION 27. Makes it a crime to violate this Act.

SECTION 28. Authorizes the Bank to own Real Estate tor its own accommodation or in the collection of debts.

SECTION 29. Forbids excessive Loans to any one person.

SECTION 30. Interest on Loans to be governed by the Laws of the States and Territories where Banks located.

Where no State Law, then 7 per cent. interest, which may be taken in advance.

To charge more than this, works a forfeiture of all the interest.

SECTION 31. Requires a Reserve in lawful money of 25 per cent. of the amount of Circulating Notes outstanding of the Banks at certain cities. A Reserve of 15 per cent. at others.

SECTION 32. The Banks of the larger cities may redeem their Notes at a New York Bank (to be selected) and one half of the Reserves may be kept at such Bank.


Banks must honor each other's Notes,

SECTION 33. Relates to Dividends.

SECTION 34. Relates to Reports.

SECTION 35. Forbids Loans by Banks on their own Stock.

SECTION 36. Limits the Debt a Bank may incur.

SECTION 37. The Circulating Notes must not be used as a pledge to procure money to be paid in on Stock, or used in its Banking or otherwise.

SECTION 38. Capital not to be withdrawn.

SECTION 39. Forbids Bank from paying out Notes, Bills, &c., of any Bank below par.

SECTION 40. List of Shareholders to be kept, subject to inspection by State Tax Assessors.

SECTION 41. Cost of Printing the National Bank Notes to be paid out of the tax or duty levied on the circulation.

In January and July of each year a duty of one half of one per cent. is to be paid by the bank on the average amount of the Notes in circulation.

Also, one half of one per cent. a year on its average deposits.

Also a duty of one half of one per cent. a year on its Capital Stock over and above the amount invested in U. S. Bonds.

Forbids the States from levying a greater Tax upon the Shares than is levied upon State Bank Shares within that State.

SECTION 42. Provides that the Bank may close up its business. Notice must be published calling in its Notes. Those presented are paid off. Lawful money equal in amount to those not presented is paid over to the U. S. Treasurer, who then surrenders the Bonds.

After this, the Treasurer redeems the remainder of the outstanding Notes of the Bank.


SECTION 43. Treasurer must give Bank a Receipt for the Lawful money so paid over for redemption of Notes and as Notes are redeemed accounts must be kept showing how much, & c.

Redeemed Notes to be burnt.

SECTION 44. Provides that State Banks may become National Banks, on same terms.

SECTION 45. National Banks made Depositaries or Sub Treasuries of Public Monies.

SECTION 46. Failing to redeem its Notes, protest is to be made and notice given to the Comptroller.

SECTION 47. Comptroller may order examination. It appears that the Bank has failed to pay its Notes, the Bonds are forfeited to the United States.

The Government then pays the Bank's Notes and Cancels the Bonds to an equal amount.

The Government must pay off all the Notes of the Bank.

The Bonds being insufficient to re-imburse the Government, it then has a first Lien on all the Assets of the Bank to make good such deficiency.

SECTION 48. Bonds held as Security as aforesaid, may be sold at Auction by the Comptroller instead of being cancelled.

SECTION 49. Private Sale of such bonds, also, provided for.

SECTION 50. Receiver appointed to wind up the Bank.

The remaining Sections of the Act are not at all necessary to a clear understanding of the System itself. They provide penalties for Counterfeiting, Embezzling, &c., &c.

The last Section of the Act is in these words:

"Congress may at any time amend, alter, or repeal this Act."


Chapter X: History of the Legal Tenders.

SECTION 1. The battle of Bull Run was fought July 21, 1861.

The expenses of the Government in arming, equipping and sustaining its Military and Naval Forces rapidly increased.

The Banks suspended specie payments in December 1861.

The daily expenses of the Government ran up to Two Millions of Dollars per day. There was no Gold or Silver accessible with which to meet these huge demands.

What was to be done?

Prompt action was necessary to prevent a collapse.

Two days after, the Government Sub Treasuries were forced into suspension by the suspension of the Banks. Hon. E. G. Spaulding, Chairman of the Sub Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives introduced the Legal Tender Act.

It was pressed with desperate energy and became a Law Feb. 25, 1862.

As Mr. Spaulding was a Gold Bug on the money question, his evidence is valuable and I shall use it extensively.

He favored Paper Money as a matter of absolute necessity. Without it the Union could not fight for its life. Gold and Silver had hid out -- as usual.

His leading idea was to Fund the War Expenses.


Therefore, $500,000,000 of Gold Bonds bearing 6 per cent. interest were authorized and the Legal Tender Paper Money convertible into these Bonds at par.

It was expected that the Legal Tenders (Greenbacks) would circulate freely among the people in the Course of Trade and that as they accumulated in the hands of the Capitalists they would be exchanged for Bonds.

At the same time, Congress authorized a Tax of $150,000,000, so that the Government would be supplied with funds to meet the interest on the Bonds.

The first of these Legal Tenders (Greenbacks) were issued March 10, 1862. One Hundred Million Dollars of Paper Money thus came to the relief of the struggling Government at a time when all other resources had failed.

Mr. Spaulding says the pressure on the Treasury was at once relieved.

Other issues of Greenbacks followed as they were needed.

When Chase resigned in 1864 the amount of Legal Tender Paper of all kinds outstanding was $1,100,000,000.

Stanton said in a letter dated Nov. 28, 1869, "without them (the Greenbacks) he does not see how the Armies could have been raised, equipped, fed, clothed, &c.."

Seward said they were indispensable and effective.

At the beginning of the War the United States had no National Bank Currency and very little Metallic Currency. The War was fought on credit.

SECTION 2. As the Greenback Act was passed through the House it provided that the Paper so issued should be full Legal Tender.

The New York, Philadelphia and Boston Bankers opposed the Bill. They organized and came to Washington. Mr. Gallatin, a New York Banker, was their Spokesman. They proposed a


modification of the Spaulding Bill. A part of their plan was that the Paper Money should not be good in payment of Import Duties and Interest on Bonds.

This was the famous "Exception Clause."

Their plan was rejected so far as the public could see at the time; but when the Spaulding Bill reached the Senate that Exception Clause became a part of it. Thad. Stevens and others protested against a law which created one kind of Currency for the Soldier and another for the Bondholder.

The protest was not heeded. The Bill was amended as the Bankers demanded.

Mr. Spaulding (when the Bill went back to the House) opposed the exception. He pointed out that the Government was hurting its own credit by such a clause and that full Legal Tender quality was needful to keep the Paper at par. His warning went for nothing.

The Bankers had their way.

Thad. Stevens proposed an Amendment to the effect that Soldiers and Sailors should be paid in as good money as Bond holders.

It was voted down.

Yeas 67. Nays 72.

Among the Yeas were Messrs. Aldrich, Baker, Bingham, Francis, Blair, Fessenden, Hale, Harrison, Kellogg, Morrill, Sherman, Stevens, Spaulding, Voorhees, and Windom.

Among the Nays were Messrs. Roscoe Conkling, Crittenden, Dawes, English, Justin S. Morrill, Vallandigham, and Washburne.

This vote was taken Feb. 20, 1862.

The effect of the Exception Clause was to put all the Gold into the hands of a few Bankers.

It did so.


While brave men enduring the hardships of War and were being paid off in Paper whose value the Government itself had depreciated, the Bankers were gathering into their coffers the entire Gold supply of the land.

They have it to this day. Hence their frantic objection to any Currency which does not submit to Gold as its Master.

Hence their desperate determination to keep the advantage which they most illegally got during the dark years of National distress,

Then, as now, they deserved the scathing words of Mr. Kellogg in Congress when he denounced them for "making merchandise of the hopes and fears of the Republic."

Whenever our people hear the Bankers raising a hue and cry for "Honest Money" let them well understand that it means only this: "The Bankers got all the Gold by Statutory theft during the War and they mean to hold the plunder, and to extend the advantage which it gives them."

"Honest Money," from a Banker's standpoint, means this: "My Money on top of yours; My Gold measuring your Sweat; My Stripes laid on your back; My toll dish in your grain; My Master ship over labor in all its fields and in all its homes."

SECTION 3. That Congress has full power to issue Legal Tender Paper Money, has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

From their last Decision I quote as follows: "Juilliard vs. Greeman, 1884: Congress as the Legislative of a Sovereign Nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution to levy and collect Taxes, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States and to borrow money on the credit of the United States and to corn money and to regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin,


and being clearly authorized to coin as incidental to the exercise of those great powers, to emit bills of credit, to charter National Banks, and to provide a National Currency for the whole people in the form of Coin, Treasury Notes, and National Bank Bills, and the power to make Notes of the Government a Legal Tender in payment of private debts, being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution, we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that upon Treasury Notes of the United States the quality of being Legal Tender in the payment of Private Debts is an appropriate means conducive and plainly adapted to execution of the undoubted power of Congress consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution; therefore, within the meaning of that instrument necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution of the Government of the United States. Such being our conclusion in the matter of law, the question whether at any time in war or peace the exigency is such that by reason of unusual and pressing demands on the resources of the Government or the inadequacy of the supply of Gold and Silver coin to furnish the Currency needed for uses of the Government and of the people, that it is as a matter of fact wise and expedient to resort to this means is a political question to be determined by Congress when a question of exigency arises, and not a judicial question to be afterwards passed upon by the Courts. It follows that the Act of May 31, 1878, is constitutional and valid, and that the Circuit Court rightly held that a tender in Treasury Notes re-issued and kept in circulation under that Act was a tender of lawful money in payment of the defendant's debt to plaintiff."

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Opinion by Justice Gray, Justice Field dissenting.

SECTION 4. At present the amount of Greenbacks in existence is $346,000,000.


The balance has been destroyed.

Hugh McCulloch, Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln began to burn them up in 1865.

By the Resumption Act, in which culminated the Resumption Policy which both the Old Parties had promised the Bankers in their National Platforms, it was intended to retire all the Paper Money of the Government and to leave the people entirely at the mercy of the Bankers.

Public indignation grew so strong that the destruction of the Greenback was stopped by Act of Congress in 1878.

The Act of Congress dated April 12, 1866 was really the first Funding Act after the war. It was supplemental to the Act March 3, 1865.

Under these two Acts the obligations of the Government which were circulating among the people to the amount of $1,363,409,226 at the time the latter Act was passed, were retired from use a funded in Bonds bearing 6 per cent. interest.

By this means about one half of the Paper Money was struck down.

By the year 1870 when the Bonds were refunded only $691, 028,377 of the Paper Currency was left among the people.

This Act of 1866 which had such a terrible effect in destroying the Circulating Medium passed the Senate by a vote of 32 Yeas to 7 Nays.

All the Nay votes were Republicans.

Only five Democratic votes were cast; and they were "Yeas.

In the House the vote was: Yeas, 83; Nays, 54. Twenty eight Democrats voted yea; one, Nay. Fifty three Republicans voted Nay; same number Yea.

"Pot and Kettle!"

In 1868 a temporary halt was called to the destruction of Greenbacks which was going on.


Congress by a brief bill declared that the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the Currency by cancelling United States Notes be SUSPENDED.

Vote in the House:

Yea -- Messrs. Adams, Allison, Anderson, Arthur, Arnell, J. M. Ashley, Axtell, Baker, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Brooks, Buckland, Burr, Butler, Cary, Churchill, Rdot; W. Clarke, Sidney Clark, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Covode, Cullom, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Egleston, Fla, Eldridge, Fansworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, Golladay, Gravely, Griswold, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Hawkins, Hill, Higby, Holman, Hopkins, Hotchkiss, Asabel W. Hubbard, Hulbert, Hunter, Ingersoll, Jones, Judd, Julian, Keliey, Kelsey, Kerr, Ketcham, Knott, Koontz, Lafiin, Wm. Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, McClurg, Mercur, Miller, Moor-head, Morgan, Mullins, Mungen, Myers, Newcomb, Niblack, Nunn, O'Neil, Orth, Paine, Perham, Pile, Plants, Polsley, Robertson, Ross, Saywer, Schenck, Shanks, Smith, Starkweather, A. F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Taylor, Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, R. T. Van Horn, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Cadwalader, C. Washburn, H. D. Washburn, Welker, Thos. Williams, Wm. Williams, J. F. Wilson, J. T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Woodbridge -- 127.

Nay -- Messrs. Ames, D. R. Ashley, Blaine, Broomall, Dawes, Eliot, Garfield, Getz, Glassbrenner, Grover, Haight, Hooper, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Johnston, G. V. Lawrence, McCullough, Peters, Phelps, Pike, Poland, Price, Pruyn, Randall, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Van Auken, Ward, Elihu B. Wasliburne, Wmdot; B. Washburn, and Woodward -- 32.

Not voting -- Messrs. Bailey, Baldwin, Blair, Coke, Chanler, Cornell, Finney, Fox, C. D. Hubbard, Jenckes, Kitchen, Mallory,


Marshall, Moore, Morrell, Morrissey, Nicholson, Pomeroy, Raum, Robinson, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Taffe, Twichell, Burt Vanhom, Windom, and Wood -- 28.

In the Senate the vote was:

Yea -- Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cameron, Cattell, Cole, Cragin, Doolittle, Drake, Fowler, Frelinghuysen, Harlen, Henderson, Hendricks, Howard, Howe, Morrill of Maine, Morton, Norton, Nye, Patterson of Tennessee, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Thayer, Tipton, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Yates -- 33.

Nay -- Messrs. Conkling, Terry, Morgan, Patterson of New Hampshire -- 4.

Absent -- Messrs. Bayard, Chandler, Conness, Corbett, Davis, Dixon, Edmunds, Fessenden, Grimes, Guthrie, Johnston, Morrill of Vermont, Saulsbury, Sprague, Sumner, Van Winkle -- 16.

Commenting upon this vote in the Political Tickler, Mr. N. A. Dunning says:

"This was demanded because of the changed condition among the people. Where prosperity had obtained, adversity and hard times began to be felt. Business failures had increased from 495, with liabilities of only $8,579,000, in 1864, to 2,780, with liabilities of $96,666,000, in 1867. The people were not prepared for such a change in their affairs, and a general murmur of discontent was heard throughout the country. Complaints of this character were well founded, and are always made when the volume of circulating medium is reduced. From January 1, 1866, to January 1, 1868, the Currency of the country had been contracted, according to W. L. Faucett, $986,502,953. Other authorities place it's at a much larger amount."

SECTION 5. In the Financial History of the War by Hon. E. G. Spaulding (author of the Legal Tender Act) he gives the following statement of the amount of Paper Money in circulation on


June 30, 1864. Greenbacks, $431,000,000; Postal Fractional Currency, $23,000,000; Interest bearing Legal Tender Notes, $168,000 000; Certificates of Indebtedness, $161,000,000; National Bank Notes, $26,000,000; Seven thirty Treasury Notes, $109,000,000; Temporary Deposits for which certificates were issued, $72,000, 000. I have used round numbers.

After the surrender of the Confederate Armies the Volunteers in the Union ranks had to be mustered out of service and paid off.

Secretary McCuIloch paid them off by means of paper Money known as the Seven thirty Treasury Notes.

After paying off the army the amount of this particular issue of Paper Money outstanding (Oct. 1865) was $830,000,000 which, by law were convertible in three years into Five twenty six per cent. Bonds.

Now let the reader add up the items and he will be able to expose the untruthful statement of those who now endeavor to show that the Currency has not been decreased per capita.

He will find by adding the Seven thirty Notes to the amount of Greenbacks, Fractional Currency, Interest bearing Notes, National Bank Notes and Certificates, that, Eighteen Hundred Million Dollars (in round numbers) were in circulation October 1865. This is exclusive of Bonds, State Bank issues and Metallic money.

The amount of Bonds outstanding was in round numbers only $1,160,000,000.

But under the operation of Funding Laws the Paper Money, which to a large extent was casting the people nothing, was retired from circulation and put into Bonds which cost the people high interest, wrung from them in Gold.

To show how rapidly this went on I will state that in 1868, only $817,000,000 of the circulating Paper Money of 1865 was still outstanding.


One Thousand Millions (in round numbers) had either been burnt or put into Bonds!

Anyone who will study the tables now sent out by the Secretary of the Treasury will see that he does not count the $830,000,000 of Seven thirty Notes at all. Yet they were good enough to furnish means to pay off the army. The truth is, that Jay Cooke negotiated them all at par. Mr. Spaulding so states in his book.

Hon. John Davis, the able and untiring member of Congress from Kansas, has recently exposed the method in which the Treasury Statements are made up in an open Letter to the Secretary.

Mr. N. A. Dunning, to whose fearless and continual researches we owe so much, has also shown, time and again, that the Official Treasury Statements are entirely inaccurate.

Without going into detail, which is impossible in a work like this, I have thought it sufficient to give the main facts derived from the witnesses on the other side and which sufficiently prove our case.

These witnesses make this sort of a case: --

1. Gold and Silver faded the Government in its hour of need.

2. Paper Money was the strong ally to whom the Government said "Help me, Cassius, or I sink."

3. Paper Money fed the Armies, supplied all the munitions of war and paid the Soldier and Sailor who dared all the dangers of battle.

4. The Bankers, skulking in the rear, induced the Government to adopt a policy which depreciated its own promises; which drove all the Gold into the hands of the Bondholders; which made one currency for the Banker and another for the People.

5. That the Bankers still dreaded this money of the people and wanted it destroyed; that they had millions of it burnt; that they had millions of it retired into costly bonds; that they made these bonds the basis of a system by which their own paper should


take the place of the Government Paper they had destroyed; that they thus forced the people who needed money to come to them for it and submit to their terms, that the cheap un-monopolized currency which the Bankers resisted belonged to the people, under the law as decided by the Supreme Court; that the advantages the Bankers got by destroying the Greenback Currency of the people was taken from those people in violation of their constitutional rights, and that all this financial scheme, reduced to its last analysis was the taking away from the people untold millions of dollars which was theirs by the law of the land.

SECTION 6. It only remains for me to quote Mr. Spaulding one more time.

He was a Gold bug and his testimony in our favor was not intentional.

Hear him: --

"The amount of the issue of paper currency and temporary obligations in various forms was most appalling. Considerable over one million of men were at one period of the war withdrawn from productive labor. The strain upon the credit of the Government with eleven States practically out of the Union was very great. It would seem that no other country could have borne up under such a sudden expansion of the credit circulation and the changing of so many men from producers to destroyers of life and property. This great inflation of the Paper Medium had however some compensating advantages. It stimulated into wonderful activity all the productive energies of common labor, skilled labor, and machinery of all kinds. War material was produced with amazing rapidity and in abundant quantity for equipping, supporting and moving all in the field and navies afloat. The people never flagged, hesitated the great armies or faltered in producing and furnishing all these vast war materials and receiving in exchange for it the promises issued to them by the Government. They seemed to be getting


rich by the operation and although it was to some extent unreal yet this stimulus aided by patriotic determination to maintain the Union was great enough to induce the people to furnish everything necessary to supply the Army and Navy to crush the Rebellion at the mouth of the cannon and point of the bayonet.

These bold and decisive financial measures gave power and dignity to the Government, etc."

Such is the testimony of an unwilling witness who all the way through his Book apologizes for his Greenback Measure.

Yet if it gave "power and dignity to the Government"; if it "crushed the Rebellion of eleven States;" if it maintained one of the finest armies the world ever saw; if it kept the camp in abundance and the home of the people in plenty; if by its means every artery of business throbbed with the strong life blood of a free currency, then why was it not a marvelously good money?

Why was it not allowed to do as much in time of Peace as it had done in the gloomy days of Strife?

Why were not the people allowed to increase the genera prosperity which professedly prevailed?

Why was the currency of the people selected as a victim and offered up as a sacrifice upon the Altars of the Banker and the Bond holder? On Dec. 4, 1865, Secretary McCulloch in his Annual Report expressed the opinion that the Greenbacks should all be retired, that their destruction should commence without delay; that the "Gold Standard" should be adopted.

On the 18th day of Dec. 1865, the House adopted this remarkable resolution:

"Resolved that this House cordially concurs in the views of the Secretary of the Treasury in relation to the necessity of a contraction of the currency etc."

This pledge of legislative aid in carrying the policy the Bond holder demands was passed almost unanimously.


Yeas 144. Nays 6.

Those voting no, were Messrs. Baker, Cobb, Eckley, Harris, Smith, Thayer.

Among these voting Yea, were Allison, Ames, Banks, Bingham, Boutwell, Conking, Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Ferry, Garfield, Hale, Hayes, Kerr, Samuel J. Randall, Spaulding, Voorhees, Washburne.

Both Democrats and Republicans responsible.


Chapter XI: Demonetization of Silver.

Few subjects have been more misunderstood than this. Most people believe that Demonetization means the stoppage of coinage. Therefore when they are assured that a greater amount of Silver was coined within a few months after the Demonetization of Silver in 1873, than had been coined from 1792 down to that time they are puzzled. They can't understand where the injustice and injury came in.

To explain this, requires a statement which carries us at once to an examination of the difference between a substance, considered as a mere Commody (such as Gold, Silver and Paper) and the same substance when the Law breathes into it the Legal Tender quality called "Money."

Gold may be ever so useful as an ornament, a source of pleasure or a means of profit, but these qualities alone give it no advantage over Cotton and Wheat. It is less of a natural necessity than either. The world can do without it more easily than it can do without Cotton and Wheat. Therefore, if left alone to the natural basis of exchange it would have to take its chances in the markets with Cotton and Wheat and fetch a high price or a low one (just as they would do) according to the well known Laws of Supply and Demand, Cost of Production, etc. The same is true of Silver; it has


its national uses as a substance, just as Iron and Copper has. The world needs it to supply various useful demands. But the world also needs Iron and Copper. Left to the operation of Natural Laws, Iron might be considered the most valuable metal of the two. It is quite certain that the world could not get along without Iron. It is equally certain that it can get along without Silver. Left to Natural Laws therefore the markets of the world would set a price on Silver just as they do on Iron -- with reference to Supply and Demand, Cost of Production, etc.

The same is true of Paper. It is a most useful substance. If the world had to choose between the loss of all Paper and the loss of the Silver (considered as mere substances) I do not doubt they would keep Paper and let Silver go. Paper is more indispensable. It meets more wants, fills more demands, is capable of being the instrument of a greater number of conveniences, comforts, luxuries, refinements and absolute necessities.

For Silver or Gold, a substitute can be had in almost every instance of its use.

For Paper no substitute whatever can be had.

Destroy it, and all the Libraries close doors; the Newspapers stop grinding; one main channel of communication is choked; education halts and stares helplessly around; civilization stumbles, being deprived of one of the supports by which its progress is made; the spread of information, the march of thought, the imperial car which bears down the avenue of the ages the gathered jewels of all the past, pauses in its advance!

The world cannot do without Paper.

It can do without Silver or Gold.

Left to itself it would exchange with Gold and Silver in the markets of the world in obedience to the Natural Laws of Supply and Demand, Cost of Production, etc.


But the moment the Law steps in and imparts a new quality to Gold or Silver or Paper; the moment a new function is given by statute, then either of them, or all of them, have a value they did not have before.

They will at once take a higher place among the substances world uses. They will at once command a higher price because Law has given them a higher value. This is a simple explanation which goes to the bottom of the money question.

In past ages of the world all exchanges were made by weight measure, &c. The one Commodity was matched against the other Commodity. When Silver was used it was weighed like Cotton one could have the pleasure of haggling over the price. If "sellers and buyers were apart" the man who had the Oil or Wheat could cock his hat on one side and tell the Silver man to "go to" -- hotter climates.

In other words there was no Law saying that the value of Silver was guaranteed while the price of Oil and Wheat would have to depend upon circumstances.

The same was true of Gold. It was a mere Commodity. It had its uses like Salt and Honey and Cedar Wood and Spices. Its value had to depend upon natural laws trade just like other Commodities.

The Gold man could not afford to give the Spice man any of his lip.

He might get it mashed.

The Spice man in those days considered himself quite as needful in the markets of the world as the Gold man.

The Cedar Wood man also had his notions.

The Salt man objected to being sneezed at.

The Honey man was likewise quick on trigger and ready at any moment to say to the Gold man "You're another."


In other words, absolute Equality between the Commodities of various Traders prevailed in the markets; and each had to take its chance.

In the course of time, trade in the Commodities themselves grew cumbersome.

The world outgrew the stage of Barter.

Therefore, men began to agree upon some representative of value which all would respect and with reference to which all exchanges would be made.

Sometimes they used Cattle; sometimes Shells; sometimes Tobacco; sometimes Iron, Copper, Brass.

The Legal Tender of Sparta was Iron. Gold and silver were prohibited by Law.

The Legal Tender of Rome was Copper.

Gold and Silver were mere Merchandise -- not Money.

When the Wild tribes of the North began to overrun the decayed Nations of Europe they brought Silver with them.

This was the first general appearance of Silver as a Legal Tender: -- as Money.

Previously it was a Commodity which had to be weighed out, haggled over and agreed upon.

Gold had not yet come upon the Stage as Money. It is only within the last two Centuries that it has become a Legal Tender and by shrewd manipulation became the Autocrat of the Financial world.

In 1792, the Jefferson Free Coinage Act provided for the free and unlimited Coinage of Gold and Silver on equal terms upon a ratio of 15 to 1.

This was the law till 1873.

By means of this law Silver maintained its Equality with Gold simply because it answered the same monetary purposes.


A citizen having a debt to pay didn't care a snap which Metal he carried with him to his Creditor, because the Law said the Creditor must take either.

If he was bull headed about it and refused the offer of Silver, his Debt was dead. The legal offer to pay was equal to actual payment.

This is what is meant by Legal Tender: -- Legal offer to pay. Now let the Reader bear in mind that both Silver and Gold under this Law had a value which without that law they lacked. Hence to that extent, their price rose in the Market as against all other Commodities which the Law did not treat with the same favor.

This is too clear to be disputed and too important to be ignored.

Under the Law, it was the duty of the directors of the Mints of the United States to Coin all Silver Bullion into Standard Dollars and other Denominations, as the owner of the Bullion might desire.

In 1873, the House of Representatives passed an Act Revising and Consolidating the various Coinage Laws. Among the Coins provided for was the Standard Silver Dollar: -- the Unit of Value since 1792.

In the Senate this provision was dropped. The Standard Silver Dollar was struck down. The Unit of Value since 1792 was changed. The Scepter departed from Silver and Gold and was usurped by Gold alone.

In other words, where both Metals had previously had the advantage over all Commodities in the market, one metal now had it.

The Trade Dollar (not full Legal Tender) was retained, half dollars were retained; so were quarters and dimes.


But the Standard Silver Dollar (full Legal Tender) was struck down.

But the Crime was not complete.

The further Coinage of Standard Silver Dollars was stopped but those already coined still circulated as Legal Tenders and to that extent interfered with the Monopoly of the Gold men.

By Act of Congress approved June 22, 1874, the finishing stroke was given. The Legal Tender Quality was taken from the Standard Silver Dollar and it was thereby reduced to the footing of a Commodity.

I have already said that the Trade Dollar and the fractional Silver pieces (called Subsidiary Coin) were not full Legal Tender.

Their quality as Money was limited to offers of $5.00.

Their usefulness in all transactions of importance was gone.

To give a conclusive example of the value of the Legal Tender quality imparted by Law, the Reader should remember that the Trade Dollar contained 420 grains of Silver while the Standard Silver Dollar contained only 412˝ grains.

Yet the smaller amount of Silver constantly passed as a Dollar while the larger one passed at Eighty odd cents.

If any lunatic on the subject of "God made Money" can explain this upon his theory, I would go a long ways to hear him.

God no more makes Money than he makes Shingles or Brick.

Man makes Money out of God's materials just as Shingles and Bricks are made.

The Legal Tender quality lifts Silver into the power and dignity of Money.

No better illustration was ever afforded than we had in the large Silver Dollar, not Legal Tender, being driven out by the small Silver Dollar which was Legal Tender.

The Legal Tender quality having been destroyed by the act of 1874, Silver fell into the list of Cotton and Corn and Iron.


Gold dominated it just as it dominated the others.

The men who had the Gold (and I have shown how they got it) fixed the value of all the products of labor not by any Natural Law, but by an artificial and illegal and unjust law.

Vicious legislation having driven all the Gold into the hands of a class, vicious legislation said that this class should rule all the others by means of their gold which fixed the wages of the laborer, the prices of the merchant, the income of the farmer, and the annual tribute of the debtor.

And what the Laws said should be done, has been done, Gold is King, and the Producer everywhere, is his slave.

SECTION 2.Responsibility. -- Neither Democrats nor Republicans protested against this crime.

John Sherman led the Bankers. Nobody led for the people. Nobody spoke for the people. Nobody voted for the people.

The records are a blank and the excuse now given for this great crime is that "they didn't know that it was loaded."

That's an excuse which has never yet stopped the funeral, or given much consolation to the mourners.

In addition, I will submit the following observations:

1. Never will the Products of Labor command their natural price in the market as they did in the olden times of Barter till there is a sufficiency of Currency to do the work for which Money was created.

2. This amount cannot be arbitrarily fixed by any Law. It must be left to the demands of the business world under safe limitations. There can never be too much Money in circulation as long as each dollar afloat is the representative of that much Produce. There will never be enough Money afloat as long as Commodities suffer because there is no Money to affect their ready exchange.

3. A Currency System should be flexible; that is, the supply


should increase as the demand increases and diminish as the demand ceases.

4. To say that a Government promise or pledge is without value unless redeemed in Gold or Silver is a vicious heresy.

No man wants Gold or Silver just to put away. He wants it because it pays debts, buys land, commands the products of labor or brings him income by way of Loan.

As long as Paper Money answers the same purpose, the value is as great. Let the Government put its pledge behind a Paper Dollar and it is sustained by all the power of Government to tax all the wealth of land to redeem it.

Hence, that Paper Pledge is founded upon the fact that the Government can, by Taxation, levy tribute upon all classes of Produce, including Gold and Silver, to redeem the Pledge.

Hence, the Paper Promise is good as long as the Government stands.

Every acre of land, every bushel of grain, every ship on the American waters, every mineral in American mines are subject to the Government's power to Tax them to make good its Paper Promises.

They why should not our Paper Money be good?

Our Bonds are but Paper Promises. They have always borne a Premium since the stability of the Government was assured.


Simply because all the wealth in America was subject to Taxation to make good the promise.

Let the Government Issue its full Legal Tender Greenbacks, containing its promise to receive them in payment of all Taxes, Imports and Dues, and they would circulate at par with Gold in every channel of trade and in every walk of life.

The undoubted might of the Governmental Fiat would be in every dollar and the dollar could only die when the Government died.


Chapter XII: Contents -- High Tariffs; How They Are Constructed; Who Gets the Benefit, Etc.

SECTION 1. In the Appendix will be found two speeches upon this subject.

In addition, I will give some extracts from an able argument of Hon. Wm. E. Wilson, of West Virginia, delivered in the House, this session, while the Tree Wool Bill was under discussion.

It may be worth remark that the Bill puts Wool (the Farmer's Product) on the Free List; while upon Woolen Goods (the Manufacturer's Product) it leaves a high duty.

This is a great injustice and the Bill received our support upon the sole ground that we are Free Traders and believes in voting for it every chance we get, however small the dose may be.

It would have been much more to the credit of the Democrats if they had put the Manufacturer upon the same footing as the Wool grower.

SECTION 2. -- How Tariffs are Made. "Mr. Speaker, we have had in this debate a series of extravagant eulogies on the Tariff Law of 1890. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Dingley) pronounces it to be "consistent, comprehensive, and complete, with all the different parts properly and justly related." The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dalzell) eulogizes it as "complete,


comprehensive, and logical." Other gentlemen have used stronger words of praise.

Now, sir, I want to call the attention of the House to the manner in which a "consistent, logical, and complete" Protective Tariff is built up.

The gentleman from Maine doubtless thinks he is one of the chief architects of the present law. My friend from Michigan (Mr. Burrows) and my friend from New York (Mr. Payne) each for himself indulge the same pleasant illusion. They were all members of the committee which reported the law to this House.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is abundant and unimpeachable evidence to destroy all their claims.

I turn to the very schedule of the law now under consideration and I find that Mr. McKinley, in presenting to this House the Conference Report. September 27, 1890, said of it: "This schedule has the hearty approval of the National Wool Growers' Association, and of the several State associations throughout the country."

In the next sentence he says, "And Mr. Speaker, that is entirely true also of the Tobacco Schedule," although he omits to say who had approved this latter. As to the great and comprehensive metal schedule, constituting so large a part of the Tariff and contributing so much of its political and pecuniary strength, I read in the report made by Mr. James M. Swank, Secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association, made to the President of that association, that "during the long period in which this measure (the McKinley Bill) received the consideration of Congress the views of this association concerning the proper framing of the metaL schedule of the New Tariff were frequently solicited and were promptly given;" and he adds that "the schedule as adopted is the most harmonious and completely protective of all the metal schedules" in our Tariff Legislation, we are not left in


doubt that the views so "promptly" given were "promptly" accepted.

So much for the origin of three important schedules. Let us pursue this investigation a little further. Turning to page 290 the hearings before the Committee of Ways and Means of the last Congress, I find that Mr. William Whitman, President of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, said he "had framed two clauses" prescribing the taxes on Women's and Children Press Goods, and these clauses turn up as Mr. Whitman framed them as sections 374 and 375 of the McKinley Act, with a blank in the provisos, filled doubtless according to the same gentleman suggestion. [Laughter.]

At page 281 of the hearings, Mr. Isaac N. Heidelberger, in behalf of the Wholesale Clothier Manufacturers, submitted a memorandum of their demands, and that memorandum, so far as it related to Woolen Clothing, is substantially embodied in paragraph 396 of the Act. [Laughter.]

The makers of firearms appeared at page 1255 with the sections they wished "incorporated and made a part of the Tariff Schedule of Duties" and those sections appear in their own words as paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Act, with a single trifling change. [Laughter.]

Again at page 92 of the hearing may be found the demands of the tin-plate makers -- that were going to be -- proffered by the trusted counselor of my friend from Michigan (Mr. Burrows), and although thousands and tens of thousands of consumers, and laborers protested against these demands, Mr. Cronemeyer's wishes are exactly embodied in paragraph 143 of the McKinley Bill. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Miller rose. (Cries of "Sit down!" "Sit down!" on the Democratic side.


Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia. I hope the gentlemen will not break up this recital. In a few minutes I will yield to him. At page 79 of these hearings, Mr. Chas. S. Landers, representing the makers of table cutlery, presented the corrections and amendments which they wished to the Senate clause, and at paragraph 167 of the Act his memorandum appears in the very words in which he wrote it. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

On page 65 of the hearings, Mr. W. F. Rockwell makes known the demands of the makers of pocket cutlery, and these demands literally reappear in paragraph 165 of the Bill. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Now I understand for the first time in my life how a "consistent, logical, complete" Protective Tariff is framed, "with the different parts properly and justly related." [Renewed applause.] Our friends upon the other side merely leave the blanks on the committee table and look at the ceiling or stroll around the Capitol while the parties who desire to tax the people come and fill in the blanks according to the suggestions of their own greed of selfishness. [Applause.]

And that is the method of constructing a "comprehensive and logical Bill."

How much trouble my friend from Indiana (Mr. Holman) could avoid if instead of toiling over his Appropriation Bills he would only put the blanks on his committee table and invite the Government Officials to come and write in the salaries they desire to receive. [Laughter.] Yet it is just as right, just as safe and proper, just as defensible to make up an Appropriation Bill by allowing parties to write in their own salaries as it is to make up a Tariff Bill by allowing parties to write in their own bounties. [Applause,] And now before I leave this subject I want to acknowledge my obligations to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Turner) for part of this information.


Mr. Miller. Will the gentlemen now permit me to ask a question!

Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia. I will hear it.

Mr. Miller. The gentleman has spoken of the understanding that the former Committee on Ways and Means had with the Manufacturers in framing the McKinley Bill. I would like to know whether the gentleman can give us any information as to whether this Bill is satisfactory to the Manufacturers of Woolen Goods.

Mr.Wilson, of West Virginia. The Bill was written in the interest of the Consumers of Woolen Goods, not by the Manufacturers; and if, as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Dingley) and others assert, we have not made our assault upon the Tariff in a scientific way, we may be excused for having left a few blanks on the table so that the Taxpayers of the country might come in and write a few simple measures of relief. [Applause.]

Public Taxes and Private Bounty. -- Mr. Speaker, the books of the Government disclose only the revenue it receives under our Tariff Laws. They do not tell us how much is paid by the Taxpayer in bounty to the protected industries. This, although an extremely interesting question, is at best a matter of more or less skillful guesswork. No man can give an accurate answer to it. But I think I can illustrate the two extremes, somewhere between which all these Taxes fall.

Under the former law we imposed a Tax upon Sugar. That Tax produced a public revenue of about $55,000,000, and gave an incidental protection to the producers of Sugar in this country. The last Congress put raw sugar on the free list, and undertook to commute the bounty hitherto carried in the Tariff to the producers of raw sugar. When that bounty, thus commuted, materializes and appears as so many dollars, we find that under the former Sugar Tariff it cost the people $10,000,000 additional to get the $55,000, 000 into the Treasury.


In other words, the consumers of Sugar were made by the Tariff on sugar to pay $65,000,000, of which ten millions went to the domestic producers and fifty five millions went into the Treasury. This was an approach to a Revenue Tax. The people paid it and the people's Government received the largest part of it. And for this very reason when the last Congress came to deal with a surplus revenue it abolished the Sugar Tax in order that it might keep away from an even increase taxes that go to the protected interests. The Treasury was relieved of a surplus but the people were not relieved of any Taxes.

The release of the Tariff or Sugar was merely a change of a Revenue Tax paid to the Government into protective taxes or bounties paid to Sugar Producers, to makers of Iron and Steel, of Woolen, Cotton and Linen Goods, of Tin-plate, Cotton ties, Pottery and Glassware, and other things. Let us turn now from the Sugar Tax to the Tax upon Steel Rails. Much has been made of that. The old argument, exploded a hundred times, that our Tariff has brought down the price of Steel Rails in this country, has reappeared time after time in this debate.

Steel Rails. -- The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dalzell) representing, a section where Steel Rails are largely produced attempted to make the impression on this House that they are sold as cheaply in this country as in England, and to sustain such an alligation he embodied in his speech a table showing the comparative cost of Steel Rails in the two countries for the first two months of the year 1890. It is "strange that he did not push his inquiry a little further and find out, as he might have done and as he should have done before attempting to instruct the House, that during the whole period that Steel Rails have been made in this country these were almost the only months during which our prices and the English prices have come together, and that their brief equality was


due to a sudden flurry in the English iron market that quickly pass away.

I have before me a Tariff Tract prepared by Mr. Swank, Secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association, and published in the bulletin of that Association June 11, 1890, in which he gives the comparative prices of Steel Rails, averaged by years, in the two countries from 1867 to 1890, and there is no year in which the American price is not far in excess of the English price, even when the English price is increased by the additional cost of production in this country and of ocean carriage.

In June 1890, they are quoted at $41.89 in the United States, and at $21.89 in England.

And, Mr. Speaker, that I may not misquote the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I turn to his very words, that now "under the beneficent shelter of the protective policy we have our rails as cheap as the Englishmen have theirs."

I hold in my hand the last report of the Department of Labor, which contains a careful and exhaustive inquiry into the cost of producing Steel Rails here and in Europe. The conclusion reached is that it cost about $22 per ton in this country and about $18 per ton in England, and the report avers that $5 will more than cover the difference in the cost of production here and abroad.

Let us see now: what are the present quotations for Steel Rails here and in England. According to Bradstreet's for March 12, 1892, from which I read, the American price on that date was $30 per ton. Turning now to the Iron and Steel Trades Journal of London for March 12, 1892, from which I also read, I find the English price at that date was Ł4 2s. 6d., just about $20, a difference of $10 per ton, while the report proves that the difference in cost of production is less than $5 per ton.

Now, the committee that reported the McKinley Bill to this House said:


"We have recommended no duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of production here, including labor, and the cost of like production in the countries which seek our markets," and yet the bill put a duty of $13.44 per ton on Steel Rails which is in addition to the protection of at least $3 per ton in freight, commissions, and like charges. Under "the beneficent shelter" of that Bill the Steel Rail Pool -- for it is an undisputed fact that the few mills in this country are in a pool -- have been able to maintain the price to American purchasers at $10 above the English price.

Last year the Government collected $13,000 in duty on imported rails, while our own mills produced and sold at least 1,500, 000 tons. If, therefore, the Tariff enabled the Steel Rail Pool to exact only $5 a ton on this output over and above normal costs and profits there was a pure bounty of $7,500,000, and out of the entire tax and bounty only $13,000, as I have shown, went into the Treasury.

In the case of Sugar, under a Revenue Tariff with the so called Incidental Protection, the consumers paid $65,000,000 and the Treasury received $55,000,000 of it. In the case of Steel Rails, under a typical Protective and Monopoly Tariff, the consumers paid $15,013,000, of which sum at least $7,500,000 were in addition to normal costs and profits, and the Treasury received $13,000 of it. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Direct Beneficiaries of Protection. -- We have but to take the census in which the various occupations of our people are sorted, and the number of employees in each industry is given, and the Tariff which shows how many of these industries are protected against a possible foreign competition.

As the census of 1890 is not yet complete and available I will take that of 1880, for it will be found that the relative number will be the same in both, and I will use the results worked out by


so great a statistician as Mr.Edward Atkinson, whose methods and calculations have been submitted for test and verification.

In the year 1880 one out of every three of our population, or a total of 17,400,000 people were engaged in gainful pursuits. They were distributed in round numbers as follows: In agricultural as farmers or laborers nearly 8,000,000; in professional or personal service 4,000,000; in trade and transportation nearly 2,000,000, and in manufacturing, mechanic arts, and mining not quite 4,000, 000.

All of these workers, Mr. Atkinson, after careful examination, finds that the number employed in producing things which in some measure might be competed with by a foreign product imported into our country is only 1,200,000. On the other hand, taking the whole number engaged in agriculture and manufactures, and comparing our exports of both with our entire product, he finds that there are 1,400,000 in agriculture and 200,000 in manufactures; 1,600,000 in all who depend wholly on foreign sales and the export of the product of their labor for their sustenance.

The remaining 14,600,000 of our workers for gain are subject to no direct influence by the Tariff except as consumers. There is nothing fanciful or recondite about this calculation. Any man familiar with our Tariff Laws and our multifarious industries can work it out, for I have followed the guidance of one recognized everywhere as a master in statistical analysis.

The most striking fact about the whole thing is that the number of our people today wholly dependent on foreign markets is larger than the number of those employed in the protected industries. Yet gentlemen on the other side call their Tariff a system to protect American labor, and to build up and support American industries, as if the making of good wages, even conceding for the moment the most groundless of their pretensions, for 1,200,000


laborers could draw after it good wages for the other 1,600,000 and 14,600,000.

But, sir, I have stated the proposition far too favorably for the other side. The 1,200,000 laborers in the protected industries are not the direct beneficiaries of the Tariff. The Tariff does not keep out the foreign article that competes with what they have to sell. There is and always has been Free Trade in labor. The Tariff taxes the foreign product that competes with what the employers have to sell. It is, therefore, the employer, not the laborer; the capitalist, not the working man, who is the direct beneficiary of protection. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

So when you subject the whole system to a rational and accurate analysis you find that the real beneficiaries of a Protective Tariff are not American laborers generally nor American consumers, but the employers of some 1,200,000 of our workers for gain. Wages are no higher, they are frequently lower in the protected than in the other industries; and if we allow ten employees to one employer we should have only 120,000, at most not over 200,000 of our people directly engaged in making and selling the articles the like of which the Tariff seeks to shut out of our country or to burden with heavy fines -- 200,000 men representing in a large measure the corporate wealth of the country.

These are the American laborers for whose interest the voice of the other side is raised in season and out of season, while we who speak for the millions and seek to secure for them the benefit of equal laws are called enemies of American labor and lacking in American patriotism. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Since the French monarch exclaimed, "I am the State"; since the three tailors of Tooley Street presented their petition to Parliament beginning" We the people of England, "there has been no more impudent claim than the claim of these protected capitalists


that they constitute American Labor. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Building up Home Market. -- But we are told again in this debate, as we have been told from the beginning, that we must tax ourselves for their benefit in order to build up a home market for agriculture.

What do they mean by a home market?

Putting the factory by the farm, they tell us; making consumers for farm products, so that the farmer can sell his Wheat, his Corn, and his Cotton at his own door.

Why, sir, we have been taxing our people to do this for a hundred years, and we have today a greater Exportable Surplus of Wheat, of Corn, of Provisions, of Cotton than at any period of our history. And we have already built up an equipment of manufacturers in excess of the profitable demand of our own country. Start the fires today in all our mills, factories, forges, and furnaces, urge them to their present capacity, and before the end of the year there will be a cry of Surplus and overproduction all over the land. If we are to keep on stimulating and increasing manufacturers we must open foreign markets for their products. Yet it is the very theory of our Tariff that they cannot hold their own in the home market in free competition with like foreign products.

There is no home consumption that could be brought about by a Tariff that would save the American Farmer from Independence on a foreign market for the sale of a large Surplus. Gentlemen talk about a reduction or removal of Duties, permitting foreigners to destroy the industries of this country. Why, sir, we sent out $650,000,000, worth of Agricultural Products last year; $170,000,000 worth of manufacturers to be sold in the markets of the world.


Pauper Labor. -- Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Pauper Labor of which we hear so much in these discussions is not engaged in making the things that might compete with the products of our protected industries. It is not employed in producing the Dress Goods, the Glassware and Pottery, the Iron and Steel Goods that we so anxiously protect against it. The Pauper Labor of Europe and of the world is employed in raising the Wheat, the Cotton, and the other Farm Products with which the American Farmer has to compete, not in his own, but in their own markets. [Applause on Democratic side.]

The farm hand in Rhenish Prussia or Austria Hungary gets $4 per month; in India, still smaller wages. The farm hand in Dakota gets $25 or $30 per month. It is the farmer, I repeat, who has to take his products at his own expense to the markets of Europe and there compete with the cheapest labor of the world. [Applause.] And yet you force him to buy in our own markets from those who refuse to compete at home with the highest paid labor of the rest of the world.

Sir, we are constantly taunted with being calamity orators.

Mr. McMillin. That is better than being calamity makers.

Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia. As my friend from Tennessee says I had rather been a calamity orator than a calamity maker. [Applause on Democratic side.]

Prophets of Calamity. -- If out of tender consideration for the burdens of the people and for their visible distress we protest against such a system of Class Taxation, are we to be reproached as men who rail at the prosperity of their country? You who defend protection may not be calamity orators? You are obliged to persuade the people, if you can, that they are prosperous and that your Tariff is the source of their prosperity, but when we suggest any lightening of the people's burden that may involve a lessening


of the bounties they pay to your two hundred thousand, you become prophets of calamity. Jeremiah, with the aid of inspiration, could not surpass your catalogue of woes and calamities that would come upon us if we dare to reduce the People's Taxes.

"Take off the tariff on Wool," exclaimed the gentleman from Michigan, "and you destroy a great industry in this country: you take away the prosperity and living of two million farmers. And yet he had already told us, when he was dealing not in high prophecy but plain arithmetic, that the yearly product of Wool in all the country amounts to $75,000,000 -- an excessive calculation, for it is not more than $70,000,000 -- and would thus persuade us that we have two million people in the country who by desperate effort and by taxing us to death on our Woolen Clothes actually produce $35 each per annum. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] Why sir, if a man sat down here when a general tariff bill was under discussion and with pen in hand and kept a tally of the number of people employed in the protected industries, and the number that would be hopelessly ruined by a reduction of the Tariff, he would find them outnumber the entire population of this country since it was discovered by Columbus. [Laughter.]

The minority of the Committee in their report on the Cotton bill quote with approval a statement that we are seeking to destroy an industry that gives more or less employment to 11,000 men. If they had turned to the testimony before Tariff Commission in. 1882 they would have found it in proof there that 300 men working 100 days could make 30,000 tons of ties, yet they tell us it will employ 11,000 to produce 40,000 tons! [Laughter.] If 400 men constantly employed can make all the cotton ties needed for our crop, what is to become of the poor planter when 11,000 insist on getting a living out of the same work? [laughter.]


Chapter XIII: The Bond Purchase

In his Political Tickler, Mr. N. A. Dunning says: -- In locating the responsibility for the Purchase of Bonds it is necessary to make an explanation. The act of February 25, 1862, creating the sinking fund, provided that the moneys received from duties on Imports should be paid out as follows:

1. To the payment in coin of the interest on the Bonds and Notes of the United States.

2. To the purchase or payment of one per centum of the entire debt of the United States, to be made within each fiscal year after the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty two which is to be set apart as a sinking fund, and the interest of which shall in like manner be applied to the purchase or payment of the public debt as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time direct.

3. The residue thereof to be paid into the Treasury of the United States.

The section given below was attached as a rider to an appropriation bill which was approved March 3, 1881:

SECTION 2. That the Secretary of the Treasury may at any time apply the surplus money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as he may consider proper, to the


purchase or redemption of United States bonds; Provided, That bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no part sinking fund, but shall be cancelled.

Secretary Fairchild in his Annual Report to Congress for 1887 said:

All of the 3 per cent. bonds have been cancelled. The sinking fund requirements of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, have already been met, and now there is no way, under existing laws, put out again among the people, the surplus money which comes into the Treasury, except it be that a clause in appropriation Act of 1881 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase bonds in the market at such price and in such amounts as he may think best; a power which unnecessarily ought not to be given to, and a responsibility which ought not to be put upon any officer of the Government.

There is in the Treasury of available funds at this date, December 1, 1887, after every possible obligation has been provided for, the sum of $55,258,701,19 which every day grows larger. A careful estimate shows that this sum will be increased to $140,000,000 at the end of this fiscal year under the operation of the present tax and appropriation laws.

President Cleveland in his Annual Message to Congress expressed doubts as to the authority to purchase bonds under the Act of 1881, and asked Congress to decide the matter.

Under President Cleveland's Administration the present policy of depositing the surplus with the National Banks without interest was inaugurated. This plan was adopted October 8, 1887, under a ruling of the Treasury. Instead of buying bonds for want of authority, as he alleges, the surplus was placed on deposit with National Banks until in April 1888, it had reached the enormous sum of $61,921,294.


On January 16, 1888, R. Q. Mills introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

A bill to provide for the purchase of United States Bonds by the Secretary of the Treasury.

That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to apply the surplus money now in the Treasury, and such surplus money as may hereafter be in the Treasury, and not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as he may consider proper, to the purchase or redemption of United States Bonds.

February 14, 1888, Mr. Mills, as chairman of that Committee, made the following report:

The act of March 3, 1881, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to apply the surplus money in the Treasury to the purchase or redemption of United States Bonds (vol. 21, statutes at Large, page 457). But this provision is contained in an annual appropriation bill, and doubts have been entertained as to the authority of the Secretary now to purchase Bonds under its provisions, and as his authority has been questioned, and the matter is of such grave importance, he has declined to purchase Bonds under its provisions. No Secretary of the Treasury since the enactment of the law has ever purchased any Bonds under it.

Your committees therefore have deemed it proper to remove the question out of the domain of doubt, and report the accompanying bill and recommend its passage.

February 29, the bill was called up in committee of the whole and passed.

The bill went to the Senate, which was then Republican, and was sent back to the House amended as follows:

That section 2 of the "Act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes," which is as follows: "That the


Secretary of the Treasury may at any time apply the surplus money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as, may consider proper, to the purchase or redemption of United States Bonds: Provided, That the Bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no part of the sinking fund, but shall be cancelled, was intended to be a permanent provision of the law, and the same is hereby declared to have been since its enactment and to now in full force and effect.

SECTION 2. That whenever the circulation, or any portion thereof, of any National Bank, not in liquidation, shall be surrendered, and the same is not taken up by other National Banks within thirty days thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized, and directed to purchase, at the market price thereof, an equivalent amount in silver bullion in excess of the minimum two million dollars' worth per month for coinage purposes, which shall be coined and used as provided in the act passed February 2, 1878, entitled "an Act to authorize the coinage of the Standard Silver Dollar and restore its legal tender character:" Provided, That nothing in this Act shall alter or repeal said Act of February 20, 1878.

This bill as amended, it will be noticed, contained a section providing for a further purchase of Silver. Mr.Mills and his associates knew that to pass the Senate amendment would only force President Cleveland to veto it, while if they refused to take it from the committee no bonds would be bought, and the administration was getting too much surplus in the Treasury. In this dilemma resort was had to a legislative trick. The Senate bill as amended was permitted to die in the committee to which it had been referred, and the following resolution was introduced out of order by Mr. Wilkins:

That it is the sense of this House that section 2 of the Act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government


for the fiscal year ending June 10, 1882, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1881, which is as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury may at any time apply the surplus money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as he may consider proper to the purchase or redemption of United States Bonds: Provided, That the Bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no part of the sinking fund, but shall be redeemed or cancelled," was intended to be a permanent provision of law, and the same is hereby declared to have been since its enactment and to be now, in the opinion of the House, in full force and effect.

Mr. Wilkins said:

Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the House of Representatives passed a bill which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to invest moneys now in the Treasury in excess of the demands for the proper and economical administration of the Government, in United States Bonds, and by this operation the surplus would be put into circulation among the people, where it belongs. This bill passed the House without a dissenting vote, went over to the Senate and was by the Finance Committee of that body unanimously reported back to the Senate. A long and tedious discussion followed, which resulted in the striking out of every word after the enacting clause and substituting a declaratory resolution or bill, part of which the resolution I have offered is in exact language. This amended bill came back to the House, and was, under our rules, sent back to the committee in which the House bill originated. It has now lost its privilege, and cannot, if the committees itself so desired have preference over other business in the House. There must, of course, be long and unavoidable delay. The necessity for prompt and favorable action by the House on some such resolution as this is apparent to everyone who studies the financial and industrial condition of the country.

After further discussion, it was passed by the following vote:


Yea -- Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, Allen of Michigan, Anderson of Mississippi, Anderson of Illinois, Baker of New "York, Bankhead, Barnes, Bayne, Biggs, Blanchard, Bliss, Blount, Boutelle, Breckinridge of Kentucky, Browne, T. H. B. of Virginia, Buchanan, Buckalew, Burnett, Butler, Campbell, T. J., of New York, Cannon, Carlton, Caruth, Caswell, Catchings, Clements, Cobb, Cochran, Cogswell, Cooper, Cowles, Crisp, Cummings, Darlington, Davidson of Alabama, Davidson of Florida, Dingley, Dunn, Elliott, Enloe, Ermentrout, Farquhar, French, Gaines, Gallinger, Glass, Goff, Greenman, Guenther, Hall, Hatch, Hangan, Herbert, Heistendt, Hilt, Howard, Hunter, Kean, Ketchum, Laffoon, Landes, Lee, Lehlbach, Lodge, McAdoo, McConias, McCreary, McMillin, Merriman, Milliken, Moffit, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Morse, Neal, Newton, Nutting, Oates, O'Donnell, O'Neall of Indiana, O'Neill of Pennsylvania, O'Neill of Missouri, Osborne, Outhwaite, Parker, Peel, Perkins, Peters, Phelap, Phelps, Randall, Reed, Rice, Robertson, Rockwell, Rogers, Rowland, Russell of Connecticut, Russell of Massachusetts, Ryan, Savers, Seney, Seymour, Shaw, Simmons, Sowden, Spooner, Springer, Stewart of Georgia, Stone of Kentucky, Stone of Missouri, Tarsney, Taylor, J. D., of Ohio, Thomas of Kentucky, Thomas of Wisconsin, Thompson of Ohio, Tracy, Townshend, Turner of Georgia, Vance, Vandever, Walker, Washington, Weber, Wheeler, White of Indiana, Whiting of Massachusetts, Wickham, Wilber, Wilkins Wilson of Minnesota, Wilson of West Virginia, Wise, Yardley, Carlisle -- 158

Nay -- Abbott, Anderson of Iowa, Anderson of Kansas, Atkinson, Baker of Illinois, Bland, Brower, Brumm, Bunnell, Bumes, Cheadle, Chapman, Conger, Dockery, Dorsey, Fisher, Fuller, Gest, Glover, Grimes, Heard, Henderson of Iowa, Henderson of Illinois, Holman, Hooker, Hopkins of Illinois, Hopkins of Virginia, Hovey, Johnston of Indiana, Johnston of North Carolina,


Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Kilgore, Laidlaw, Laird, Lanham, Linn, Lyman, Lynch, MacDonald, Martin, Mason, McClammy, McKenna, McRae, Nelson, Nichols, Norwood, Pennington, Plumb, Post, Rowall, Shively, Smith, Snyder, Stewart of Texas, Stockdale, Tillman, Wade, Warner, Weaver, Whiting of Michigan, Wilkinson -- 64.

Mr. Mills did not vote for this, because it was a substitute for his own bill. Immediately after the passage of this resolution the purchase of bonds began, $94,000,000 being taken by September 30 of that year.

The conclusions to be drawn from the above array of facts are:

1. No bonds had been purchased on account of the surplus up to the date of this bill.

2. That Mr. Mills and his associates are responsible for this bond purchase scheme.

3. That this scheme has cost the people in premiums over $72,000,000 already, and will, if continued to the end, at present prices, cost $122,000,000 more.

4. That by rejecting the Senate amendment, Mr. Mills and his associates voted for a reduction of currency and against the use of Silver as money.

The vote stood yeas 138, Republicans 47, Democrats 91, nays 64, Republicans 28, and Democrats 36."

SECTION 2. In an Editorial in "The People's Party Paper, of Atlanta, Ga., I have made the following comments upon this -- "Squandering of the Surplus!"

What was the surplus?

It was cruel, excessive taxation which brought into the Treasury more money than the Government needed.

Who did the Surplus belong to?

All the Tax Payers. All the People.

What did the Democrats do with it?


They gave $60,000,000 of it to the Bondholders as premiums upon Bonds not due.

Did the Bondholders pay any of that tax into the Treasury?

Not a cent.

Their property was exempt.

Yet the Democrats gave $60,000,000 of our tax money to the class which pays no tax.

How much did they give to the Farmers, Laborers, Merchants, Mechanics etc., who had paid that money into the Treasury?

Not a cent.

This Democratic policy was carried out under Cleveland. Mr. Mills, of Texas, led the Democratic forces in the House.

The Surplus could have been divided among the States; could have been devoted to the schools; could have been distributed among the people in loans upon good security at fair interest.

About the time this $60,000,000 gift to the Bondholders was being originated, the Farmers of Texas were knocking at the doors of Congress and asking for loans upon lands.

They were kicked out. Loans on lands were communistic, unconstitutional and undemocratic. Nobody but a demagogue would advocate a law to lend Farmers money on land -- said our Democratic Silver plated Statesmen.

So, having a surplus on hand they refused to lend it to the Farmers at reasonable interest. They preferred to give it to Bondholders as premiums on Bonds not due. $59,000,000 of the Surplus was being used at that time by Cleveland's "Pet Banks" as a loan without interest.

To allow this favoritism was "Broadminded Statesmanship."

To do this was not communistic; not unconstitutional; not undemocratic.

To do this was not class legislation; was not giving special


privilege; was not giving bounties on wealth at the expense of Labor.

Oh no! it was "Broadminded Statesmanship" of the Tammany Hall, Silver plated, silk undershirt sort.

Gifts of countless millions to the Plutocrats! Gifts of abuse and ridicule to the Laborers.

Yes, Democrats did it and the Record is there to condemn them in the eyes of Posterity forever.

Many an honest old Democratic Farmer will read these names with amazement, and will rub his eyes and look again to see if indeed his interests were so neglected by the men he trusted.

The citizens who paid that money into the Treasury were laughed at when they asked the poor privilege of borrowing some of their, own hard earned cash. They were denounced as Socialists, Demagogues and Fools.

The Bondholders who had paid none of that money into the Treasury asked it as a gift -- and they got it.

Yet at that very time the men who were refused the loans were almost on the brink of starvation while those who were granted the gift had riches beyond the dreams of Aladdin!

By Act of Congress approved July 12, 1882, the Banks were authorized to extend their charters twenty years. "Unless sooner dissolved by act of the shareholders owing two thirds of the stock, or unless its franchise becomes forfeited by some violation of Law or unless hereafter modified or repealed." Many people believe that the National Bank Law was a War Measure and that the Government passed it as a necessity.

This is not true. The first issue of National Bank Notes took place on January 1, 1864.

On July 1, 1864, only $26,000,000 were out. On April 22, 1865, $147,000,000.


Not a dollar of all the immense issues of these notes helped the Union during the War. The truth is that the Law as first enacted did not please the Capitalists. State Banks were left to compete with them. It was only when Congress in 1864 taxed State Banks out of existence that the greater shylocks of National Banks supplanted the lesser Shylocks of State Banks.

On July 1, 1867, the National Banks had some $300,000,000 of their notes in circulation. By 1874, $350,000,000. When it is remembered that the Bankers were drawing interest upon the Bonds deposited as collateral in the same manner as if they were not so deposited; when it is remembered that for every One Hundred Dollars in Bonds, they could circulate Ninety Dollars in Money; that this money only cost them 1 per cent. (about enough to cover expenses of printing it) while they loaned it out at high rates of interest compound -- at convenient intervals; that they paid no Tax on the Bonds; that the people paid the interest on the Bonds to the Government which the Government turned over to the Banks and at the same time paid the high compound interest on the circulating notes which the Bankers put in their pockets, it will be readily seen that as a system of commercial spoliation of the masses for the benefit of the Money Class, its like was never seen since the morning stars sang together.

The Masses bore all the burden. They shared none of the profits.

The money issued to the Banks was virtually Legal Tender Government money.

The Guaranty of the Government was behind every dollar and kept it at par.

The Bonds held as collateral were Government Issues -- valuable only because of the Government's power to Tax all the Land, all the Cotton, all the Corn, all the Wheat, all the Cattle, all the


Merchandise and thus raise funds to pay the interest and finally the principle.

In other words, the Bonds were good because the people had the spondulix, and because the Government of the people had the power to take enough of the people's property, by way of Taxation to meet the obligation contained in the Bonds. But these Bonds were not the only basis upon which this Bank Money rested.

It will be seen from my analysis of the Law that the Government undertook to make good to the holders of the Bank Notes any deficiency between the value of the Bonds and the amount of the notes.

In plain English, the Government of all the people became endorser of the Promissory Notes of a Class of the people in order that the Class might plunder the Mass.

If bankers were dishonest as frequently happens, the Tax money of the people was taken to make good the fraud which the Bankers had perpetrated upon them.

This was nice: -- for the Bankers!

But this was not all. As a still further basis of credit the Government made these Notes of the Bankers Legal Tender, to the same extent as its own Notes.

Now let us sum up the beauties of the situation:

1. The Government furnished a Warehouse or Sub Treasury in which the Bondholders could store their property and furnished costly vaults, safes, etc.

2. It furnished a Manager of the Warehouse and a large number of assistants at good salaries.

3. It entered into a written contract showing how it received the property of the Bankers and for what purpose.

4. Hallowed the Bankers to come into the Warehouse once a year and take a look around and see if their property was all right.


5. It made a loan of 90 cents on the dollar to the Bankers on the Bonds held at the Warehouse. It guaranteed the payment of the Loan, and charged a duty of one per cent. -- or about enough to cover expenses of paper, ink and printing. It not only guaranteed the repayment of the Loan but compelled every citizen in America to accept a Banker's Promissory Note as money, Excepting Those Bankers themselves!

Consider it a moment and then collapse and go to bed.

The Promissory Notes of those Bankers were to be good pay for everything except interest on Public Debts.

What were the Public Debts?

The Bonds which those bankers held!

Someone will say that Duties on Imports were also excepted.

True; but the Government demanded Gold of the Importer for a certain express purpose.

What was it?

To pay the Public Debt.

What was the Public Debt?

Those Bonds of the Bankers!

Now reflect; -- the Government compelled every citizen in the land to cancel his debt and part with his produce in exchange for a Promissory Note of the Banker and allowed the Banker to repudiate and refuse to accept his own note and to demand that the people (out of what was left of their hard earnings) should pay him Gold.

A greater Infamy never had the Sanction of the Statute Law!

No wonder that National Bankers grow marvelously rich.

No wonder that the People grow marvelously poor.

It is estimated that the average net profits of the Banks off the people, on the circulating notes alone, have aggregated Twenty Millions of Dollars annually for the last twenty five years.


This does not include the profits they made out of the Bonds, nor out of Deposits, nor out of Contraction of the Currency.

For it must not be forgotten that perhaps the worst feature of the Law was that the Bankers got control of the volume of the Currency.

They struck down the Greenback which they could not control and in its place put their own Notes which they could control and thus acquired unlimited power over all the productions of Labor.

To what extent this has wronged the Producer, God, only, knows.


Chapter XIV: St. Louis Platform 1889. Report of Committee on Demands

ST. LOUIS, MO., December 6, 1889.

SECTION 1. Agreement made this day by and between the undersigned committee representing the National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union on the one part and the undersigned committee representing the Knights of Labor on the other part, having read the demands of the National Farmers Alliance and Industrial Union which are embodied in this agreement, hereby endorse the same on behalf of the Knights of Labor, and for the purpose of giving practical effect to the demands herein set forth, the Legislative committees of both organizations will act in concert before Congress for the purpose of securing the enactment of laws in harmony with the demands naturally agreed.

And it is further agreed, in order to carry out these objects, we will support for office only such men as can be depended upon to enact these principles in Statute Law uninfluenced by Party Caucus.

The demands hereinbefore referred to are as follows:

1. That we demand the abolition of National Banks and the substitution of Legal Tender Treasury Notes in lieu of Nation Bank Notes, issued in sufficient volume to do the business of the


country on a Cash System; regulating the amount needed on a per capita basis as the business interests of the country expands; and that all money issued by the Government shall be Legal Tender in payment of all debts, both public and private.

2. That we demand that Congress shall pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the dealing in futures of all Agricultural and Mechanical Productions; preserving a stringent system of procedure in trials as shall secure the prompt conviction, and imposing such penalties as shall secure the most perfect compliance with the law.

3. That we demand the free and unlimited coinage of Silver.

4. That we demand the passage of laws prohibiting the alien ownership of Land, and that Congress take early steps to devise some plan to obtain all Lands now owned by aliens and foreign syndicates; and that all Lands now held by Rail Road and other corporations in excess of such as is actually used and needed by them, be reclaimed by the Government and held for actual settlers only.

5. Believing in the doctrine of "equal rights to all and special privileges to none," we demand that taxation, National or State, shall not be used to build up one interest or class at the expense of another.

As a part of Plank Five, Economy is demanded in the expenditures of the Government.

Plank Six. Demands the issue of Fractional Currency.

Plank Seven. Demands that the Government shall own and operate the means of Transportation and Communication; just as it does the Postal System.

This Agreement is signed by the proper officials of the


Knights of Labor upon one hand and of the Alliance Orders on the other.

SECTION 2. The Sub-Treasury Plan. -- On page 58 of the proceedings of the Convention at St. Louis will be found the following:

Report of the Committee on the Monetary System: -- Financial Policy of the General Government seems today to be peculiarly adapted to further the interests of the Speculating Class, at the expense and to the manifest detriment of the Productive Class, and while there are many forms of relief offered, there has up to the present time been no true remedy presented which has secured a support universal enough to render its adoption probable. Neither of the Political Parties offers a remedy adequate to our necessities, and the two parties that have been in power since the war have pursued practically the same financial policy. The situation is this: The most desirable and necessary reform is one that will adjust the Financial System of the General Government so that its provisions cannot be utilized by a class, which thereby becomes privileged and is in consequence contrary to the genius of our Government, and which is to-day the principal cause of the depressed condition of Agriculture. Regardless of all this the Political Parties utterly ignore these great evils and refuse to remove their cause, and the importunities of the privileged class have no doubt often led the executive and legislative branches of the Government to believe that the masses were passive and reconciled to the existence of this system whereby a privileged class can, by means of the power of money to oppress, exact from Labor all that it produces except a bare subsistence. Since then it is the most necessary of all reforms, and receives no attention from any of the prominent Political Parties, it is highly appropriate and important that our efforts be concentrated to secure the needed reform in this


direction, provided all can agree upon such measures. Such action will in no wise connect this movement to any partisan effort, as it can be applied to the party to which each member belongs.

In seeking a true and practical remedy for the evils that now flow from the imperfections in our Financial System let us first consider what the greatest evil is and on what it depends. The greatest evil, the one that outstrips all others so far that it is instantly recognized as the chief, and known with certainty to be more oppressive to the Productive Interests of the country than any other influence, is that which delegates, to a certain class the power to fix the price of all kinds of produce and of all commodities. This power is not delegated directly, but it is delegated indirectly by allowing such class to issue a large per cent. of the money used as a circulating medium which is issued by the Government, a fixed quantity that is not augmented to correspond with the necessities of the times. In consequence of this the money issued by the Privileged Class, which they are at liberty to withdraw at pleasure, can be, and is, so manipulated as to control the volume of Circulating Medium in the country sufficiently to produce fluctuations in general prices at their pleasure. It may be likened unto a simple illustration in philosophy: The inflexible volume of the Government Issue is the fulcrum, the volume of the Bank issue is the lever power, and price is the point at which power is applied, and it is either raised or lowered with great certainty to correspond with the volume of bank issue. Any mechanic will instantly recognize the fact that the quickest and surest way of destroying the power of the lever to raise or lower price is to remove the resistance offered by the fulcrum -- the inflexible volume of Government issue. The power to regulate the volume of money so as to control price is so manipulated as to develop and apply a potent force, for which we have in the English language no name;


but it is the power of money to oppress, and is demonstrated as follows: In the last four months of the year the Agricultural products of the Whole year having been harvested, they are placed on the market to buy money. The amount of money necessary to supply this demand is equal to many times the actual amount in circulation. Nevertheless the class that controls the volume of the Circulating Medium desire to purchase these Agricultural products for speculative purposes, so they reduce the volume of money by hoarding, in the face of the augmented demand, and thereby advance the exchangeable value of the then inadequate volume of money, which is equivalent to reducing the price of the Agricultural products. True Agriculturists should hold their products and not sell at these ruinously low prices. And no doubt they would if they could, but to prevent that, practically all debts, taxes, and interest are made to mature at that time, and they being forced to have money at a certain season when they have the product of their labor to sell, the power of money to oppress by its scarcity is applied until it makes them turn loose their products so low that their labor expended does not average them fifty cents per day. This illustrates the power of money to oppress; the remedy, as before, lies in removing the power of the fulcrum -- the inflexible Government issue -- and supplying a Government issue, the volume of which, shall be increased to correspond with the actual addition to the wealth of the Nation presented by Agriculture at harvest tune, and diminished as such Agricultural products are consumed. Such a flexibility of volume would guarantee a stability of price based on cost of production which would be compelled to reckon the pay for Agricultural labor at the same rates as other employment. Such flexibility would rob money of its most potent power -- the power to oppress -- and place a premium on productive effort. But how may so desirable a result be secured? Let us see! By applying the same


principles now in force in the Monetary System of the United States with only slight modification in the detail of their execution. The Government and the people of this country realize that the amount of Gold and Silver, and the certificates based on those metals, do not comprise a volume of money sufficient to supply the wants of the country, and in order to increase the volume the Government allows individuals to associate themselves into a body corporate, and deposit with the Government, Bonds which represent National indebtedness, which the Government holds in trust and issues to such Corporation Paper Money equal to ninety per cent. of the value of the Bonds, and charges said Corporation interest at the rate of one per cent. per annum for the use of said Paper Money. This allows the issue of Paper Money to increase the volume of the Circulating Medium on a perfectly safe basis, because the margin is a guarantee that the Banks will redeem the Bonds before they mature. But now we find that the circulation secured by this method is still not adequate; or to take a very conservative position, if we admit that it is adequate on the average, we know that the fact of its being entirely inadequate for half the year makes its inflexibility an engine of oppression, because a season in which it is inadequate must be followed by one of superabundance in order to bring about the average, and such a range in volume means great fluctuations in prices which cut against the producer, both in buying and selling, because he must sell at a season when produce is low, and buy when commodities are high. This system, now in vogue by the United States Government of supplementing its Circulating Medium by a safe and redeemable Paper Money, should be pushed a little further and conducted in such a manner as to secure a certain augmentation of supply at the season of the year in which the Agricultural additions to the wealth of the Nation demand money, and a diminution in such supply of money as said


Agricultural products are consumed. It is not an average adequate amount that is needed, because under it the greatest abuses may prevail, but a certain adequate amount that adjusts itself to the wants of the country at all seasons. For this purpose let us demand that the United States Government modify its present Financial System.

1. So as to allow the free and unlimited coinage of Silver or the issue of Silver Certificates against an unlimited deposit of bullion.

2. That the system of using certain banks as United States Depositaries be abolished, and in place of said system, established in every county in each of the States that offers for sale during the one year, five hundred thousand dollars worth of Farm Products including; Wheat, Corn, Oats, Barley, Rye, Rice, Tobacco, Cotton, Wool and Sugar, altogether; a Sub Treasury Office, which shall have in connection with it such warehouses or elevators as are necessary for carefully storing and preserving such Agricultural Products as are offered it for storage, and it should be the duty of such Sub Treasury Department to receive such Agricultural Products as are offered for storage and make a careful examination of such products and class same as to quality and give a certificate of the deposit showing the amount and quality, and that United Stat Legal Tender Paper Money equal to eighty per cent. of the local current value of the products deposited has been advanced of same on interest at the rate of one per cent. per annum, on the condition that the owner or such other person as he may authorize will redeem the Agricultural Product within twelve months from date of the certificate or the trustee will sell same at public auction" to the highest bidder for the purpose of satisfying the debt. Besides the one per cent. interest the Sub Treasurer should allowed to charge a trifle for handling and storage, and a reasonable


amount for insurance, but the premises necessary for conducting this business should be secured by the various counties donating to the General Government the land and the Government Building the very best modern buildings, fire proof and substantial. With this method in vogue the farmer, when his product was harvested, would place it in storage where it would be perfectly safe and he would secure four fifths of its value to supply his pressing necessity for money at one per cent. per annum. He would negotiate and sell his warehouse or elevator certificates whenever the current price suited him, receiving from the person to whom he sold, only the difference between the price agreed upon and the amount already paid by the Sub Treasurer. When, however, these storage certificates reached the hand of the miller or factory, or other consumers he to get the product would have to return" to the Sub Treasurer the sum of money advanced, together with the interest on same and the storage and insurance charges on the product. This is no new or untried scheme; it is safe and conservative; it harmonizes and carries out the system already in vogue on a really safer plan because the products of the country that must be consumed every year are really the very best security in the world, and with more justice to society at large. For a precedent, attention is called to the following:

In December, 1848, the London Times announced the inevitable failure of the French Republic and disintegration of French society in the near future, but so wise was the Administration of the Statesmen of the Nation that two months later it was forced to eat its own words -- saying in its columns February 16, 1849:

As a mere Commercial Speculation with the assets which the Bank held in hand it might then have stopped payment and liquidated its affairs with every probability that a very few weeks would enable it to clear off its liabilities. But this idea was not for a


moment entertained by M. D'Argout, and be resolved to make every effort to keep alive what may be termed the circulation of the life-blood of the community. The task was over-whelming. Money was to be found to meet not only the demands on the Bank, but the necessities both public and private, of every rank in society. It was essential to enable the manufacturers to work, lest their workman, driven to desperation, should fling themselves amongst the most violent enemies of public order. It was essential to provide money for the food of Paris, for the pay of troops, and for the daily support of the industrial establishments of the Nation. A failure on any one point would have led to a fresh convulsion, but the panic had been followed by so great a scarcity of the Metallic Currency, that a few days later, out of a payment of 26,000,000 fallen due, only 47,000 francs could be recorded in Silver.

In this extremity, when the Bank alone retained any available sums of money, the Government came to the rescue, and on the night of the 15th of March, the Notes of the Bank were, by a decree, made a Legal Tender, the issue of these notes being limited in all to 350,000,000, but the amount of the lowest of them reduced for the public convenience to 100 francs. One of the great difficulties mentioned in the report was to print these 100 franc notes fast enough for the public consumption. In ten days the amount issued in this form had reached 80,000,000 francs.

To enable the manufacturing interests to weather the storm at a moment when all the sales were interrupted, a decree of the national assembly had directed warehouses to be opened for the reception of all kinds of goods, and provided that the registered invoice of the goods so deposited should be made negotiable by endorsement. The Bank of Francs discounted these receipts. In Havre alone eighteen millions were thus advanced on colonial produce, and in Paris fourteen millions on merchandise; in all sixty millions were made


available for the purposes of trade. Thus the great institution had placed itself as it were in direct contact with every interest of the community, from the Minister of the Treasury down to the trader in a distant out port. Like a huge hydraulic machine, it employed its colossal powers to pump a fresh stream into the exhausted arteries of trade to sustain credit, and preserve the circulation from complete collapse -- From the Bank Charter Act, and the Rate of Interest, London, 1873.

This is proof positive, and a clear demonstration, in 1848, what this system could accomplish when a necessity existed for resorting to it. But since that time every conceivable change has tended toward rendering such a system easier managed and more necessary. The various means of rapid transportation and the facilities for the instantaneous transmission of intelligence make it no disadvantage for the produce of a country to be stored at home until demanded for consumption, and the great savings that will follow the abolition of local shipments shows what great economy such a system is. In this day and time, no one will for a moment deny that all the conditions for purchase and sale will attach to the Government Certificates showing amount, quality and running charges that attach to the product.

The arguments sustaining this system will present themselves to your minds as you ponder over the subject. The one fact stands out in bold relief, prominent, grand, and worthy the best effort our hearts and hands, and that is "this system will emancipate productive labor from the power of money to oppress" with speed and certainty. Could any object be more worthy? Surely not; and none could be devised that would more enlist your sympathies.

Our forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War, making sacrifices that will forever perpetuate their names in history, to emancipate Productive Labor from the power of a monarch to oppress. Their battle cry was "Liberty." Our monarch, is a false, unjust,


and statutory power given to money, which calls for a conflict on our part to emancipate productive labor from the power of money to oppress. Let the watchword again be "Liberty."

THE OCALA PLATFORM. -- We demand the abolition of National Banks.

We demand that the Government shall establish Sub Treasuries or Depositories in the several States, which shall loan money direct to the people at a low rate of interest not to exceed two per cent. per annum, on non perishable farm products, and also upon real estate, with proper limitations upon the quantity of land and amount of money.

We demand that the amount of the circulating medium be speedily increased to not less than $50 per capita.

That we demand that Congress shall pass such laws as will effectually prevent the dealing in futures of all agricultural and mechanical productions; providing a stringent system of procedure in trials that will secure the prompt conviction, and imposing such penalties as shall secure the most perfect compliance with the law.

We condemn the Silver Bill recently passed by Congress, and demand in lieu thereof the free and unlimited coinage of Silver.

We demand the passage of laws prohibiting alien ownership of land, and that Congress take prompt action to devise some plan to obtain all lands now owned by aliens and foreign syndicates; and that all lands now held by Rail Roads and other Corporations in excess of such as is actually used and needed by them be reclaimed by the Government, and held for actual settlers only.

Believing in the doctrine of equal rights to all and special privileges to none, we demand--


a. That our National Legislation shall be so framed in the future as not to build up one industry at the expense of another.

b. We further demand a removal of the existing heavy Tariff Tax from the necessities of life, that the poor of our land must have.

b. We further demand a just and equitable system of graduated tax on Incomes.

d. We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as possible in the hands of the people, and hence we demand that all National and State revenue shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the Government economically and honestly administered.

We demand the most rigid, honest and just State and National Government control and supervision of the means of public communication and transportation, and if this control and supervision does not remove the abuse now existing, we demand the Government ownership of such means of communication and transportation.

We demand that the Congress of the United States submit an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people of each State.

PLATFORM OF THE PEOPLE'S PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADOPTED AT CINCINNATI, O., MAY 20, 1892-- 1. That in view of the great social, industrial and economical revolution now dawning upon the civilized world, and the new and living issues confronting the American people, we believe that the time has arrived for a crystallization of the political reform forces of our country and the formation of what should be known as the People's Party of the United States of America.

2. That we most heartily endore the demands of the platforms as adopted at St. Louis, Mo., in 1889, Ocala, Fla., in 1890, and


Omaha, Neb., in 1891, by the industrial organizations there represented, summarized as follows:

a. The right to make an issue money is a sovereign power to be maintained by the people for the common benefit, hence we demand the abolition of National Banks, as Banks of issue, and as a substitute for National Bank Notes we demand that the Legal Tender Treasury Notes be issued in sufficient volume to transact the business of the country on a cash basis, without damage or special advantage to any class or calling, such notes to be Legal Tender in payment of all debts, public and private, and such notes, when demanded by the people, shall be loaned to them at not more than two per cent. per annum upon non-perishable products as indicated in the Sub Treasury plan, and also upon real estate, with proper limitation upon the quantity of land and amount of money.

b. We demand the free and unlimited coinage of Silver.

c. We demand the passage of laws prohibiting alien ownership of land, and that Congress take prompt action to devise some plan to obtain all lands now owned by aliens and foreign syndicates, and that all land held by Rail Roads and other Corporations in excess of such as is actually used and needed by them be reclaimed by the Government and held for actual settlers only.

d. Believing in the doctrine of equal rights to all and special privileges to none, we demand that taxation -- National, State or Municipal -- shall not be used to build up one interest or class at the expense of another.

e. We demand that all revenues -- National, State or County -- shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the Government economically and honestly administered.

f. We demand a just and equitable system of graduated tax on Incomes.


g. We demand the most rigid, honest and just National control and supervision of the means of public communication and transportation, and if this control and supervision does not remove the abuses now existing, we demand the Government ownership of such means of communication and transportation.

h. We demand the election of President, Vice President and United States Senators by a direct vote of the people.

DECLARATION OF INDUSTRIAL INDEPENDENCE -- PLATFORM ADOPTED BY THE ST. LOUIS CONFERENCE, FEB. 22-26, 1892. -- This the first great Labor Conference of the United States and of the world, representing all divisions of urban and rural organized industry, assembled in National Congress, invoking upon its action the blessing and protection of Almighty God, puts forth to and for the producers of the Nation this Declaration of Union and Independence.

The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation. We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized. Many of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling-places in order to prevent universal intimidation or bribery. The newspapers are subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, our homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions.

The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build


up colossal fortunes unprecedented in the history of mankind, and the possessors of these in turn despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes -- paupers and millionaires. The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich Bondholders; Silver, which has been accepted as coin since, the dawn of history, has been demonetized to add to the purchasing power of Gold by decreasing the value of all forms of property as well as human labor, and the supply of Currency is purposely abridged to fatten usurers, bankrupt enterprise and enslave industry. A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized on two continents and is rapidly taking possession of the world. If not met and overthrown at once it forebodes terrible social convulsions, the destruction of civilization or the establishment of an absolute despotism.

In this crisis of human affairs the intelligent working people and producers of the United States have come together in the name of peace, order and society to defend liberty, property and justice.

We declare our union and independence. We assert our purpose to vote with that political organization which represents our principles.

We charge that the controlling influences dominating the old political parties have allowed the existing dreadful conditions to develop without serious effort to restrain or prevent them. Neither do they now intend to accomplish reform. They have agreed together to ignore, in the coming campaign, every issue but one. They propose to drown the outcries of a plundered people with the uproar of a sham battle over the Tariff, so that Capitalists, Corporations, National Bank, Rings, Trusts, "Watered Stocks," the demonetization of Silver, and the oppressions of usurers may be lost sight of.

They propose to sacrifice our homes, lives and children upon the altar of Marmon, to destroy the hopes of the multitude


in order to secure corruption funds from the great lords of plunder.

We assert that a political organization, representing the principles herein stated, is necessary to redress the grievances of which we complain.

Assembled on the anniversary of the birth of the illustrious man who led the first great revolt on this continent against oppression, filled with the sentiments which actuated that grand generation, we seek to restore the Government of the Republic to the hands of the "plain people" with whom it originated. Our doors are open to all points of the compass. We ask all honest men to join with and help us.

In order to restrain the extortions of aggregated capital, to drive the money changers out of the temple. "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity," we do ordain and establish the following platform of principles:

1. We declare the union of the labor forces of the United States, this day accomplished, permanent and perpetual. May its spirit enter into all hearts for the salvation of the Republic and the uplifting of mankind?

2. Wealth belongs to him who creates it. Every dollar taken from industry without an equivalent is robbery. "If any will not work neither shall he eat." The interests of rural and urban labor are the same; their enemies are identical.

Platform. -- Finance --a. We demand a National Currency, safe, sound and flexible, issued by the general Government only, a full Legal Tender for all debts; public and private; and that without the use of banking corporations a just, equitable and efficient means of distribution direct to the people shall be established, at a tax


not to exceed two per cent. as set forth in the Sub Treasury plan of the Farmers' Alliance, or some better system. Also by payments in discharge of its obligations for public improvements.

b. We demand free and unlimited coinage of Silver.

c. We demand that the amount of circulating medium be speedily increased to not less than $50 per capita.

d. We demand a graduated income tax.

e. We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as possible in the hands of the people, and hence we demand that all national and State revenues shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the Government, economically and honestly administered.

f. We demand that Postal Savings Banks be established by the Government for the safe deposit of the earnings of the people and to facilitate exchange.


The land, including all the natural sources of wealth, is the heritage of all the people and should not be monopolized for speculative purposes, and alien ownership of land should be prohibited. All lands now held by Rail Roads and other Corporations in excess of their actual needs, and all land now owned by aliens, should be reclaimed by the Government and held for actual settlers only.


a. Transportation being a means of exchange and a public necessity, the Government should own and operate the Rail Road's the interest of the people.

b. The telegraph and telephone, like the Post Office system, being a necessity for the transmission of news, should be owned and operated by the Government in the interest of the people.


Chapter XV: Contents -- The Standing Army of the Corporations. Money Vs. Men. Winchesters Vs. Right.

SECTION 1. Perhaps the best way for me to write this Chapter is to let the Record speak for itself.

I shall therefore present to the reader, page after page of actual history -- very recent history at that.

I only regret that I have not the space to make an exposure of the Organized Hell which exists in Pennsylvania among Coal and Iron Mines.

From the Official Records of Congress; from Reports of its Committees (never acted on) a case could be presented which would fire the indignation of every just man in America.

With this brief introduction, I now present the Record.


History of the New York Central.


The newspapers in the sections of the country through which I have passed during the last few days are all filled with telegraphic


dispatches, of a more or less sensational character, relating the particulars of a strike of the employees on the New York Central Railroad. One report says that Vice President Webb informed J. J. Holland of the General Executive Board that the company did not propose to tolerate any interference from outsiders. This, in plain English, meant that Mr. Webb could act as agent of the New York Central stockholders, but denied the right of Mr. Holland to pose as the agent of the employees of the corporation. After all, there seems to be some difference between "tweedle dee" and "tweedle dum." It is evident from this that Vanderbilt's son in law considers the workers a commodity which he places on a lower scale than any other commodity that he purchases. For instance, Mr. Webb purchases iron from Carnegie & Co., of Pittsburg, through an agent of that firm, but to allow the labor used by his company to be represented through an agent is a thing that he, in his exalted position, declines to tolerate.

Where did Vice President Webb secure the power which he assumed when he told the accredited representative of the employees that he (Webb) would not listen to his statement or allow a stranger to interfere in the matter? This is a very appropriate question at this time. The corporation of which this man is the mouth piece is the creature of the State of New York, and the workers are part of the State. This corporation receives its very life from the State. It could not exist for one moment if the wage-earners of the State of New York were to will it otherwise. When the New York Central received its charter from the State, it received its right to exist under the following conditions: That it should charge but 2 cents per mile per passenger, and that it should pay only 8 per cent. per annum to its stockholders upon their investment. So we see that the State, when it granted this franchise, limited the amount of wages that capital should receive, but it did not place any such


strictions upon the laborer who was a part of itself. It would seem that the creature has now become greater and larger than the creator. Even under the restrictions placed upon it, the surplus earnings of this corporation during the prosperous years of the war -- from 1862 to 1869 -- accumulated in its treasury to about $35,000,000, or nearly the total cost of the road. Now to whom did this surplus rightfully belong? Certainly not to the stockholders, because they had the earnings on their stock fixed before the enterprise started. I will tell you what was done. During the administration of Boss Tweed the New York Central stockholders struck for higher wages. They secured the passage of a law which gave them power to declare a scrip dividend, and everyone who held $100 in stock received another hundred, and the remaining surplus was spent in improving the road by laying two more tracks. Since then these stockholders have been receiving 16 per cent. on the original cost of the road, or double the wages that they agreed their capital should work for. They not only struck for higher wages, but they struck for back pay as well. I see that this aristocratic snob Webb has hired a gang of hessians called Pinkertons to do the fighting for his bantling. Here is where the corporation is greater than the State. What would have been the result if the employees of this railroad, when they stopped work, had hired a crowd of laborers, armed them with Winchester rifles and brought them on the ground where the trouble existed? Rebellion and treason would be charged against them most surely. I desire to ask Governor Hill this question: How is it that Webb and his brother officials can bring armed brigands and thugs into the State and put them in the field with orders to kill on sight, and completely ignore the power and authority of the lawful guardians of the peace, without such tyrannical conduct being characterized and chastised as it deserved? It is not treason or rebellion on the part of a greedy, grasping, grinding corporation, but it


would be regarded as such on the part of organized labor. It seems to make a deal of difference whose ox is gored. The press dispatches report that several innocent citizens have been killed and wounded by Bob Pinker ton's hired assassins one a woman who was engaged in her domestic duties in front of her house was shot down, and a boy was badly wounded. The so called preservers of peace must be queer brutes when they cannot discriminate between a mob and a small party of sober citizens. The dispatches also state that Pinker ton complained to the Chief of Police at Albany that his men were hit with stones. What is he kicking about? The Chief of Police did not bring him or his hirelings there. It Webb who hired him and others of his ilk -- the same Webb who protested against Mr. Holland's interference, but engages hundreds of Pinker ton's sleuth hounds and pays them to interfere. And did not Webb urge the Governor to call out the State troops to interfere also? He said he wanted the military to protect his property. Is that what the militia is for? What is the matter with calling out the troops to protect life? When Mr. Webb discharged many of his best and most faithful workmen and threw them and their families out to starve, where was the military then? Where is our Mother, the State? Where is this great Mother, who, in times of war, says to these working men: "Leave your wives and little ones; your lives in my defense so that I may live?" Why does she not now come to the front and say to this corporation: "These are my children, my bone and sinew; thou shalt not turn them out to starve?" Why is it that in strikes and lockouts the military is always called out to protect the interest of capital, but never to protect the toilers? I say to the employees of this corporation: We must strike the State and see that she does her duty by us. We must also declare that it is treason for capitalistic combinations to hire armies and equip them with muskets and revolvers for the


purpose of slaughtering our citizens. No candidate must be elected to office who is not pledged to vote for a law that will make it treason for any corporation to arm free-booters and murderers. The Civil Government of the State is abundantly able to protect public and private property, and when the civil guardians are powerless we have the militia to fall back upon. There is only one Government in this country that must and should be respected. The Pinkerton Government must be abolished and outlawed. It has no status under the Constitution of the United States. No corporation in its charter is clothed with power to declare war and raise armies. That power is vested in the President and Congress, and they cannot and have not delegated that authority to Bob Pinker ton.
Atchinson, Kan. RALPH BEAUMONT.

SECTION 2. Dancing While Laborers Were Being Shot Like Dogs -- The strike of the Laborers on the New York Central Railway did not mar in the least the Vanderbilt Ball at Newport last night. There was a sound of revelry up there by the Shore, and every echo of the dancing feet seemed to emphasize the determination of the corporation to spend $2,000,000 rather than yield a point to discontented labor. -- New York World.


SECTION 3. The Rule of the Bludgeon and Shotgun must end -- Aliens Hired to Butcher American Freemen -- The Muttering on Every Hand Bodes no Good to Those who Invoke the Hand of Violence -- Patient Endurance will not Last Forever. -- Benjamin Harrison and Robert Pinkerton are citizens of the United States. Both occupy conspicuous positions in the public eye. The former is conspicuous because the people, by their votes, made him the first man in the land. The latter is conspicuous, or notorious rather, because he exercises powers which the people did not confer


upon him by their votes or by law. One is bound by a code of laws and a Constitution, under the strict interpretation of which he may not make war without the consent of Congress. Living within the law, he must take advice of the chosen Representatives of the people before calling on the Army -- of which he is the commander in chief -- to respond to a call to action. The same laws which hold the President in check have given life to corporations within the territory of the United States, and these creatures (of a creator which owes it all to the people) have in turn created Robert Pinker ton, who takes it upon himself to call on an army of men to respond to a call to arms whenever one of the corporations wishes to have it so. We live under a complex form of Government -- a Government so elastic as to permit a private citizen to declare and make war whenever a corporation wishes to intimidate its workmen. This he may do whenever called upon by a Railway or a Mining Company. The same interests may appeal to the President for troops, but he cannot, under the Constitution, respond. Over the Chief Executive of the United States the Constitution has an influence. Over Robert Pinkerton the Constitution has no power. He is free to do as he pleases, and may declare war without the consent of Congress. Robert Pinkerton is therefore a larger man in the eyes of corporations, than Benjamin Harrison. If one private citizen may muster troops and arm them, why may not other citizens do the same? If the civil authorities will quietly allow Robert Pinkerton to mass his troops beneath the shadow of State Capitals for the purpose of waging war upon working men who are to law abiding to even carry arms, they will assuredly permit these same working men to throw aside their regard for law and meet the troops of Robert Pinkerton on an equal footing. From the people comes all law in this land. The people never sanctioned a law to allow Robert Pinkerton to arm the worst element of society,


and they (the people) have the right to abolish such forms of brigandage as is exercised every now and then in case of strikes. Every petty tyrant has his army of hirelings, under command of Robert Pinkerton. In many respects the present system differs but little from that in use centuries ago when each petty King had his band of followers who waged war at his order. In the old days the Kings and Chiefs provided food and raiment for their retainers and were generous enough to feed them well. The Kings of America are not troubled about such things, for they stint their workmen to as near the starvation point as they can; they use every appliance to get labor cheap and throw willing hands out of employment, so that hungry, starving men may respond when Robert Pinkerton calls. The call is made whenever the Railways are stopped. The call is based on the pretext that the community is being incommoded, that the food supply is cut off, and that the poor will suffer through exorbitant prices as a sequel to scarcity.

Two years ago one man in Chicago got up a strike and tied up the wheat crop of the United States until the poor of the land paid twenty cents extra on every sack of flour that they consumed. No Pinker tons were called out then. Were they not wanted? Two years ago one man ordered a strike in Hogs and tied up the Pork of the Nation until $3 per barrel above the regular price was levied on the consumers. No Pinker tons were called for. Were they not wanted? A trust corners the coal output and starves the miners, freezes the children of the poor in our cities that the price of coal may not fall. The "community is being incommoded, the food supply is cut off and the poor of our large cities suffer," but no Pinker tons are called for. Do we need them?

A million farmers are forced to pay tribute to the agent of a dozen men. They yield up $3,000,000 in one year, and are told by this agent that the price of the produce they will bring from the


earth this year will be so and so. They levy this tribute on the tillers of the soil without a vestige of right. They have no more authority to do this than Dick Turpin had to rob in his own way. But no Pinker tons were called out. Why not? These things are done under no law, no standard has been erected by which prices are thus regulated or men robbed, and there is no limit but the patience of the animals whom they fleece. Greed is the law fear the limit. Where were the Pinker tons?

The newspapers owned and controlled by the New York Central and published in New York City and along the line of the Central each day are loud in denunciation of the Knights of Labor because they claim that the Association is of foreign origin. This claim is made while the President of that company is summering among foreigners. Four years ago Henry Clews, banker of New York, in a secret circular, said that it was a hopeful sign to see so many immigrants coming to the United States, for the tide would sweep over the Knights of Labor, and no matter how they struggled the immigration would always be the club to beat back the Knights. They claim that our Order is foreign, and should be suppressed because of that. They applaud the coming of foreigners to beat us to earth. One may not join the Knights of Labor, if a foreigner, under pain of dismissal from employment. Four years ago Adolph Polletschek landed in the United States. He landed the year that Henry Clews sent out that secret circular. Four years later we find him (not yet a citizen) doing duty under the pirate flag of Robert Pinkerton in waging war on a body of men who have broken no law, outraged no statute, threatened no violence, and who reckon among their members over seventy five per cent. of native Americans. An alien hired on American soil to butcher Americans who demanded justice and equality under the law. We are a patient people -- aye, almost a cowardly people -- or we would not tolerate this thing one day longer.


The Knights of Labor are struggling among other things, for an honest day's pay, for an honest day's work, and because dividends are wanted on watered stock they cannot get it. Their labor cannot be watered; no deceit or treachery can be practiced in working the switches or manipulating the brakes. In defense of water -- of the thinnest kind -- the blood of the Artisan citizen is spilled by alien hirelings who were imported by men who manipulate the Stock Market.

Benjamin Harrison and Robert Pinkerton stand conspicuously before the American people. One is the Chief Executive of sixty millions of people and was elected by their votes. The other is the creature of the monopolies of the United States, was not elected by anybody, and yet has more authority than the President. Where will all of this end! If it is to be warfare instead of law, who can muster the biggest army? Is it not time for Benjamin Harrison to wake up? The muttering one hears on every hand bodes no good to those who invoke the hand of violence on the slightest pretext. The people feel outraged, and patient endurance will not stand forever. We may wake up some day to a sense of duty and legislate the Pinkertons out of existence; but if they are not abolished by law they must go, for the rule of the bludgeon and bulldog revolver must end.


The Responsibility Placed Where it Belongs -- Strong Surpicion that Pinkertons Caused the Wreck on the Central -- Strikers too Peace able to Suit these Thieves and Blacklegs and Something Exciting had to be done. -- On Thursday night of last week some fiend or fiends in human form placed a number of railway ties on the tracks of the New York Central Company near Castleton. A train was


thrown from the track and many innocent persons were injured. Condemnation of such murderous acts will not avail, only the capture and punishment of the wretches will atone for the terrible crime, and no effort should be spared to bring the guilty parties to justice. I sincerely hope that the perpetrators of that act of horrible brutality will be discovered and that the full details of the plot may be unraveled and exposed. It is well, however, not to allow passion, interest or feeling to sway one in forming an opinion as to who placed the ties on the track, for, after all, such things have no weight in forming verdicts or rendering judgments -- only cool reasoning and deliberate counsel will avail. To take it for granted, as some do, that it was the work of strikers is clearly unjust and in reaching that conclusion these men have either forgotten or overlooked many incidents which could not have escaped their notice since the strike began. The wrath that is now piled high on the heads of the strikers is uncalled for. If it were judiciously distributed, between both parties to the controversy, one would have less fault to find and a better opinion of the judgment of the one man power that wields public opinion from the editor's chair in some back office where the active touch with humanity is never felt. In the Evening Telegram of September 5, the following editorial appeared:

Powderly Must Investigate. -- The Knights of Labor may not be guilty of any part of the recent train wrecks on the Central system, but, if Mr. Powderly wants to dig the grave of his organization, he will quietly let the suspicion stand that they are. During all former conflicts of the Knights, with capital the chiefs of the Labor Leagues have exhorted their men to refrain from violence. They well know that when men, are maddened by suffering and fancied wrongs it is human instinct to wreak revenge on the property of their alleged "oppressors." This entails enormous damage,


as in the great strikes of 1877, for which the innocent tax-payer must settle. At the same time brutal attempts at train wrecking result in loss of life, and again innocent people are the sufferers. No public will tolerate a body or an organization which works by destruction of property and human life. Within a single week some set of men have gone into this business against the Central Road. In one instance the lives of two hundred passengers were imperiled by obstructions on the rail. They were discovered and removed in time. Today's reports tell of ties piled on the tracks of the Central near Castleton. If these miscreants are not strikers or sympathizers with the strikers, who can they be? Who are they? In the latest dispatches from Albany it appears that Mr. Bissell, acting for the road, has ordered strikers to leave the houses of the Company which they occupied for nonpayment of rent. At the same time Mr. Powderly officially declares that "the strike will never end." The Telegram has no disposition to impute this style of murderous warfare to the Knights, but Mr. Powderly must satisfy the public that they are innocent. If he is wise he will lose no time in doing so. He owes it to his organization, to the people and to himself.

Mr. Powderly, while he deplores such acts of inhumanity as much as any other man, does not admit for one moment that the Order of the Knights of Labor is in any way responsible for that outrage; he does not admit that a Local Assembly, or even a Knight of Labor, is guilty of the deed. Until the miscreant is detected and the crime fastened where it properly belongs, he will judge no man or set of men. If it should turn out that it was a striker, a Knight of Labor, who placed the ties on the track, it will also be discovered that the order does not sanction such doings, and that it endeavors to exclude from its ranks such characters as would be likely to do such a thing. I will go further and


say that if a Knight of Labor is arrested for the offense. I will do all that I can to employ counsel to defend him and bring out the facts in the case. We discovered that during the South west strike that hundreds of innocent persons were arrested and brought into court on damaging charges. We also proved that they were innocent, and that agents of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company were the guilty parties. It was clearly proven that the plot to tap the wire running between Messrs. Gould and Hoxie was laid by the Chief of the Detective Force then employed by the Company, and that he did his best to implicate Martin Irons in the crime. The courts, which as yet stand higher than mere suspicion, exonerated Mr. Irons, and, while the real offender was never prosecuted, the evidence on which it could be done was produced in court and is now in my possession. At that time the papers in the South west frantically called on Mr. Powderly to denounce his Order for doing such things, and they were afterward forced to publish denials of their former statements. It has since then developed that the man who fired the freight shed at East St. Louis was in the employ of the railway company, and was among the most bitter of the enemies of the Knights of Labor in the Southwest. Taking these things into consideration, it is as well to go slow, and at the same time keep a sharp eye on the fellow who shouts "Stop thief!'

By what right does the Evening Telegram state a falsehood and then ask me to investigate? In that editorial are at least two misstatements. During the strike it had other editorials in which it quoted me as saying things that I never dreamt of. They were based on alleged interviews which were supposed to have been had with me. The reporters of that paper seldom took the pains to find out what my sentiments were, for they came to see me but once or twice during the time I was in New York. One of their reports


contains the sentiment: "The strike will never end." I never made that assertion; but I did say, and now repeat, that the agitation for the control, or supervision, of corporations by the government will never end until it is accomplished.

In another part of that editorial the assertion is made that "in one instance the lives of two hundred passengers were imperiled by obstructions on the rail. They were discovered and removed in time."

That statement is without a shadow of foundation, and it may be due to the scattering of such lurid falsehoods that the fiend who did the deed at Castleton was inspired The instance referred to was that which appeared in the press dispatches of Sunday, August 31, concerning an attempt to wreck a train at Karners the day previous. All the papers contained that item, and, strange as it may appear, none of the officials of the New York Central Railway contradicted it, although they knew it was false. In times of peace and tranquility, if a wreck took place, the public would not get wind of it, the railway officials would not talk about it, and information could not be extracted from them with a corkscrew. It would injure the reputation of the road to let such things become public. It is only when a strike is in progress that the public will hear of wrecks on railways, if the managers can help it.

In the New York World of September 2, I saw the following:
Albany, N. Y., September 1.

It looks now as if the story of an attempt to wreck the East bound Chicago Express near Karners on Saturday morning was not true. John Bosch, a reputable citizen of No. 322 Central Avenue this city, made a statement tonight which tends to show that no obstruction was placed on the track. Mr. Bosch with others was in the forward coach, returning from a fishing excursion to the St. Lawrence. When the train slowed up and finally stopped a short


distance west of Karners, Mr. Bosch and his companions got off and went ahead to the locomotive to find out what was the matter. There was no obstruction on the track, nor were there signs that any had been removed. There was nothing near the track that could have obstructed it. No one was excited. Someone said there had been trouble with the air brakes, and no further explanation was given. Nobody said anything about an obstruction on the track. "I am not a Knight of Labor," said Mr. Bosch, "but when I read in the papers of the attempt to wreck a train I thought it no more than right to state the facts in the case, in order that unjust suspicion may be removed from those upon whom it may have fallen." Mr. Bosch says his companions are ready to corroborate his statement.

That clipping was cut out and mailed by me to Mr. Bosch, with request that he answer promptly and in such a way that I could make it public. Here is a copy of his answer:

Albany, N. Y., Septembers, 1890.

T. V, Powderly, Esq.:

DEAR SIR: -- I just received your letter of September 2, and I hereby agree to swear to the statement made in clipping which you sent me from yesterday's World to be true in every way. Five of my companions will do the same.

I remain very truly yours, JOHN BOSCH.

Although Mr. Bosch's denial was given to the Associated Press it did not flash into all parts of the country as did the first report, and the fact remains that there was no obstruction placed on the track at Karners.

The Evening Telegram insists that Mr. Powderly shall investigate, but it does not seem to think it necessary to be just, or that Mr. Webb has anything to do in the matter. I believe that if that first man of straw had not been placed on the track at Karners for


the purpose of injuring the cause of the strikers, the affair at Castleton would not have been chronicled. I have a suspicion that the ties were placed on the track by some of the Pinkerton men who were hired by Mr. Webb, and that they did it to stretch out the job they had in hand. The strikers were too peaceable to suit the Pinkertons and something had to be done to justify the employment of a set of thieves and blacklegs, whose acquaintances, in the places where they reside, would not hesitate to accuse them of not only placing the ties on the track, but of robbing the murdered passengers in the bargain. No, it is clearly no part of my duty to investigate that matter; and so long as the New York Central will continue to hire a class of men whose reputations are such as to make them objects of suspicion where they live, I cannot be blamed for believing that they are the guilty parties. I do not mind Mr. Webb's saying that he thought the strikers did it, for he is directly interested and cannot detect the difference between old and faithful employes and Pinkerton hirelings, whose trade is murder and theft. The man who hires murderers and thieves cannot expect them to perform the work of angels.

The shedding of innocent blood, the damaging of property and other acts of violence and wrong-doing cannot be defended by any man, and no one can justify such actions. Mr. Webb is quite right in offering a reward for the apprehension of the wreckers at Castleton, but he was wrong in offering a reward for the apprehension of imaginary wreckers at Karners.

Since the strike began about one hundred and twenty men have been killed and, maimed along the New York Central Railway through carelessness and mismanagement. There was no publication of these insignificant items. Innocent persons were killed by the reckless fellows who were imported into New York by Robert Pinkerton. The lives of those people were as dear to their friends as were


the lives of those who were so suddenly threatened by the Castleton disaster, and the persons who wrecked the train should suffer the extreme penalty of the law. It is a well known fact that freight was almost at a standstill on the Central, and an imaginary pile of ties were pressed into service at Karners. A few days after the example thus set was acted on by some person or persons at Castleton. It is quite likely that if the first report had not been given out the blood curdling deed would not have been perpetrated. In any event, I believe that the real criminals will be found among the men who were paid to patrol the tracks at Karners and Castleton, and that it was done to keep them in employment.

Every effort should be made to bring the guilty to justice, and in the meantime the officials of the State of New York should keep an eye on the hessian army now doing duty within the boundaries of the State. T. V. POWDERLY.


SECTION 4. --The Company Closed its Case Very Suddenly -- Testimony taken by the New York State Board of Arbitration -- Mr. Webb cornered -- Evidences of Perjury -- He is Responsible for the Strike -- The Investigation Ended. -- The New York State Board of Arbitration and Mediation met in Part I of the Court of Common Pleas, New York City, on Tuesday of last week, for the purpose of investigating the causes which led to the strike on the New York Central Railroad. The members of the Board are Judge Gilbert Robertson of Troy, William Pureed of Rochester, and Florence Donovan of Brooklyn, N. Y. They were acting under that provision of the law creating the Board which empowers them, in case either party to the dispute refuses to submit to arbitration, to proceed to the locality where a strike occurs and investigate into the causes, authority being given them to subpoena any witness to


attend, to compel them to produce any papers that may be desired and to examine such witness in the same manner as any Court of Record.

In accordance with this authority subpoenas were issued to Master Workman E. J. Lee, of D. A. 246 and to a number of the former employees of the Central, whose discharge by the Company was the cause of the present strike.

General Master Workman Powderly, the members of the General Executive Board and General Secretary Treasurer John W. Hays all volunteered their attendance, and were on hand to submit their testimony and to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Order.

Third Vice President H. Walter Webb attended the investigation and answered all questions put to him except one. By the advice of his counsel he would not say what the instructions given by the Railroad Company to Pinkerton's Detectives were. The Members of the Board thought he should explain exactly how and upon what terms Pinkerton men were employed, and what were the instructions under which they acted. Mr. Webb thought that was altogether a private matter and refused to talk about it. He may therefore be said to have left the witness chair in a state of "contempt" toward the Board. Those who represented the Order might have pressed for an answer and for Mr. Webb's commitment, if he persisted in his refusal, but they had seen enough of that gentleman's way of making statements to cause them to doubt that the answer would be truthful when it did come.

Messrs. Holland, Devlin, General Master Workman Powderly and a number of the New York Central's recently discharged employees gave testimony which directly, and in a most positive manner, contradicted the declarations of Mr. Webb that no one had been discharged from the road because of his affiliations with the


Knights of Labor. It is a significant fact, and apparently indicative of the indifference in which the Railroad Company holds this investigation by the Board of Arbitration, that none of these witnesses were cross-examined.

Mr. Frank Loomis of New York City and Mr. Hamilton Harris of Albany acted as counsel for the Railroad Corporation, while General Roger A. Pryor was present in the interest of the Order.

Third Vice President Webb was the first to be called to the witness chair and sworn to tell the whole truth concerning a matter of which up to that time he had repeatedly and positively refused to speak.

"Be kind enough, Mr. Webb," said Lawyer Loomis, "to give the Board such knowledge or information as you have as to the cause of the controversy said to have arisen between the New York Central Railroad Company and its employees."

Mr. Webb joined his hands loosely in his lap, threw back his head and replied:"

"The Company has no controversy with any of its employees. On the evening of August 8 last, a large number of employees voluntarily left the service of the Company. Since that time their places have been filled and the Company is operating the road. The reason given by the men to whom I have referred as leaving the Company's employ was that seventy eight men had been discharged prior to August 8. It was claimed that these seventy eight men were sent away because they were Knights of Labor. This is not true. They were discharged by my orders, and so far as I know only seventeen of them were Knights of Labor."

"These men" continued Mr. Webb, who spoke as though he had committed his speech to memory, "were dismissed for good and sufficient reasons. Of the entire seventy eight only seven have


ever asked why they were told to go. On August 8, however, a gentleman, Mr. Holland, having no connection with the Company, a resident of another State, called at my office and asked for an interview to discuss the propriety of these discharges. I refused to talk of the matter with him. Since then several other gentlemen, not connected with the road, have asked for a similar discussion, and I have refused them. That, I believe, covers the history of the so-called strike."

"And I think it is all that is necessary," said Mr. Loomis.

Upon being cross examined by General Roger Pryor, Mr. Webb said he had nothing to do with the road outside of the Transportation and Operation Departments. Mr. Depew was abroad. The witness had discharged the men on reports from Members of the Secret, Service of the Company. These reports are not. in existence. They conveyed to him the charges and evidence. The charge itself was unsatisfactory service. An engineer named Low was discharged for unsatisfactory service.

Several of the men know the cause for which they were discharged. Their relations with the Knights of Labor had nothing to do with their discharge. Mr. Lee's prominence in the Order was no reason for his discharge.

Mr., Pryor endeavored to find out whether the Knight of Labor question had been discussed by the Board of Directors, but the Board declined to admit that question.

General Pryor asked for the names of those discharged for drunkenness, but Mr. Webb declined to answer on the ground that the men might not care to have their names mentioned.

General Pryor stated that he had the sanction of the men for asking the question, and that the witness' manifestation of delicacy and concern was a mistaken one and wholly unnecessary.

Some few names. -- Convery was discharged for being drunk


Anybody else?

Yes, a fireman named Morgan.

Anyone else?

Not that I recall. A man named McCarthy was discharged for incompetency and neglect of duty. He had been warned by the superintendent for being neglectful of his duties, and for other matters.

What matters?

I don't remember.

Q. Can you name any men who were discharged for incapacity? A. Not just at present.

Q. Can you name any who were discharged for insubordination? A. I cannot name them, but a number were.

Q. What was the imputed insubordination? A. Arrogance and insolence toward their superiors. This man Lee was very insolent toward General Manager Toucey. He told Mr. Toucey that if he didn't get some money out of the Central Road he would tie up every wheel between New York and Buffalo.

Q. How long after that was he discharged ? A. I don't know how long, but it was not very long after I heard of it, you may be sure.

Q. Had Lee neglected his duty? A. He had, several times.

Q. But wasn't he on a furlough at the times of his alleged neglect of work? A. I don't know.

Mr. Webb was forced to admit that Lee was an extra engineer; being paid only when he worked, and that he was not in the pay of the Company when the alleged neglect of duty occurred.

Webb cornered. -- General Pryor -- Did you make an investigation of the charges that were reported to you? Did you call the men before you? A. I did not.


Q. Did you give die men an opportunity to explain? A. I did not.

Q. Did the seven men who applied for reasons as to their discharge receive those reasons? A. They did.

Q. Do you know what reasons were given to them? A. I do not.

Q. Do you know that the connection of these men with the Knights of Labor had nothing to do with their discharge? A. I do know that, for I discharged them and I did not do so because they were Knights of Labor.

Q. Was not the fact that these men were Knights of Labor discussed by you with other officials of the road.

To this question the Railroad Lawyers objected and their objections were sustained.

Pinkertons employed by Webb before the Strike was ordered. --

General Pryor -- Do you know of the employment of Pinkerton men by the Company?

Mr. Harris -- We object; that has nothing to do with this controversy.

General Pryor -- I think it has. I think the employment of the Pinkerton armed bandit's aggrivated and prolonged the strike and is a proper subject of inquiry by the Board.

Chairman Purcell decided that the question was competent, and Sir. Webb replied: "Yes sir: I do know of the employment of Pinkerton men."

Q. "Were the services of the Pinkerton men contracted for before the strike was ordered?

A. Most assuredly. I arranged for these men as soon as the newspapers began to advertise that we were going to have a strike.

Q. What were your instructions to the Pinkertons?


To this question the counsel of Mr. Webb interposed an objection, and although the Board decided that he should answer it, Mr. Webb, on the advice of his lawyers, refused to do so. He was then asked whether before employing Pinkerton men he had asked protection of the regular police authorities, and he answered that he had not. With that admission Vice President Webb was excused from the witness stand.

Webb Flatly Contradicted. -- The first witness called by General Pryor was William A Valentine. He was twenty six years of age, and had been in the employ of the Central between four and five years. He joined the Knights of Labor last January. He was discharged from the Central on August 4 last, when he was a passenger train man. He knew nothing of the intention of the Company to dispense with his services until he was handed the following communication:

I am instructed by the Assistant Superintendent to inform you that your services will no longer be required after this day.

Truly yours,

P. S. -- Please leave your keys and badge with Mr.A. L. Vosberg.
J. W. S.

General Pryor -- Did you receive any further notice of your discharge?

Mr. Valentine -- No sir.

Q. Were you every drunk or disorderly while in the employ of the Company?

A. No, sir; never.

Q. Was your place filled after you left! A. Yes, sir; immediately.

The witness then went on to say that he believed he was sent out of the Company's employ because he was a Knight of Labor.


Several weeks before his discharge Mr. Stevens called at his house and asked him if he belonged to the Knights. Valentine said "Yes;" and then Mr. Stevens said: "I am surprised; I thought you were a man I could depend upon; and when I was told yesterday that you had said to a man on the train that he ought to join the Knights or he would be sorry, I could scarce believe it. I am a friend of yours," continued Mr. Stevens, "and I want to give you a piece of advice: Don't talk about being a Knight of Labor, because if it does not put you off of the road altogether it will interfere with your chances of promotion."

Q. Have you ever asked for the reason of your discharge?

A. I delegated the committee to inquire for me, but it got no satisfaction.

The witness denied that he had spoken "insolently" or "arrogantly" to his superiors, or knew of any cause, other than that he was a Knight, why he should have been dismissed.

Then Dennis McCarthy was called. He has lived in the city twenty one years and had been in the employ of the Central for twenty years. He joined the Knight of Labor last January. He began his service in the Central as a freight brakeman and had worked his way up to the position of train baggage man, running between New York and Albany. He testified that his position was filled within five minutes after he was discharged; that, in fact, his successor was already in the baggage car when he was handed the written notification that he could go. He was not content to accept his discharge calmly. Early the next day he called upon Superintendent Toucey.

Mr. McCarthy then related his interview with the Superintendent.

"I handed out my paper of dismissal, which was signed by Stevens, and said to Mr. Toucey:


‘What does this mean?’

Mr. Toucey looked it over and said:

‘Why, you are a kicker.’

‘What do you mean?’ say I.

‘You're a leader?’ says he. ‘You belong to the Knights of Labor. You're under this man Lee, and he's pinching my heart's blood out coming here day after day with complaints.’

‘I am a Knight of Labor,’ says I, ‘Mr. Toucey, and I see no harm in it.’

And he then ask me whether in case of trouble I would stand by the Company or the Knights, and I told him that if the Company was in the right of it I'd stand by the Company, but if the Knights were right I'd stand by them; and says I:

‘Mr. Toucey, I've worked faithfully for this Company twenty years.’

‘Yes,’ says he to me, ‘so you have, and I've been like a father to you.’

Then he caught me by the arm, and says he:

‘Go down stairs and keep your mouth shut.’

So I went down stairs and over to my car, and there I met Mr. Phyfe, who says to me:

‘I want your keys and badge.’

I told him Mr. Toucey had said that I was to stay, but he told me I was discharged and would have to go, and I went."

Q. Did you ever neglect your duty?

A. No, sir; nobody ever told me so.

Q. Was any charge ever made against you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were you ever drunk?

A. No, sir: never.

Statement of District Master Workman Lee. -- This witness was


not subjected to any cross examination, and District Master Workman E. J. Lee was called to the stand. He testified that he and four others constituted the Executive Board of D. A. 246, and that they unanimously voted to order the strike when it became apparent that men were being discharged from the road for no other reason than they were Knights of Labor, and, also, because the Company had deliberately violated the written agreement with D. A. 246 not to discharge any man without a hearing. He was himself discharged as a locomotive engineer on July 19. He had not neglected any duty. He had been absent a good deal, but never without the consent of his superior, to locomotive dispatcher in the round house at Albany. He was, as has been said, what is known as an extra engineer and was only paid when on duty.

Mr. Lee was asked to reply to the allegation of President Webb that he had been grossly insolent to Superintendent Toucy and had spoken of getting some of the Central's cash or tying up the road. He declared the only foundation for that statement was a visit to the office of Superintendent Toucey on July 27. He called to obtain redress for certain flagmen who were compelled to work for $30 a month, which in months of thirty one days was less than a dollar a day.

"Mr. Voorhees was present at the interview," continued Lee, and said to me:

‘You've heard the story of the straw that breaks the camel's back. Well, I think you have got this camel on the ground, and I don't know but the last straw is already on its back. You can't get anything more.’ Remember, I was only asking that flagmen should have at least $1 a day. I then told Mr. Toucey that if that was the way the Company felt, I'd have to report it to the organization. He asked me what reason I would give, and I said to him ‘the only reason I can conceive why you will not pay


living wages to your employees is that there is too much water in New York Central stock to enable you to pay dividends and treat men fairly at the same time.’ I never said anything about having a part of the earnings or tying up the road, as Mr. Webb testified.

"On the day the strike was ordered," Lee went on, "I saw Mr. Toucey and Mr. Bissell. Mr. Toucey told me that I had been discharged because I was an agitator. He said he had personally instructed Buchanan to discharge me because I was an agitator. I then ask him if he would reinstate the other discharged men and leave me to my fate. I begged him to reinstate the others, but he said that I had made the rest of the men as bad as myself."

"What do you mean by ‘bad?’ asked General Pryor.

I suppose he meant that I had made Knights of Labor out of them and had taught them to stand up for their rights. I asked Mr. Toucey whether I was to be persecuted as well as discharged -- that is, if I was going to be blacklisted -- and he said ‘No.’ He said: ‘You go over and apply for a place on the New York and New Haven Road and I'll write them a letter in your behalf.’ I asked him if he would give me a general letter, but that he declined to do. He told me this was a turning point in my life and that I had a chance to make a man of myself. I told him I didn't see how it would be making a man of myself to desert the labor organization to which I belonged."

After recess, at 2 P. M., Charles Malloy, another of the discharged employes, was called. He testified that he had been employed by the Central for eight years and had been a Knight of Labor for three years. He was freight car inspector at the time of his discharge on July 29 last. No reason was assigned for his discharge at the time, but he was subsequently told by Mr. Buchanan that he had been dismissed because he told a lie to procure a pass


for himself to Utica to attend a District meeting of the Knights. He denied the lie. He was not cross-examined.

The next witness was James J. Holland, of the General Executive Board. He said he was sent to New York before the strike was ordered, to see if he could arrange an arbitration of the difficulties. He narrated his interview with Vice President Webb substantially as it has heretofore been printed, but he also told of an unofficial conversation had with Superintendent Toucey, which has not before found its way into print. He said that in conversation with Mr. Toucey he (Holland) said to him that the men had great confidence in Mr. Depew, and thought that if he were here the trouble would not have occurred. To this remark Mr. Toucey replied: "I think so, too. But unfortunately Mr. Webb does not know the temper of the men as well as Mr. Depew. Why don't the men cable to Mr. Depew and explain the situation?"

"I told him," continued Mr. Holland, "that they had cabled Mr. Depew and received no reply."

John Devlin, of the General Executive Board, testified as to his personal efforts with Mr. Powderly to persuade Mr. Webb to consent to an investigation or arbitration of the difficulties, and then District Master Workman Lee was recalled to state that he himself sent a cablegram to Mr. Depew stating the men's grievances and asking for arbitration, and that he prepaid the message, but received no answer.

General Master Workman Powderly was then called. He corroborated the evidence of Mr. Devlin regarding the interviews with Messrs. Webb and Toucey.

Thomas Conlin, who had worked for the Central Road eight years and was discharged on July 3, testified that he had been a Knight of labor for four years. At the time of his discharge he was a car cleaner. He knew of no reason for his dismissal. He


was simply told to draw his money. He tried to find out what was the matter. First he asked his immediate superior, Assistant Foreman Cooper.

"Mr. Cooper," said Conlin, in giving his testimony, "seemed as much surprised as I was. Then I went to Foreman Lyons. He said he was sorry, but that he had been called upstairs and told to give me my ‘time’ (discharge). He said Mr. Buchanan had ordered it. I saw Mr. Buchanan the next day and he said: ‘Your services are not satisfactory.’ I asked him if it was because I drank, or was a loafer or a thief, or what it was. He merely repeated that my services were not satisfactory. There was never any complaint against me, but I was once a member of a local committee of the Knights of Labor that called on Mr. Buchanan to see if we could have our wages raised.

Mr. Purcell, of the Board of Arbitration, asked the counsel for the company if they intended calling the officers of the company whose names had been mentioned in evidence. Mr. Harris replied that they did not, and Mr. Purcell then ordered that they should appear next day.


The Board met a little after 10 o'clock on Wednesday morning. General Master Workman Powderly, Roger A. Pryor, General Secretary Treasurer Hayes and the members of the General Executive Board arrived promptly on time, and soon after were joined by the Railroad's attorneys and several officials of the company.


General Superintendent John M. Toucey was called to the witness stand. There followed an embarrassing silence. Neither Mr. Loomis nor Mr. Harris, whose witness Mr. Toucey was, presumably, had any questions to ask. Finally Chairman Purcell broke


the silence by inviting Mr. Toucey to make such statements as he pleased, but Mr. Toucey did not adopt the suggestion. He was ready, he said, to answer any questions that might be addressed to him.

It was then suggested that he should give his version of the interview with District Master Workman E. J. Lee, about which President Webb and Mr. Lee had so widely differed.

"Yes," said Mr. Toucey," I remember the interview. I cannot give the exact date. It was several weeks before the strike was ordered. I cannot say whether it was on July 27. It was about that time. Mr. Lee came to me to make certain demands concerning the men's pay, which demands I refused. He then informed me that there had been a good deal of water poured into the New York Central stock, and that somebody was making a good deal of money, and he added that he proposed to have some of that money."

Cross-examined by General Pryor Mr. Toucey said: "I did not discharge Lee. He was discharged by Mr. Webb."

General Pryor -- Have you given all the conversation between you and Lee?

A. No, the first part of the conversation was about the demands which Mr. Lee had to make.

Q. Was not Mr. Lee's reference to the watered stock in answer to your statement that the company could not afford to accede to his demands?

A. It was not. I have given you the conversation just as it occurred. He said that somebody was making a great deal of money and that he was going to have a share of it.

Mr. Theodore Voorhees was then called to the witness stand, but his examination amounted to very little. He said that he had had nothing whatever to do with the discharge of any of the


employees of the road, and that for three weeks before the strike he had been absent from the city. He testified to having been present in Mr. Toucey's office when Messrs. Powderly and Devlin visited that gentleman and he corroborated their report of the conversation between them. General Pryor had no questions to put and Messrs. Toucey and Voorhees, being informed that the Board had nothing more to ask them, immediately left the room.

William Buchanan, the Central's Superintendent of Motive Power, was then called. It had been testified that he discharged Lee, and he was asked about it. He admitted that he had, and added that he had his orders direct from Mr. Webb.

General Pryor -- Did you know why Lee was discharged?

A. I did not.

Q. Did you know why any of the men were discharged?

A. I know the reason for the discharge of two men.

Q. Who are they?

A. Conlin and Malloy.

Q. Why were they discharged?

A. Malloy was dismissed for obtaining a pass under false representations, and Conlin for neglect of duty.

Q. Of what did the neglect of duty consist?

A. Chiefly tardiness; he was frequently from five to fifteen minutes late in die mornings and at noon.

Witness admitted that Conlin had never been spoken to regarding his alleged neglect of duty.

Mr. Stevens' "friendly" advice.

Station Agent J. W. Stevens responded when his name was called, and was questioned about his visit to the house of William A. Valentine.

"I had heard rumors," said Mr. Stevens, "that Valentine was talking loudly along the line of the road, urging all employees to


join the Knights and to get in out of the rain. I took an interest in Valentine and was anxious that he should succeed, so I called at his house and told him I was very sorry he had not consulted me before joining the Knights. I told him that it would be apt to interfere with his promotion, for the company would rather see men work for its interest than to see them organizing against it. I did not ask him to resign, but I advised him in a friendly way to think well over the matter."

When asked if he had not discharged a number of men, the witness replied: "I have no authority to discharge anybody. I simply followed my orders. If I was ordered to discharge a man I did so without asking the reasons. I do not know the reasons for all of the discharges."

Edward Lyon, foreman of car cleaners, testified that he discharged Conlin on the order of Mr. Buchanan, and did not know the reason for the discharge. He was not cross examined.

General Pryor then called Nathan Seery, of No. 219 East Thirty-sixth Street, as a witness. Seery said: "I know J. W. Stevens. About August 1 I had occasion to go into his office on business. As I was leaving he called me back, and when we were done he asked me if it was true that I had joined the Knights of Labor. I told him it was, and he said he was very sorry I had lone so without consulting him. I asked him why, and he said it would do me harm. He said to me: ‘I have been a friend to you and have had you transferred from the Harlem to the Hudson River Road, and you ought to have consulted me. It is a question of bread and butter for you, and you must choose between the Knights and the railroad company.’ I asked him for time to think it over, and he told me to take a day or two and then come to his office and tell him my decision."


"And did you tell him your decision?" asked Chairman Purcell.

"No, sir; I never went to his office again."

"Were you discharged?"

"No, sir."

"Then you are still in the employ of the company?" said Chairman, interrogatively.

"No, sir," replied the witness, "I left with the rest of the boys."

When the name of the last witness was called, and before he was sworn, the counsel for the company held a hurried consultation and dispatched a messenger after Mr. Stevens, who had left the room. Mr. Stevens returned, and being recalled to the stand, said that what he had said to Seery was said by way of a joke.

There being no further witnesses on hand, the Board adjourned the session to meet in Albany on Friday morning, so that New York Central officials at that point might be examined.


Chairman Purcell was the only member of the Board of Mediation and Arbitration present on Friday morning to proceed with the investigation of the New York Central strike, but the other members dropped in as the hearing went on. The railway was represented by the same counsel as at the New York sessions. Roger A. Pryor was on hand, along with Messrs. Wright and Devlin of the General Executive Board, and about thirty strikers closely listened to the testimony, though the number steadily increased until the galleries were filled.

Superintendent Bissell, the first witness, said that the Third Vice President was responsible for all the dismissals, and that he understood that Lefevre was discharged for inattention, as he had often seen him neglecting his duty. He knew the man was


an active Knight of Labor, but this had nothing to do with his or any of the dismissals as far as he knew.

Mr. Lefevre testified that after 18 years' service with the company he had been discharged and no reasons given. As he had never been reprimanded he concluded that it was because he was a Knight.

Mr. Staley said he was reprimanded in January, 1889, and threatened with discharge for being a Knight. He had served the road eighteen years and eight months and was then dismissed, being told that he was working against the company's interest. He had been recommended for promotion before it became known that he was a Knight.

Another witness called was George Martin. He swore that he had been in the service of the company for twenty years prior to his discharge. General Pryor elicited the following:

Were you ever reprimanded?

Yes, sir. I was once reprimanded for being sick.

How was that?

I was unable to go to my work one day on account of illness, and sent word to that effect, but when I reported for duty the succeeding day I was reprimanded for absence. No other complaint had ever been entered against me.

How did you lose the fingers on your right hand?

I lost that hand in the employ of the New York Central Railway, through the neglect of the company.

Did the company compensate you for the loss of your fingers?

They docked me for the time I lost through the accident, even the quarter of the day on which it occurred.

Have you a family?

Yes, sir.

And yet they discharged you without cause?

Yes, sir. The only reason for my discharge that I can imagine


was my service upon a committee which came before the officers of the road asking for shorter hours. I have never been intoxicated and have never been accused of insubordination or incompetency.

The testimony of Philip Twomey, who followed Martin, showed that the threat had been made by Superintendent Packard that he would discharge all employees who had acted upon committees of the Knights. Witness had acted on a committee asking for the reinstatement of a discharged employee, one Sol. Warren. General Pryor questioned, and witness answered as follows:

Why did the committee seek the reinstatement of Warren?

He was a quiet, hard working man, and had a wife and six children to support. We asked that he be given work, for without it his children would starve.

Was he employed?

Only for a few weeks.

And do you think you were discharged on account of your service on this committee as a Knight?

Yes, sir; I cannot possibly imagine any other cause; I have been in the service of the Central Road during the past ten years, and during that time no complaint has ever been made against me for intoxication, insubordination or incompetency. I have never been drunk in my life.

Subsequently, and after the examination of the railroad officials, John McCarthy, who had been an employee for twenty three years, and Edward F. Reilly, Master Workman of L. A. 10,854, in the company's service for two and one half years, testified to the same in substance.

Superintendent Packard of the West Albany shops, the first witness for the company, in reply to Chairman Purcell's questioning, said:

I discharged men only under the direction of Mr. Buchanan, the Superintendent of Motive Power.


Did you state to Mr. Twomey and others that you could or would discharge any of the men who came to you as a committeeman?

I did not.

He was then subjected to the questioning of General Pryor, as follows:

Did you ever make a report to the company against any of the men who have testified?

No, Sir.

Aren't you the man particularly who, if there was any misconduct, would be most liable to be aware of it?

Yes, sir.

Yet you never found fault with or reported any of the men discharged?

No, sir.

Were any of the discharged men Knights of Labor?

I don't know a man that was a Knight of Labor.

What was that? Did not a committee composed of Knights of Labor wait upon you?

No, sir; a committee of employees only.

Did not this committee bear with them a petition headed "Knights of Labor?"

They did, but I refused to receive them as representatives of that organization, but as employees only.

Did you not of your own personal knowledge know that the discharged men were Knights?

No, sir.

Did you not know from rumor that such was the case?

The New York Central has nothing to do with rumors, sir.

Packard's face during this cross examination was a study. His uneasiness was noticeable to all present, and it is safe to say that no one believed his testimony.


James Buchanan, Superintendent of the Motive Power, was


called, and, in answer to Chairman Purcell's interrogatory relative to the reason for the dismissals ordered by him, said: "Fenwick would leave his post of duty for an hour or more at a time and was discharged for this neglect. Reilly and Morton were guilty of like neglect, the latter especially habitually leaving his work an hour before quitting time." Mr. Pryor touched a pertinent point when he asked: "Did you ever tell Fenwick that he was neglectful of his duty or warn him?" "No, Sir."

"Is the same true of the others?" "Yes, sir."


The testimony of Messrs. Kale and Frederick, discharged Knights, were of a similar nature.

A. D. Dubois testified that he was a discharged Knight of Labor, and that when he asked for the reason of his discharge he was told he was a labor agitator. No complaint was ever made against him.

Several others testified that they ascribed their discharge to the fact that they were Knights, and one old employee swore that he was told by Mr. Packard that all men who waited on the road's officials with grievances would lose their places.


Mr. Ross, the transfer agent at West Albany, testified that he had written Superintendent Bissell, asking for Staley's discharge, because of insubordination, and of three other men because they were constantly bothering him as members of grievance committees when they should have been attending to their business.


The testimony of all the witnesses subpoenaed having been concluded, Chairman Purcell asked Mr. Pryor about the agreement said to exist between the Company and the employees in reference to the discharge of the junior employees in point of service first, in


case of a lack of work. Mr. Harris had produced the agreement, and it was put in evidence. Mr. Pryor also put the Constitution of the Knights of Labor in evidence. Mr. Purcell stated that he wished to have no misunderstanding as to the powers of the Board in this investigation. The law does not direct or contemplate that after an investigation such as this the Board shall express an opinion as to the merits of the controversy, nor is any power given the Board to render a decision. The Board is authorized to incorporate the testimony in its annual report to the Legislature, with such recommendations as it deems proper. He then declared the inquiry at a close, as both sides declared that they were through.


Hasty Mr. Webb.

New York World, August 14

SECTION 4. -- Third Vice President Webb seems to have a hot box in his head. A moment's reflection will teach him, if he is still capable of coming to a just conclusion, that his conduct in the pending struggle has been far from commendable. His assumption that Knights of Labor must be wrong because they demand something of the Central Railroad is a very pitiful exhibition of narrow mindedness and bigotry, while his forget fullness of the rights of the public seems likely to lead him into serious difficulties. Mr. Webb announces that this fight is the corporation's; that "we will shut down the entire freight traffic if necessary, and we will spend $2,000, 000 to put down this trouble." In another interview he is reported as saying: "It may as well be understood at this critical juncture that the New York Central Company will go out of business rather than recede from its position." Will it? If Mr. Webb tries to carry out his threats he will learn several important facts that are essential to the full equipment of a railroad manager. He will learn that his road is a public highway, and that the statutes of this State require that his company shall furnish regular trains for the transportation of passengers and goods. He will discover, after he has closed up his road that every individual patron will have a right of


action for damage against it. Mr.Web knows that a very large amount of money has been invested along his roads and because of them. Does Mr. Webb think that his stockholders would like to pay for the practical destruction of that property? Moreover, Mr. Webb is endangering his road's character. His refusal to avail himself of the state Arbitration Law must be pronounced unreasonable by the courts, and if it results in a general tie-up it may become the duty of the Attorney-General to apply for dissolution of the corporation. Mr.Webb must reckon with more people than he seems to know of. He is not quite as much of an autocrat as he fancies himself to be.


Kentucky State Union, August 30.

Our sympathy is with the strikers in the New York Central trouble. Mr. Powderly has asked an interview with the officials, to arbitrate any differences that may exist, but has so far been refused. The strikers have been very orderly, and have tendered their services in helping protect the property of the Company; but instead of our civil officers keeping peace, which it is their duty to do, Pinkerton's cut throats have been called to the scene. This detective system only belongs to Russia and like governments. It is un-American and don't belong to our country. Wipe it out of existence. We have civil officers to see that the laws are executed, backed by the standing army and militia of our country.


The Standard, August 23,

The only disorder or violence resulting thus far from the strike has been at Albany, where it appears that the Pinkerton guards, hired by the railroad company, have shot and wounded several innocent people. The guards allege as their excuse for firing that they were assailed by stones and other missiles while in the performance of what they call their duty. This is disputed and there has been some controversy on the subject, but the real question, and one that cannot be too seriously considered, is as to the right of a private corporation to thus attempt to set up an army of its own.


The claim by the Central Company that the Albany police are not willing to protect its property offers no excuse whatever for the bringing of these armed mercenaries into the contest. If the police force of Albany is inadequate for the preservation of order, under the laws of this State the Sheriff of that county is bound to summon a posse that can preserve order. Again, if the Sheriff and his posse find the task beyond their strength and numbers, the law provides that the Sheriff shall ask the Governor for military assistance. This is the method by which orderly government is conducted in civilized countries, and it is a return to barbarism to allow one of the parties to a civil contest to employ armed ruffians to maintain what he calls his rights. The danger of possible temporary failure to maintain property rights offers no excuse, because the law contemplates this contingency, likewise, and provides for the assessment of damages on a community which through weakness or from other causes permits a mob to destroy private property. The whole conduct of the New York Central in this business has been in defiance of its public obligations, disingenuous, insolent and lawless, and the presence of these hired ruffians in this State, through its procurement, is the worst of its many offenses. It is time that a stop was put to this thing by a law that cannot be misunderstood, and which does not depend for interpretation on corporation judges. The working men of New York have asked many things from the Legislature, some of them wise and many of them otherwise; but if they understand and care for their rights as citizens, they will see to it that no man is elected this fall who will not agree to vote for a positive and explicit enactment forbidding corporations or others to bring hired ruffians into this State to serve them as the robber barons of old were served by their cut throat followers.


Chicago News.

When a great corporation ignores a request for arbitration between itself and its striking employes it does more than show its independence and general contempt for organized labor. It withdraws itself, as far as it is able, from the public. It cannot be forgotten -- though casuistry as to the rights of capital seeks to belittle


the truth -- that Railroad Corporations are creations of the public will. They are chartered to serve the public, and they are specially amenable to the laws which the public enacts for its own protection. The State has a right to demand that no quarrel between a Railroad Company and its employees shall discommode the public, and enlightened Legislatures will in time make a Railroad strike a crime against the public peace. But in the absence of specific laws there is a public sentiment which Railroad Corporations may not disregard with impunity. That sentiment declares that arbitration is morally compulsory on both sides in a war between labor and capital, and is especially imperative when the prosperity and comfort of tens of thousands of unoffending citizens are jeoparded, as is the case in every important Railroad strike.


Twentieth Century, August 22.

Listen to the tyrant Webb:

"I don't want to be hard on such men who have otherwise been faithful to us. We don't mean to be revengeful in this matter, but only just."

These are the words of the conscious or unconscious hypocrite who in his "statement" says: "I appreciate their situation very fully, especially in those cases where the men have wives and children who are dependent on them for support."

He doesn't "mean to be revengeful." He only means to be "just!" Mr. Webb may not realize it, but he is a heartless slave driver. Nobody should ever respect him again. And yet nine tenths of all the politicians, lawyers, doctors, merchants, college professors, tender hearted fathers and mothers, and clergymen in this country will approve of Mr. Webb.

The laborers struck for more bread and freedom. This was the crime for which they are now "justly" punished! Mr. Webb's company legally steals about eight tenths of all that these laborers earn. They struck to reduce the stealing to seven tenths. And thus are they "justly" punished. No words could fittingly describe Mr. Webb's merciless brutality.



Commoner and Glassworker, August 30.

Mr. Webb, the great I am of the New York Central Railroad Company, is one of those with blood so blue that it is impossible for it to show a blush. He is so ultra high toned that he has ceased to be a man. He is the highest exemplification of the refined brute. He is a traitor to the teachings of Christ, a libel on humanity and a nonentity, so far as perceptive qualities, fitting him to discern justice from injustice, are concerned. He is what he is through accident; but to hear him blow off every other day like a big whale about "what I will do," etc., is enough to make the pale vault of heaven crack, the stars to fall and planets to crumble to dust. Sorry are we to notice also that some fawning sycophants are ever ready with their praises for men in Mr. Webb's class. They are natural born fetich-worshippers, and are little better in intellect than the sun and fire worshippers of dark ages. They certainly are moral cowards. These people did not know any better, but our moderns should know something better. They will praise Mr. Webb for his fine generalship, his undaunted courage, determination, etc., etc. They will laud his victory, if the result proves one, as the outcome of unusually good management. Yes, phenomenal Mr. Webb, just sit still and refuse to stir and you will win. The public be d -- d. Great reasoning powers, Mr. Webb; just act like a mule or dull ox and your men will whip themselves, or necessity will do it for them. It takes great generalship for a sleek, well fed railroad manager to whip a famished crew. None but those of gigantic intellect would be equal to the task. What a loss the community would have suffered had Mr. Webb never been born. Just think of it, there would be no brains sufficiently extensive to grapple with the problem of how to whip starving men on strike.


Independent American, August 16.

The great strike on the New York Central Railroad and the complete stoppage of traffic and travel is another argument in favor of the ownership of railroads by the government. If we understand the trouble properly, it arises from the fact that the Central Railroad


Companies have inaugurated a war on labor organizations and have been discharging members of the Knights of Labor without any cause, except that they are members of that Order. The men asked a hearing. This was a right that they had. When an employer becomes so arrogant, so dictatorial, that he cannot listen to the complaints of his employees, he is not a fit man to have charge of employees. The right of laborers to organize for their mutual protection and benefit is a God given right, and the men or set of men who assail that right assail the sacred right of the American citizen. The laborer not only has the right, but it is his duty to earn a living for himself and those depending on him for support, and the men who attempt to deprive him of this right by unnecessarily reducing his wages below the point where he can do this is an enemy to the Republic. The Knights asked a hearing. They asked that they be allowed to lay their grievance before the officials, and were denied this just as the Brotherhood on the "Q" were denied a hearing. The arrogance of the railroad officials is responsible for the strike, and the public will hold them accountable. These men have no respect for the public, for their employees or for the rights of American citizenship.


Saturday Budget, Nebraska City, Neb., August 23.

The quiet but firm manner in which the Knights of Labor have conducted the New York Central strike has won many friends for that organization. By their undisguised contempt for the representatives of the strikers the Vanderbilts have only adhered to their family motto of "The people be d -- ." The employment of New York thugs by the railroad company and the authority given them by an organized band of criminals known as the Pinkertons to commit the outrages of which they have been guilty is a disgrace upon the country that permits it.


Kansas City Star.

Mr. Webb is behaving in the manner that breeds anarchy. A handful of petty autocrats such as he could precipitate this country into troubles of vast magnitude.



Sunday Capital.

The assaults of the capitalistic press on Mr. Powderly, and the affectionate and endearing terms applied to Arthur, is the surest and the best evidence the great body of intelligent labor requires to satisfy it that Powderly has done his duty by the strikers and the cause of labor, and that Arthur has not. It has been ever thus since the history of the world began, our friends praise us and our enemies condemn us. The capitalistic press is now the friend of Arthur, and it praises him. Why! Because Arthur has done something which merits the praise of the capitalistic press. What is that something? Certainly not anything favorable to the strikers or to the cause of labor, or else he would not be the idol of the hour with the mouth pieces of the great corporations. Powderly, on the contrary, is being savagely assaulted by every capitalistic paper from New York to San Francisco, with the sole exception of the New York World. The World is not, by its present course, hurting the Democratic Party. Labor is observant, and it is at length becoming revengeful, in so far as retaliating on its enemies. It will not forget that the head of the New York Central is Chauncey Depew, prospective Republican candidate for the Presidency, or that the leading organ of the Democratic Party in the United States is the sole and only newspaper in New York City with a kind and encouraging word for the great leader of a great labor order. Powderly is being written down by the capitalistic press, and Powderly thereby becomes dearer to the hearts of the toiling millions. All his shortcomings, if he has any, are melting under the assaults of the enemies of organized labor, and Powderly is being rehabilitated in all his pristine glory or prestige as the greatest, truest and wisest leader organized labor in this country ever had. That he will win the strike is the hope of every toiler; but if he loses, we who know him predict that he will march out with all the honors of war, colors flying and drums beating. He has already moved on Webb's intrenchments with the State Board of Arbitration of New York, and he will compel Webb, Depew & Co., to arbitrate, despite the illgotten millions behind their backs. The Board meets on Tuesday next in New York City, and Webb must testify under oath the


cause or causes for the discharge of the sixty Knights of Labor. We have confidence in Terence Powderly.


St. Paul Globe, August 23.

It is now apparent that the matter in issue between Mr. Webb and Mr. Powderly has two sides to it. When Mr. Webb asserted that the men were discharged for cause, and not because they were members of a labor organization, the public accepted his statement as the truth and sustained him in his position that the railway company had the right to manage its own affairs without outside interference. But Mr. Powderly's address places a different phase on the situation and convicts the railway officials of a falsehood. Stripped of all guises the issue is simply this: The Vanderbilt's have determined to crush the labor unions, while the labor unions do not propose to be crushed by the Vanderbilt's. It is a fight of money against muscle. That is all there is to it, and those whose sympathies are with capital will sustain the Vanderbilt's, while those whose sympathies are with labor will array themselves on the side of Powderly.


Saxton, Pa. Herald.

The strike on the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad threatens to be the largest strike ever witnessed in this country, if it is not quickly settled. The conflict is between the Knights of Labor and the Railroad Company, it being alleged that the Company has been discharging its old employees without cause for inefficiency, but because of their being Knights of Labor. This state of affairs is deplorable. The workingmen in this country are so ground down that in order to get fair wages and a fair hearing they have to exort to extreme measures. If corporations would treat their employees like men and not as dumb animals there would be no war of the classes. Until such a state of affairs come to pass a never ceasing struggle will exist between employers and the employed. Another aggravating incitation is the plan employed by employers to protect their property during strikes, and


which has been brought into use by the New York Central. It is the employing of Pinkerton thugs. A more debasing class of citizens is seldom seen than these so called detectives, and they do more to incite riot than in quelling it. There is no necessity to flaunt them in the faces of honest workingmen. Every State considers it a duty to protect all its citizens, corporations as well, and their property from injury, and when it becomes necessary a State will protect these rights by disciplined soldiers who have character and a sense of lawful duty.


Buffalo Courier, August 24.

It is really very wicked in the New York World to go back four years and dig up an interview with Our Chauncey in which he committed himself fully, unequivocally, head over heels, to the policy, practice, theory and doctrine of compulsory arbitration as the best method of settling all controversies between Railroads and their employees -- even controversies arising from discharges. The World is always doing these little embarrassing things.


New York World, August 27.

There is something so absolutely wrong in Third Vice President Webb's wholesale charge against the men who have been discharged from the employment of the Central Railroad that attention cannot be called to it too often. Mr. Webb announces that he discharged the men for several offenses. Among them was drunkenness. He does not specify what men were guilty of this offense. Therefore the stigma rests upon all who were dismissed. This is among the worst offenses of which a railroad man can be guilty. The drunkenness of a switchman or a trainman would imperil the lives of thousands of people. No man with this taint can or should ever find employment on a Railroad. No man suspected of it can be safely employed. Moreover it is a hard charge to disprove, and the burden seems always to be on the man who is


accused. Mr. Webb has not hesitated, however, to make this indiscriminate assault upon the men he has turned out of their places, many of them after a long term of service presumably faithful. He has deprived them not only of immediate employment, but he has made it difficult for them to get another opportunity to earn their bread. And yet, perhaps, this is to be expected from a man who thought that the Pinkertons were justified in shooting into a crowd of men, women and children.


Independent American, August 30.

Mr. Powderly's address to the people is a manly effort. It states the merits in controversy in a plain and forcible manner. The Knights of Labor and the Farmers' Alliance are contending for great principles. They have pooled their issues and are making a common fight. The New York Central Railroad don't propose that the employees of that road shall belong to an organization which discusses these principles. They have opened up a war on the Knights, not because the Knights have interfered with the running of the road, not because they are incompetent employees, but because the road is opposed to the principles enunciated by the Knights and the Farmers' Alliance at St. Louis. The principle involved is whether a Railroad employee is a man capable of exercising his God given rights as a citizen, of thinking and voting as he desires, or whether he is a mere tool of the corporation. The Farmers' Alliance is indirectly interested in this contest. It is a fight on their principles. It is a contest that involves the rights of the American citizen. The New York Central says that no man shall be employed by that Company who believes in the St. Louis platform of principles. It has the same right to say that no man who is a Methodist or a Baptist or a Roman Catholic shall be employed. In fact, the contest is one that involves the rights of all American citizens. If the great Corporations have the right to discharge a man on account of his political belief, they have the right to refuse to transport a man or his products on the same grounds, and after they destroy the Knights they will no doubt attempt to destroy the Alliance. This is a great issue, and it has been forced upon the


people by one of the great Corporations which the people themselves created. It is an issue that involves the question as to whether a corporation is greater than the people which created it. Let every laboring man understand that his rights are involved in this contest. Whether the Knights win or not, it is a fight that we cannot ignore, and we hope to see every laboring man in the country, whether he is a Knight or an Alliance man, strike at the ballot-box. Strike for the rights of American citizens. Strike for the rights of self government without the aid of Pinkerton thugs. Strike for the St. Louis platform. Strike for laws that will send any man to the penitentiary who attempts to interfere with the inalienable rights of the people to organize and work and vote for their own interests.


New York World, August 19.

In, view of the shooting done by the Pinkerton men at Albany the law permitting the employment of this body of irresponsible persons should be repealed. New Jersey discovered the wrongs which they might do when the Pinkertons killed its citizens at the time of the Longshoremen's strike, and now executes its own laws. It is wrong that the State should farm out the task of executing its own laws. The function should be performed by the public officers and by them alone. Self respect and a proper sense of dignity should alone suffice to prevent the State from intrusting the enforcement of law to the hired agents of private citizens. The result of the law under which the Pinkertons flourish in the present crisis is that one side of the controversy, having money wherewith to employ a gang of licensed armed men, commits violence and even murder, under the protection of the State. The strikers are rightly compelled to refrain from violence. When they commit breaches of the peace they should be arrested. When they are guilty of violence which amounts to riot and insurrection they should be shot down, if that is the only possible method for their suppression. But this punishment should be meted out by the regular officers of the State, not by the Central Railroad's agents, whose employment is conditioned on the continuance of the trouble, so


that the longer the strike and the greater the trouble the more money they will make. Assuming that there is an outbreak between the two parties to this strike which leads to blows, the Corporation may kill with impunity, but if the strikers kill it is murder. What Mr. Webb, thinks of the right to kill is shown by his justification of the action of the Pinkertons at Albany. In his opinion it is right to shoot a boy who throws a stone. Is this the kind of a man who should be clothed with the majesty of the State? His words and the conduct of his hirelings should have at least one good effect. They should put an end to chartered ruffianism in New York.


Omaha Bet.

Wherever these mercenaries have been employed they have made a record of outrage and violence. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Nebraska and elsewhere they have been guilty of abuses and crimes which no people solicitous of their rights should ever tolerate. The history of the Pinkerton system of furnishing armed bands to spy upon and overawe the people is red with blood of innocent persons. Robert Pinkerton is said to have expressed sorrow that innocent persons had suffered, adding the cold blooded observation that "it generally happened that way." How much longer will the American people tolerate a system that would not be permitted in any European nation, unless it be Russia, and which is pregnant with danger to their rights and liberties?

New York World.

"No State," says the Constitution, "shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops in time of peace."

Whether a private person can lawfully do what a state cannot do is one of the questions to be discussed at the Union Square meeting tonight.

There can be but one answer and that no. The question does not bear argument, and it is utterly amazing that the practice of banding armed men together and hiring them out as a military


force to any purchaser should ever have been tolerated for an instant in this country.

If an agency for the sale of troops were set up in England or France the Government which failed to crush it would fall in an hour.


Scranton Truth, August 10.

There is no present indication of a cessation of the strike on the New York Central Railroad and connections, the officers of the company steadily refusing to arbitrate with their discontented employees. Looking at the matter from this distance, this appears simply stubbornness. Vice President Webb's off declared statement that there is nothing to arbitrate must be the expression of an uninformed judgment. He had better "get together" with the men and talk the situation over. Yet while Third Vice President Webb has compunctions against arbitration with a properly constituted committee of the men who have always worked in the interest of the company, these compunctions being based upon the idea that he is best serving the New York Central Company's interest, in that way, he has no disturbance of conscience in the employment of a gang of hirelings labeled "Pinkerton's detectives," whose mission is to shoot down and kill. The Pinkerton people have no standing as a judicial force in New York. They have no standing in the courts, and they are regarded as an excrescence upon a regular system of police espionage in every city where there is an organized police department. In view of the fact that the sheriffs of the counties through which the New York Central runs have not exhausted their powers to preserve the peace, and that other fact that the Governor of the State has not even attempted to exercise his powers in the suppression of disturbances that at no time during the strike were imminent, the assumption of superlative powers by Vice President Webb in employing a private army for the defense of property is reprehensible in the highest degree. It is the aggrandizement by a corporation of a power that only the Governor of a State or the Chief Magistrate of the nation may lawfully wield. There is no use in the present instance of an armed Pinkerton force,


and the Governor of the State of New York loses in public estimation in permitting their presence. The Pinkerton detectives have their uses, as have other detectives, in hunting down the predatory villain, the thug who stabs in the dark, and the general all around bad man, but, in an open, fair and square determination to secure rights without disturbing other privileges, the armed Pinkertons are a menace to the public peace. They have already cost the company employing them, in this instance, more trouble and more sorrow than the striking workers ever contemplated. The work of a private detective force armed with guns and bludgeons for the defense of property that the local authorities are required to take care of should be interdicted by law. No corporation may take the law into its own hands anymore than a private individual. -- It is not a matter of self defense with the company. It may not shoot down and expect justification under the law.

Seattle Telegraph.

The plan of permitting the idle and reckless to be grouped in bands by a private detective and organized to fig lit for hire is a bad One, even though it be given a quasi legality by getting some Federal Marshal or limber-backed Sheriff to swear them in as deputies. They are an ugly blot on the American way of preserving the peace. Their employment should be prohibited.

Detroit Free Press.

There is a distinctly wrong principle involved in the employment of Pinkerton's detectives -- the irresponsible employees of a private corporation -- to do service for the preservation of the public peace. The peace should and must be preserved at all hazards, but the law in every State provides for the accomplishment of this result without recourse to private enterprise. The police department of a city and the sheriff of a county have authority enough to increase the ordinary force to meet any emergency.


Building Trades Record.

There is not a progressive labor organization in this country


which has not in its preamble a declaration that the railroads should be the property of the government. There are very few working men who do not believe that it would be to their interest and to the interest of everybody if the railroads were run by and for the people. What are they now? The railroads now are run by a comparatively few men and families for themselves. They are monopolies which grind their workmen, the producers, the manufacturers and consumers. Their stocks are used on 'Change as a gamble. The railroad kings corrupt Legislatures and Governments. They own Congress and the Cabinet. At their beck and call are the police and military. They own the country. They can secure any legislation desired, or defeat any legislation in the interest of the people. They are responsible to no one for their actions, for they virtually control the courts. They subsidize the press, the pulpit and the bar. They levy blackmail on those who travel and those who ship, and the whole people have to bear the burden. They are tyrants to certain of their employees, and, as in the cases of the Reading and the Central, blacklist and discharge those who dare to assert their rights as freemen. These kings must be deposed. Their possessions must be taken from them. By purchase if possible; by confiscation if necessary. The railroads must become the property of the people.


Indianapolis Sentinel.

The Pinkerton thugs who have been employed by the Vanderbilt's to "settle the strike" on the New York Central Railroad seem to have undertaken a larger contract than they will be able to carry out. New York ought to have a law, such as was passed by the last Democratic Legislature of Indiana, prohibiting the use of such agencies by capital for the suppression of labor strikes.


Independent Citizen.

Son-in-law Webb, the great Railroad striker, avers that the present trouble between the employees and the striking railroad arose over the demand of the men that promotion be made


according to seniority, where the men are all thoroughly competent. This Webb said the company was unwilling to do. Webb "takes the cake" as a liar. The Knights of Labor are in possession of an agreement signed by Chauncey M. Depew, as president of the Road, to the effect that the Company would recognize the rule of seniority in making promotions. Webb, puffed up by his own flattery of himself, imagines that his own will is supreme over the written agreement of the company. He has proven himself a Worthy son-in-law of the great "public be damned" house.


St. Paul Globe, August 21

If Mr. Webb has succeeded in breaking or even weakening the power of labor organizations he will have accomplished a great thing for the corporations. It will virtually make them imperium in imperio masters of America. Henceforth there will be none to dispute their authority. They have already gained control of Congress and the National Administration. All that held them in check was the power of the Knights of Labor, which compelled them to make something like an equal division of the earnings of the roads with the men who operated them. Now that it is settled that a Railway Company can work an employee twenty four hours in a day without extra pay, the lion's share of the earnings will be sure to go to the management.




To the Editor of the Republic.

House of Representatives U. S., Washington, D. C., February 11, 1892. -- Your editorial notices in connection with the Pinkerton resolution introduced by me show that you are friendly to the movement to correct the "hired bravo" nuisance.

You say, however, that the Bill I have offered is clumsy and will not stand the fire of the Courts.


In the utmost good faith I invite any corrections or suggestions. By today's mail I sent you a copy of the bill.

You will see that the first section requires that the persons employed shall be residents of the State where the duty is to be performed.

Again, that the employer and the owner of the property shall be responsible for the conduct of those employed.

The second section provides, substantially, that no private citizen shall employ others (also private citizens) to discharge the duties that devolve on police, State and Federal officers by law.

The third section provides, substantially, that no private citizen or association shall organize or maintain a body of armed men for the purpose of hiring then out to perform the duties, which, under the law, devolve upon police, State and Federal officers.

If these sections are leaky I shall gladly call them into greater tightness.

What I am after is the correction of a national evil, and help from any quarter will be more than welcome.

I claim that the Federal Government should deal with this question because there are certain phases of it that the States cannot deal with.

Every Railroad is, by Law, a Post Road. Therefore wherever the Pinkerton question relates to the interference with Railroads Congress has jurisdiction.

Nearly every Railroad crosses State lines. Hence Interstate Commerce is involved, and the Federal Government, and not the States, has jurisdiction over the policing of the trains and the regulations that may be necessary to apply thereto.

Again, if a State grants the right to any private citizen or Corporation to maintain what is really a band of mercenary troops, the Federal Government has Constitutional power to suppress it.


Really, however, I think your editorial some days ago took the soundest view of the whole question, viz: That it was a matter of public policy.

The Federal Government is to maintain public tranquility, suppress insurrections and compel all citizens to obey the law. The purpose of such organizations as "the Coal and Iron Police" of Pennsylvania, the Pinkertons of Chicago and others of like character is to usurp a Governmental function; relegate the maintenance of the peace to private and irresponsible persons; put the power of life and death into the hands of the hirelings of one side to the dispute instead of leaving it all to the responsible, impartial and legally constituted authorities of the cities, the States and the Republic.

The one course is bound to bring about law and order. The other is anarchy.

Very respectfully,




Chicago January 30.

"That man Watson is making a fool of himself," said Detective William A. Pinkerton in talking regarding the policy advocated by Representative Watson, of Georgia, in the Bill which he introduced into the Tower House recommending that Congress make a thorough investigation of Pinkertonism, and the alleged abuses that had grown up under its practices.

"He must be insane," Mr. Pinkerton continued, "He states that we are practically a quasi military organization fostered by capital, and consequently a constant menace to the common people of the land. He says that we employ an army of 35,000 salaried men -- a greater force than the entire Regular Army consists of. Now any sensible person knows that is absurd. It is all bosh.


The fact is that we employ about 1,000 men, and every one of them is doing nothing but legitimate work.

"Why, this man is making a laughing stock of himself in Washington. Only recently I received a letter from a friend of mine who is in Congress, and in it he explained to me how Watson's associates sat back in their chairs and smiled down their sleeves whenever he arose to talk on the subject.

"As for the investigation of our system that he proposes, I wish it would be made. Nothing would please me more. Then the mouths of these cranks and kickers would be silenced, at least for a time, and the people at large would be convinced that our employees are an honorable class of men and that our business is carried on in a perfectly straight and legitimate way." -- Philada. Press, Sunday, Jan. 31, 1892.

SECTION 6. Mr. Watson introduced his Resolution of Inquiry into Congress January, 1892.

It was referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Pinkerton at once denounced Mr. Watson in all the Newspapers in the most brutal and intolerant language.

The Committee paid little attention to the subject.

Mr. Watson went before them twice and argued the Law and the facts.

Still no impression was made.

Two members of the Committee sided with Mr. Watson from the beginning; Buchanan, of New Jersey, and Stockdale, of Mississippi.

After nearly three months had elapsed Mr. Watson tried to obtain recognition from the Speaker of the House (Mr. Crisp) to ask that the Committee be requested to Report the Resolution.

Mr. Crisp refuse

Mr. Watson then handed the Resolution to Hon. Jerry Smipson and, after two days, the Speaker recognized him. The House


passed the Resolution requesting the Committee to Report; -- Mr. Bynum, of Indiana, even objecting to that poor favor.

He is a Democratic Leader.

Mr. Culberson, of Texas, (Chairman of Judiciary Committee) got Bynum to withdraw his objection.

Then followed another delay.

It was well understood that the Committee would report adversely.

The Sub Committee had so decided.

But a Minority Report had been quietly prepared and presented and this Minority Report was too strong to be ignored.

The Sub Committee backed down before it; asked further time for reflection and finally reported in favor of the Investigation.

It makes a funny episode in Political history.

The Report of the Committee was made in the House May, 1892, without the slightest notice to Mr. Watson, and the Previous Question was at once ordered to cut off all the Debate except the Fifteen Minutes allowed by the Rules.

It will be seen that we Crammed those Fifteen Minutes pretty full of good Medicine.

SECTION 7. -- Debate in the House.

May 12, 1892.


Mr. Oates. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a report from the Committee on the Judiciary, in response to a Resolution adopted by this House, and I ask for its present consideration. I will ask the Clerk first to read the Resolution, and then the Report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Watson submitted the following, which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, etc.:


"Whereas there exists in the United States an organization known as the Pinkerton Detective Agency, which is said to maintain an armed force of 35,000 men, whose purpose is to act as a Militia in the different States to quell so called disturbances between employers and employees by the use of force and bloodshed; and

"Whereas such an organization is liable to be used for the most dangerous objects, and is a menace to the civil institutions of this country; Therefore,

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and is hereby, instructed to inquire into the nature of said organization, its rules, its management, its practice, its charter, its number: in order that the full character of said organization shall be known, and its numbers and their equipment ascertained.

"Resolved, further, That said Committee be, and is hereby, authorized to send for persons and papers, and to take testimony; and is hereby directed to report to this House whether the charter of said organization is in violation of the Constitution of the United States; whether said organization has used its armed forces as a militia to forcibly quell disturbances between employers and employees; whether they have done so as the paid agents of employers; what the numbers of said organization are; in what manner they are maintained; by what warrant of law they are used as a militia in the various States where they may be applied for by employers; and what guaranty people have that said organization may not be used in the most tyrannical and disastrous manner for improper purposes, and to report whether said organization either in its character or actual operations, or by reason of its numbers, equipment, and object, is violative of the Constitution of the United States."

The House of Representatives having ordered this Committee to report back the Resolution proposing an investigation of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, the Committee on Judiciary having


had the same under consideration, report therefore the following substitute, and recommend its adoption:

"Whereas it has been alleged that a certain organization known as the Pinkerton Detectives has been employed unlawfully and to the detriment of the public by Railroad Corporations engaged in the transportation of the United States Mails and Interstate Commerce; Therefore,

"Be it Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is hereby, directed to investigate the said Pinkerton Detectives, to wit: The character of their employment by Corporations engaged in the transportation of Interstate Commerce or the United States Mails, the number so employed, and whether such employment has provoked breaches of the peace or caused the destruction of property, and all the material facts connected with their alleged employment; and to report the same to this House by Bill or otherwise at any time; and to this end the said Committee on the Judiciary is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and cause to be served processes for the production of papers and to procure the attendance of witnesses, to administer oaths, and to employ a clerk and stenographer if necessary, and any subcommittee of said Judiciary Committee is hereby invested with like powers for the purposes aforesaid, and may sit wherever deemed necessary and during the sessions of the House. All the expenses of such investigation shall be paid out of the Contingent Fund of the House upon proper vouchers certified as correct by the Chairman of the said Committee or subcommittee, not to exceed the aggregate sum of $2,000, which the Clerk of the House of Representatives is hereby directed to turn over to the Chairman of such subcommittee, not exceeding $1,000 at a time, taking his receipt therefore, and which shall be accounted for by him to said Clerk in the manner aforesaid, the same to be immediately available."


Mr. Oates. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the previous question on the adoption of the substitute reported by the Committee.

Mr. Hemphill. Mr. Speaker, I think we should have some reason why this should be adopted.

Mr. Oates. If the previous question is ordered there will be an opportunity for debate.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Oates. Mr. Speaker, the original resolution sent to the committee has remained with it a good while. The subcommittee to whom it had been referred received no information upon which they could act for a considerable time, but at length certain allegations were made going to show that the Pinkerton Detective force had been used in connection with the transportation of Interstate Commerce, and that probably from the use of that force had resulted instances of violence and bloodshed.

As these reports came from different sources, mainly from the West, the committee deemed it proper to inaugurate an investigation within the line of the power of Congress to investigate, because, unless this force has been employed in connection with the transportation of Interstate Commerce or the United States mails in a manner which would be violative of the laws of the United States or obstructive to such transportation, we are aware of the fact that Congress has no right to go outside and investigate merely private affairs. But in order that the truth of the allegations made might be ascertained the committee thought it wise and proper to inaugurate this investigation. The substitute limits the inquiry to subjects within the well defined jurisdiction of Congress. I think it due to the committee and the Pinkerton detective to state that there was no positive proof before them of the existence of these abuses, but the committee thought it proper to enter upon an investigation to such a limited extent as would develop the facts.


Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. The gentleman say there was no positive proof. was there any proof of any character whatever?

Mr. Oates. None, except rumors and reports which came to us from different sources. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Watson] who introduced the original resolution, was before the committee twice, and gave some information which he had received I know not from what source.

Mr. Watson. I produced evidence, so far as newspaper reporters were concerned. For instance, in the case of the New York Central Railroad Strike.

Mr. Oates. The gentleman from Georgia can control one-half of the time allowed for debate, if he desires. I reserve the remainder of my time.

The speaker (after a pause). If gentleman does not desire to use the time the chair will put the question.

Mr. Oates. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Bynum].

Mr. Watson rose.

Mr. Bynum. Mr. Speaker, I will not use that time not if the gentleman from Georgia desires to be heard.

Mr. Watson. Mr. Speaker, I simply desire to say to the House that this resolution of mine contemplates a fair legal investigation and a fair and legal settlement of this question. it is believed by a great number of people that the Pinkerton Detective Agency is really a standing body of armed militia which Corporations can hire to do the work of militia forces in troubles with their striking laborers.

I went before the committee and produced what I thought was as complete evidence as could be furnished outside of the use of sworn witnesses. for instance, I showed that in the New York Central Railroad strike a year or so ago, Mr. Webb, who was in control of the New York Central in the absence of Mr. Depew,


hired a large force of Pinkerton detectives, and hired them before the strike was even inaugurated -- hired them before he appealed to the City authorities, the State authorities, or the Federal authorities for the protection of the property of the Company; that those men were brought into Albany. N. Y. that they were under the control of the Railroad authorities, paid by the railroad authorities, and that during this strike, these men shot down in the streets of Albany men, women and children, who were non combatants, who were violating no law, and not disturbing the peace. The Governor of New York said that the State authorities could have preserved the peace. The Mayor of Albany said that the city authorities could have preserved the peace. The Chief of Police said that the very first disturbance was caused by these Pinkerton men.

Afterwards all the facts were investigated before the State Board of Arbitration of New York. Mr. Webb was a witness on the stand. He was asked by Gen. Roger A. Pryor, who represented the working men, what were the instruction that he gave those Pinkerton men when he employed them and sent them forth with Winchesters in their hands; and Mr. Webb refused to answer the question, treated the Board with contempt, and left that tribunal without ever having answered the question.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we say that this is a country with law and order or it is a country of anarchy. If the regularly constituted authorities can administer the law and preserve the peace, we want to know it; if they cannot, we want to know it, that we may strengthen their hands.

I am as much opposed to laborers having a standing army as I am to capitalists having it. I believe in law; I believe in order; I believe that when there is civil disturbance the peace should be preserved by an impartial magistracy, not by the armed belligerents on either side. [Applause.]


Now, Mr. Speaker, a word as to the law of the case. By means of the Interstate Commerce law the United States Government undertakes to regulate to running of engines and trains; it undertakes to prescribe appliances for the safety of passengers and employees; it undertakes to require that special means of coupling or other life saving apparatus shall be used. More than that, every railroad is a post road, and the Government surely has the right to say how its mail trains shall be operated. Therefore I thought that by some amendment to our Interstate Commerce law or by some statute independent of it this great Government could say that in this immense domain of Interstate Commerce, where the States are powerless -- in this immense domain of the postal communications, in which the States are powerless, the Government has the right to say these roads shall not operate their trains by means of dangerous bands of irresponsible men who take life without authority of law.

Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the Constitution declares that a State shall not maintain a band of armed men, no State has a right to charter a corporation which may do it. For these reasons, sir, I thought this a legitimate subject of investigation. Let us see what this thing really is. Let us see whether there is not an evil which deserves to be restrained or corrected in the interest, not of the laborer, merely as a laborer, not of the striker, merely as a striker, but in the interest of the citizen, whether he is a laborer or a capitalist -- in the interest of the good order, the peace, and the dignity of society. [Applause.]

Mr. Oates. Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining?

The Speaker. Twelve minutes.

Mr. Oates. How much time is there on the other side?

The Speaker. Seven minutes.

Mr. Oates. I suggest that my friend from Ohio [Mr. Ezra B. Taylor] control the remaining time in opposition to the resolution.


The Speaker. Is the gentleman from Ohio opposed to the resolution?

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. I am sir.

The Speaker. The gentleman will proceed.

Mr. Hemphill. I, would like the gentleman from Ohio to inform the House whether this alleged killing of persons in Albany had anything to do with carrying the mails or with Interstate Commerce, and whether the State of New York cannot protect its own citizens?

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. It was to that point, Mr. Speaker, I wished to address myself for a single moment. If there is any reason why this House should make an investigation of this question, I apprehend it must be upon the ground that there has been some interference with Interstate Commerce. There is none alleged, and I believe none has taken place. Outside of that I do not see what right we have to interfere. If this body of men known as the Pinkerton detective police have committed violations of the local law in the State of New York or any other State, the matter should be dealt with by the law of the State where the act was done, and it is none of our affairs. I protest against interference on the part of Congress in merely State affairs. If, as claimed by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Watson], any wrong has been done, it is a wrong solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction, of the State courts.

Mr. Watson. If the gentleman will allow me, this violence on the Southwestern roads was investigated some years ago -- these roads passed over State Lines -- was not that interference with Interstate Commerce?

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Oh, yes; they may have passed over State Lines, and I have myself passed over State Lines, but was that any interference with Interstate Commerce? There is no allegation whatever as far as I have heard -- none was made before the committee and none has been made elsewhere that I know of --


that any wrong has been committed except that which is peculiarly and solely within the jurisdiction of the State authorities to try and determine. I protest that this Congress has no right to intermeddle or interfere with that kind of business at all. On that ground, and on that ground alone, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the passage of this resolution.

I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Hemphill. Mr. Speaker, I did not propose to say anything on this question, but in the few minutes remaining I wish simply to suggest that if we have a right to investigate Pinkerton detective agency it must be because they have in some manner interfered with the postal regulations the United States or have sought to interfere with Interstate Commerce. The fact that they have gotten into a squabble with some Railroad Company which happens to pass from one State into another does not give Congress thereby jurisdiction of the matter. It is a matter exclusively for the States. If they have violated any law by killing any individual within the limits of the State of New York, why they are triable there for the offense. If they have passed over the line and gone into another State and killed somebody there the State law is ample to secure their trial, and Congress has nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Mr. Oates. If the gentleman from South Carolina will permit me, I wish to call his attention to the fact that the substitute proposes only to investigate and see whether there has been any interference with the jurisdiction of the United States mails or with Interstate Commerce.

Mr. Hemphill. That is very true, but if this allegation sets forth any reasonable ground for any such thing then it might be a matter which we could investigate properly. But do not let us undertake to add to the curse that we are already suffering under in


this country to-day by having the Congress of the United States undertake to do everything that the States and the people of the States themselves ought to do through the aid of their municipal bodies and State Legislatures. And if all that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Watson] has said is absolutely true and unquestioned, and I have no doubt that he has information which leads him to that conclusion, it does not follow by any means that the Congress of the United States has in the slightest degree any jurisdiction over this matter of investigation; and therefore, so far as I am concerned, unless some other and more convincing proof is produced to support this resolution I shall vote against it most emphatically.

Mr. Oates. I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Bynum].

Mr. Bynum. Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of making any serious opposition, or in fact any opposition at all to the passage of this resolution, although I will state frankly to the House that it has not met and does not meet my approval.

I have been unable to see how Congress has any jurisdiction over the question presented, and I have been unable to see where any good can come out of the investigation proposed. On the contrary, I desire to enter my protest against these indiscriminate investigations by Congress. It seems as if it is only necessary to make some assertion, to allege that there has been some obstruction to the mails or some interference, however remote, with Interstate Commerce in order to send out an investigating committee with a drag net to ascertain something over which we have no control and can grant no relief. I believe we investigated the great strike on the Southwestern Railroad system because of some interference or alleged interference with Interstate Commerce, and spent four or five thousand dollars and did nothing.

We investigated the Reading Railroad strike because it was


alleged that it involved to some extent the question of Interstate Commerce, and the result of the investigation was a report from the committee that Congress had nothing to do with the matter and could not remedy the evil. In fact of all the investigations which we have undertaken I can only call to mind one result which has been accomplished and that is the depletion of an already depleted Treasury and the exhaustion of a well-nigh exhausted contingent fund of the House.

I do not understand Mr. Speaker, that simply because Congress has power to regulate Interstate Commerce that it thereby has jurisdiction to control the employees of railroad companies engaged in Interstate Commerce, and certainly if it has power to legislate upon the subjects proposed to be investigated it has this power.

I look on this as a mere police regulation or power of the State. The State of Indiana has declared that no police power shall be conferred on the Pinkerton detectives; and if the people of the State of New York do not desire such powers to be conferred upon them, it is the business of the State of New York, or of any other State which entertains that view, to regulate it by its own legislative enactment. It is not within the purview of Congress; it is not the business of Congress to interfere with the police powers of the several States of the Union. I believe that the time has come when we ought to squarely draw the line between the powers conferred upon the Federal Government and those reserved to the States, and that we ought to stop this indiscriminate investigation where we clearly have no power to legislate.

I am as much opposed to the use of the Pinkerton detectives, for the purposes alleged in this resolution, as other gentlemen, but it is a matter over which the States have exclusive jurisdiction, and if the States want to regulate it, it is their business to do so.

Mr. Oates. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Stockdale].


Mr. Stockdale. Mr. Speaker, this resolution proposes no legislation now. It is alleged that the United States mails and Interstate Commerce are interfered with. The United States has unrestrained power to go into the States and through them with the mails. State authority cannot control nor even retard the progress of carrying the United States mails. No State power can interfere with a mail train. This resolution does not propose to interfere with the police powers of the State, but here are a large portion of the American population who allege that the trains that carry the United States mails and Interstate Commerce have upon them private, irresponsible armies, that interfere with the carrying of mails and with commerce, and interfere with the liberties and endanger the lives of American citizens.

The men who make these allegations are credible people. Now, at the instance of that large class of men who happen to be working men, is it not well to inaugurate this inquiry? I do not propose to discuss strikes nor lockouts. I simply propose to say that when this large and respectable portion of the American people allege that these trains do carry private armies of irresponsible men, who will shoot down American citizens, and endanger the lives and trample upon the rights of thousands of others, that the United States Government owes it to those people and we owe it to ourselves to send out and inquire "Is this true?" And that is the whole of this resolution. [Applause.]

Mr. Bynum. I want to know if the logic that would confer upon Congress the power to go out and regulate and investigate this question, would not also confer upon this Government the power to interfere with those engaged in strikes, and punish the men engaged in them?

Mr. Stockdale. This confers no such power at all.

Mr. Bynum. If you have the power to do one you have the power to do the other.


Mr. Simpson. The power to investigate is not necessarily the power to imprison. You have been investigating the sweating system down in Boston.

The Speaker. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

Mr. Stockdale. Give me one more minute.

Mr. Oates. I will yield one more minute to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Stockdale. In that minute I want to say that there is no power conferred in this resolution, and no power implied, to legislate unless the necessity for it exists after the report comes in. The United States Congress is asked to interrogate the people and find out whether such things have occurred as will give us power to legislate upon this subject. It does not propose to interfere with the police power of the State. It is simply at the behest of a large portion of our people, and I might say that portion of the people who produce the wealth, run the trains, and move the machinery of this Government, and without whom none of us could live. Very few railroad men live in my district, but I do say I care not where they come from they are American citizens, and I for one propose to stand by them. When these allegations come here day after day, we cannot go back and throw in their faces the statement, "you are not telling the truth," because of the fear of expending $2,000, when the same men vote thousands upon thousands of dollars for other less important results.

Mr. Oates. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Scott.]

Mr. Scott. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that this report is in itself entirely proper. It does not provide for anything further than an investigation to ascertain whether this private detective agency has interfered with Interstate Commerce, or with the carrying of United States mails. It is commonly known in all parts of


this country that the Pinkerton Detective Agency has assumed the functions of a private army. In all States and at all times it assumes to do that which is peculiarly the power of the Government or of the State. In the many serious labor difficulties that have occurred, particularly in 1877 and front that time to this Pinkerton detectives have been going over the country with large and dangerous powers assumed but not acquired from any legitimate source. These powers are perilous when exercised by any private corporation or individuals.

The liberties of large classes of people are threatened when individuals and corporations, without any sanction of law, are permitted to take and hold in custody without warrant of law such as they may choose to arrest. The police powers of State and Nation should "be as strong as the law, and no stronger, and as weak as the law, and no weaker." The laws should be enforced or repealed. The Pinkertons have no more right to restrain citizens of their liberty or to shoot them down when they refuse to submit to illegal arrest, than private citizens or representatives of other corporations.

It is high time, it seems to me, that Congress should know, at times when the transportation of the mails has been entirely suspended, when no mails have been carried between States or inside of States, and when Interstate Commerce was wholly destroyed, lying prostrate, whether or not this private and irresponsible Pinkerton army was not in great measure responsible for these results. I hope that the report of the committee will be adopted.

Mr. Oates. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Simpson].

Mr. Simpson. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that gentlemen here should shield themselves behind the Constitution and the right of Congress to investigate. The facts are that we have been investigating


very nearly everything. We have been sending committees all over the country to investigate nearly everything you could think about; and now, when the laboring class of this country appeal to you to find out if there is any way whereby Congress can pass a law to put down this bloody band of assassins that is organized in this country for the protection of capitalists, gentlemen shield themselves behind the Constitution and behind the laws, and tell the people practically that there is no relief for them.

Why, everybody in this country knows that this band of Pinkerton detective has existed in this country for at least half a dozen years. The States have tried in vain by passing laws to resist the encroachment, and nothing but the strong arm of the Government can control them. It is the outgrowth of our condition of society, the outgrowth of your laws that have concentrated the wealth of the people in the hands of a few, where 70 per cent. of the wealth has passed into the hands of 200,000 people. Greedy capitalists, finding themselves without a standing army, have created this course of cut throat to protect their ill gotten gains.

The Speaker. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Oates. I yield one minute to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Butler].

Mr. Butler. Mr. Speaker, when we come to the question of expenditure of money, members here do not talk about a strict construction of the Constitution. You may improve any little creek anywhere in this country, although it be entirely in one county, and then the General Government under the Constitution is declared to have a right to appropriate money; but when you come to a question of the rights and liberties of the people and the preservation of their lives, these same gentlemen hide behind the Constitution and say that we have no right to do anything in the matter. I say that we have as much right to protect the American citizen, though he be the poorest laborer, in his rights and


life, if he be honest, as we have to protect the property of any corporation. I do not believe in legislating all the time for the corporations and none of the time for the common people. I believe the resolution ought to pass. [Applause.]

The Speaker. The gentleman from Alabama has one minute of his time remaining.

Mr. Oates. I yield it to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bryan.]

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Has the gentleman from Alabama one minute that he can yield to me in which to ask the gentleman who has just taken his seat a question?

The Speaker. The gentleman has only one minute, and has yielded that to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Bryan. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio half a minute of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Butler] thinks that we ought to investigate all crimes against the rights and lives of individuals. My friend on my right has just shown me a resolution providing for an investigation of the lynching of Negroes in the South.

Mr. Butler. And white men also.

Mr. Watson. If you will allege that there is an organized band of lynchers in the South I will help you lead the investigation.

Mr. Ezra B. Taylor. I suggested to him that that was the business of the States, and not of the United States. What does the gentleman think?

Mr. Richardson. And the refusal to admit them to hotels in the North.

Mr. Simpson. Congress has investigated the lynching of negroes in the past.

Mr. Butler. Mr. Speaker, a question was asked of me. Have


I the right and time to reply? The question is easily answered and one minute will suffice.

The Speaker. The gentleman from Nebraska has only half a minute, when the debate must close.

Mr. Butler. I may not answer it then?

Mr. Bryan. I only desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution ought to pass. It is simply to investigate whether there has been any violation of the Federal Constitution or laws by the action of these men. I believe in law and order, but I believe that the law and order should be maintained by the lawful authorities, and not by private armies. Governments are organized to protect life and property. These functions should not be transferred to private individuals and hired detectives until we are ready to acknowledge government a failure. It is not fair to compel corporations to protect their property in this way, nor is it right that the safety and even life of the citizen shall be imperiled by a private and irresponsible soldiery. Let public order be preserved by public authority. [Applause.]

The Speaker. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The question was put, and the resolution was agreed to.

Section 8. -- So it will be seen that the investigation is ordered.

What it may develop depends entirely upon the sincerity of the Committee and the determination shown by the laboring men to have the facts exposed.

They should not neglect the opportunity.


Chapter XVI: The Sub-Treasury

1. What it is.

Nothing has been more generally misunderstood than this Plan.

No wild scheme of inflation is proposed. No irredeemable paper money is advocated.

We merely ask that at a season when the market is oppressed by an unusual quantity of produce there should be a corresponding amount of the means of making the exchanges of that Produce.

Every dollar issued, we propose to secure by a deposit of a much greater margin than that kept up by the National Banks.

This Deposit is necessarily confined to a few staple Products which the world must have to supply its current wants and yet which cannot (like Iron, Dry Goods, Lumber, & c.) be indefinitely stored up.

To guard against abuse in either direction we limit the Products and limit the Period of Deposit to twelve months.

Thus the market is relieved from sudden pressure from the amount of Produce thrown upon it and the people are protected against a Trust by the limit prescribed for the Deposit.

The warehouse feature is not necessary to the Plan. A products and limit the period of deposit to twelve months.

Thus the market is relieved from sudden pressure from the amount of Produce thrown upon it and the people are protected against a Trust by the limit prescribed for the Deposit.

The warehouse feature is not necessary to the Plan. A properly guarded certificate coming from warehouse already existence and left, under proper Bonds, in the ownership of their already in existence and left, under proper Bonds, in the ownership of their present owners, would answer every purpose.


Thus would disappear one of the biggest bugaboo's which has been raised against the Plan.

To summarize, therefore, the main idea of the Sub Treasury Plan is to introduce the principle of Flexibility into our Currency System thereby causing it to expand to meet the demands of trade.

2. Is it legal?

Most assuredly, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that Congress has the power to issue Legal Tender Paper Money in times of War and in times of peace.

Having the power to issue, they have the power to choose the method of distribution.

Should Congress choose to distribute this Currency through the Sub Treasury Plan it has the same right to do so as it had to distribute it through the National Bank Plan.

In the one Plan they recognized Bonds as the only good security.

By the other, they would recognize Products much more valuable than Bonds: and without which Bonds would be worthless.

By distributing through National Banks, the Currency of the Nation was made a source of speculation and gain to the few Capitalists who could buy Bonds in lumps of $50,000.

By distributing through the Sub Treasury, the Capitalist can still share the benefit but can no longer monopolize it. The poor man with his Bale of Cotton stands on as good footing as the millionaire with his Bonds.

3. Is it Class Legislation?

Only as all other legislation is. Some class is always benefitted more than others by all laws. For instance, Common School Laws; Road Laws; Tax Laws; Exemption Laws; Registration Laws, etc.

The rule is that the law must be generally beneficial to the public and not especially beneficial only to a class.


Now, to have an increase of Currency when most needed would benefit the Farmer, it is true; but his gain would be only a mere incident to the immense benefit to the whole community.

Increase of Currency means quickening trade, commercial vigor, industrial progress, contented labor, employed capital. It is the life blood of the whole community. Hence the Sub Treasury Plan while it would help the Farmer would at the same time help everybody else.

It would be a burst of sunshine on a dark day when all were inconvenienced by the gloom and all would be happy in its passing away.

4. Advantages of the plan.

First. It would decentralize the Money Powers of the Cities. This is a powerful consideration worth of profound thought. It would restore to Country life much of its dignity, its power, its prosperity, its happiness.

We would not have to eternally lick the hands of our City Bosses. We would be men again; independent men who are not forced to bow down and accept such terms as the Merchant, or Factor or Banker gives us.

Second. It would give our products a rating and a power in the market they do not now have.

Third. It would enable a poor man to get cash to put into his business.

Fourth. It would break up the monopoly of the Money Market.

Fifth. It would destroy gambling in Farm Products and put prices upon their natural basis.

Sixth. It would have a tendency to elevate Labor everywhere by giving Labor's Product a control of the market. The man would have the advantage of the Dollar.

Seventh. It would tend to destroy the measuring power of Gold and to reassert the measuring power of Labor.


Eighth. It would equalize our Currency System so that all could share in its benefits.

Ninth. It is the only system which benefits both the landlord and the tenant, the capitalist and the laborer.

Tenth. In place of the Tenant System now so ruinous to both landlord and tenant in the South, it would lead to the buying of land by the tenants on one hand and a hiring of wage hands on the other or a farming on shares. The tenant would become the owner of a little home and the landlord (with the cash obtained by sale of part of his land) could improve the remainder and farm it on the intensive plan. Instead of having dreary wastes of gullied plantations and shabby tenants, we would have neat, comfortable homes in every direction and the fields would be smaller but better cultivated. This is a favorite theme with me. I regret that I have not the space to dwell on it.

5. Objections answered.

First. Mr. Mills and his followers say it will hopelessly inflate the Currency. His idea is that every bale of cotton, every bushel of corn and wheat will go into the warehouse.

This is nonsense. Men don't borrow money and pay charges on it just for fun. They only do so when forced. Hence is perfectly clear that Mr. Mills is wrong in his premise: and therefore in his conclusion.

His idea again, is that all cotton &C., will be stored up at the same time. This is equally unsound.

Were the warehouses opened tomorrow, the Produce would go in, not all at once, but gradually, from time to time, as they were ready for market or as their owners needed the money.

During the first twelve months, each day would see a varying amount of Deposits. Then, the limit of time having begun to operate, there would be a continual stream of Produce going out of the warehouses as well as a continual stream pouring in.


This is one of the beauties of the Plan and will be readily seen by anyone who wishes to consider the question fairly.

Second. The objectors say that even when we limit the Loans to those who owe, the sum will be too enormous.

In the first place, this objection is the strongest argument that could be advanced in support of a Plan of Relief.

It shows the necessity for it. In the second place, the sum of money necessary to pay off the aggregate debt cannot be ascertained by estimating the debt itself. One dollar passing from A to B and from B to C may pay off a thousand dollars of debt within six months. The dollar does not lessen the amount of the debt but by going from man to man in the due course of settlement it acts as the servant of many Debtors.

Mr. Mills seem to overlook this principle entirely.

Third. The objections based upon the idea that the Plan is Unconstitutional and is Class Legislation have already been considered. Reason explodes the one and the Supreme Court settles the hash of the other.

Fourth. Many objectors say the plan is impractical.

This objection is never worth anything till a fair trial is had.

Napoleon rejected Fulton and his Steamboat as impractical.

Books were written to prove that Railroads were impractical.

Morse found it well nigh impossible to get a hearing on the Telegraph.

Wellington denounced the Post Office System as visionary and absurd.

The Suez Canal was laughed at for ages. Finally the DeLesseps went there and succeeded with it.

Then the Asses went to laughing at something else. They always do.

But it is peculiarly absurd that the Sub Treasury Plan should be denounced as impractical.

It has been in practice for centuries.

The Amsterdam Bank has always been a Sub Treasury Bank as to Bullion Silver. So also the Bank of Hamburg.


For generations past, the Government Banks of Norway and Sweden have been Land Loan Banks. The Encyclopedia Brittanica is my authority for saying the Plan works well.

The Bank of France, a Government Bank, loans on Produce stored up in warehouses and the plan works well.

The Russian Government, hard-hearted as it is, continually lends money to the Farmers upon Farm Products.

In each and every one of these instances the Sub Treasury Plan has proved successful.

The System is also in use in this Country in the Mercantile World. Nothing is more common than the borrowing of money on Certificates of Deposit, Bills of Lading, Commodities stored in Elevators, etc.

In the Bonded Warehouse where whisky is stored, the Government grants a Certificate of Deposit on which the owner of the whisky can borrow money. At the same time the Government lend him the tax of 90 cents per gallon for the term of three years at 5 per cent. interest, which is charged for the last two years only. The gross amount of the tax thus loaned the Whisky Ring every year is $65,000,000. This money belongs to all the people. It is loaned out on the Sub Treasury Plan to the Ring at 5 per cent. and a Bond is taken to secure the debt.

This shows beyond all disputes that the Government considers it a loan.

Therefore, we contend that the Plan is legal, practical, beneficial; that it will remedy a vast evil and a vast number who are suffering from that evil; that it harms no man under God's heaven; that it gives the laborer his hire, the merchant his dues, the producer his fair price; that it pays to the Government all the expenses the Plan entails; guards against the Combine by taking away the exclusive advantage (either of money or of commodity) without which no Combine can live; that it destroys the basis on which Gambling in Futures is done; that it is the only plan under the sun by which the Farmer can get directly, speedily and on just terms the relief which his condition so piteously demands.


Dr. C. W. Macune and N. A. Dunning are the authors of this Plan as now presented and are its ablest defenders. Under their president and able championship recruits have gathered to the work from all directions. Sixteen States have demanded the law. About forty Congressman of the present House hold their seats largely on account of their endorsement of the Plan.

Every attempt has been made by the Old Parties to dodge the issue but it becomes more vital and more undodgeable every day. The House on May 23, 1892, adopted Mr. Watson's resolution calling on the Ways and Means to report the bill. It shall not die in Committee Room as they hoped it would. We will force a fight on it in the House. We will be voted down, of course, but we will give life and purpose to the Plan and put the Old Parties on record.

When Congress adjourns the Sub Treasury Plan will be at the front as one of the burning issues of the Campaign.

If the great middle class of the people, the producing class, the oppressed class, really understood what blessings there are to them in the enactment of the Sub Treasury Plan into Law there would be such an uprising of strong men as has not been seen since the crusaders; and they would carry the demand forward with such irresistible force that nothing could resist them.


See the speech of Senator Peffer in Appendix.

Most of the considerations applying to the Sub Treasury apply to this. No reasonable objection can be made to it. Land is the basis of all values whatsoever, and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be recognized as good security in the distribution of Government money. A Government Bond is good because of the Land and its Produce which the Government can tax for the payment of that Bond. Why should not Land and its Produce, then, be treated as fairly as the Bond which is supported by them?


Chapter XVII: The Corporations

Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, during the latter years of his life predicted that if the people of this country ever came to understand the injustice of the present financial system there would be the greatest revolution the world has seen since the Crusades.

In the tremendous oppressiveness of the System, the chief factor of cruelty, greed, corruption and robbery is the Corporation.

Judge Blandford, late of the Supreme Court of Georgia, said that whenever half a dozen men made up their minds to swindle somebody they always went and incorporated themselves.

The Corporation is a convenient cloak for the rascality of the individual. It is also his protection. His share in the profits has no limits save the amount of the profits; while his share of the losses is confined to the stock he subscribed for. Besides, he escapes individual odium. When Jones steals a horse, Jones must face the music. But when a corporation composed of Jones and thirty nine other thieves steal a Railroad, the Corporation gets the money. Cussing the Corporations doesn't hurt Jones. It is like fighting a man's coat while the man is a mile off.

These Corporations are the Feudal Barons of this Century. Their Directors live in lordly Palaces and Castles. Their Yachts are on the sea their Parlor Cars on the rails. They spread feasts that would feed a starving factory town. They throw away on the decorations of a Ball Room enough to clothe the children of a city. They keep bands of Militia to do their fighting. In Pennsylvania it is called the "Coal and Iron Police." In New York and Illinois it is called "The Pinkerton Detective Agency." At the word of command these hireling assassins shoot down men, women and


children. Time and again they have made the streets run red with the blood of innocent people. The murderers are never punished. They are spirited away on the trains

Not only do the Corporations keep armed Retainers: they keep oily and servile Courtiers to do their bidding in other walks of life. Their paid Lobby bribes the voter. Their paid editor feeds the public with lies. Their corrupt Lawyers and Judges peddle out justice to the highest bidder. Their Attorneys go on the Bench or into Senates to vote the will of their Masters.

The ambitious young men fear them: their power is so terribly great. The pulpit fears them: for the plush covered Pew is the seat of the millionaire. The Pew overawes the Sacred Desk.

They can close up a magnificent natural Harbor like Port Royal on the Carolina Coast and keep it closed. They can compel Congress to give them millions of the taxes of the people to prepare them an inferior harbor at another place a few miles distant -- like Savannah. They can destroy a city by a change of Freight Rates. They can steal my land under the Law of "eminent domain." They can violate the Law without fear, as they do every hour in every State in this Union, They are kings: more cruel than the Caesars: Marauders, more rapacious than the Spanish Pizarros and Alvarado's; Conspirators, more Subtle in their designs than the Borgia's, or Catalines; Corruptionists, more systematic, cold blooded and unscrupulous than the Minions of the basest Monarchs that ever sat on a throne.

Combinations among them have locked up for gambling purposes the treasures of the immense Coal fields, Mineral Deposits, Timber Lands, Oil Wells, Gas Wells and kept the benefit away from the public at large. The markets of the world have been clutched by the throat (in violation of Law) and the price of every commodity taken away from competition and given to the Trust. Small dealers everywhere, in everything, exist at the pleasure of the large dealer. The individual sinks before the Corporation. The man goes down under the blows of the "Ring." Money: -- combined money, unprincipled, law protected money, -- dominates the street, the market, the Court, the Church, the Legislature, the Editorial Room, the State, the School, the Home!


Verily, verily, the rottenness of the latter days of Rome, of the latter days of the French Monarchy, is upon us. The question is -- does society contain the seeds of its own redemption? Are there true men and true women enough to overturn and rebuild?

To illustrate one of the ways in which Corporations victimize the public, let us consider some examples of "Watering Stock."

In 1869 the New York Central and the Hudson River Railroad consolidated. Their Capital was $45,000,000. They at once watered it up to $90,000,000: -- a clear steal of $45,000,000. Since that time more "Water" has been put in and the Capitalization is now $146,000,000. Of this sum $110,000,000 is fictitious. It exists by virtue of pen, ink, paper and rascality. It exists again by reason of the fact that the people can be made to submit to almost anything. No wonder Vanderbilt scornfully said "The public be damned."

The Erie Railroad is just as bad. Its real Capitalization should be $65,000,000. But it has been watered up to $160,601,000: -- a steal of nearly $100,000,000. On these watered stocks the public is compelled to pay Dividends. Laborers on the road have their wages cut down and shippers have their Freight charges run up in order that these enormous blocks of fictitions stock shall yield an income and thus have a value on the market. To show how far reaching is the Leprosy of this dishonesty I state that when the Richmond Terminal bandits got hold of the Central Railroad of Georgia they promptly watered the concern to the tune of $16,000,000. The people pay the fiddler.

The Railroads of the United States cost some $4,000,000,000 They were built by donations of land and money and credit. The public paid for the Roads: the Corporations did not. They are capitalized at $9,000,000,000. Half of this is fictitious, and the public should not be compelled to pay dividends on it. Were the Roads restricted to an income of 5 per cent. upon their actual value, the public would save $251,000,000 annually. This princely sum represents the yearly plunder of the Corporations obtained through the dishonest scheme of "Watered Stock."

The story of the Western Union Telegraph, the Bell Telephone,


the Southern Express Company is the same. Spoliation under Sanction of Law.

To check this mighty evil the People's Party proposes Government ownership. It is the only solution. Regulation does not regulate any more than Tariff Reform reforms. As Jerry Simpson says, "You might as well attempt to ‘Reform’ Hell!"

The most shameful chapter in Corporation History relates to their control of Legislation. If not sternly corrected it will lead to a monetary despotism.

In Pennsylvania the Central Railroad so completely owns the Legislature that there is this saying in the halls: "If the Pennsylvania Railroad has no further business for this body to transact I move that we adjourn." Things have reached a most depraved state when such remarks pass unnoted as a natural "size up" of the situation. The Standard Oil Company combined with the Pennsylvania Railroad and the record of lawlessness, spoliation, bribery and despotism of that combine staggers credibility. Oliver Payne (one of the chiefs of the Standard) bought his way into the Senate. He was a "Democrat" and his "party" refused to investigate the charges against him. Thus the corporations keep their Directors, Agents and Attorneys in power. In the Senate at this hour the Corporations are directly represented by Sherman, Stanford, Brice, Wolcott and Morton, the Vice President.

The United States Senate is always packed with these hired Retainers. In the Senate of each State they maintain a chosen band. When I was in the Georgia Legislature in 1882, the Senate was dominated by the Railroad Lawyers. A bill to tax the property of the Companies just as the property of the individuals was taxed, after we passed it in the House was defeated in the Senate. The Railroad Lawyers to a man opposed it stubbornly. The Georgia Roads have fought the Railroad Commission at every step; have defied it; have come near ruining it by Legislative stabs. They almost succeeded in getting a law passed to give the Roads the right to appeal from all decisions of the Commission: -- thus protracting litigation indefinitely and defeating and ruining the citizen. Litigation costs the Railroad nothing. They can make the loss good by a spurt of the pen in freight rates. It does cost


the citizen. He has no way of taxing the community to recoup his expense.

Therefore, such a law as the Railroads wanted, would have ruined the Commission and left the people at the mercy of the Roads. The present Governor of the State, Wm. J. Northen, was then in the Senate. He voted with the Roads. The leading newspapers like the Atlanta Constitution, Augusta Chronicle, etc., were loudly in favor of the corporations. They always are.

In the summer of 1891, Hon. C. H. Ellington, a member of the State Senate, an able, honest and fearless man, introduced a resolution to inquire into the Richmond Terminal Railroad Combination which had scooped all the Georgia lines into a monstrous monopoly in violation of our State Constitution. The Railroad Lawyers in the Legislature fought him bitterly. So did the Atlanta Constitution and The Chronicle and most of the daily papers. The Atlanta Journal fought bravely on his side. The corridors of the Capital literally swarmed with lobbyists, led on by that astute schemer, Mr. Patrick Calhoun. Every device that ingenuity could suggest was thrown in the way of the investigation Senator Ellington asked. The brave man was borne down by the Ring. Money and its combinations were too strong for Justice and the right. The Railroad Lawyers in the Senate, the Attorneys of that very combination, succeeded in having the Report of the Committee, which substantiated Senator Ellington's charges "indefinitely postponed." Since then a curious thing has happened. The Railroad men "fell out" among themselves. The Calhoun crowds were kicked out by the Thomas crowd. Thereupon the Calhoun crowd "turned state's" evidence" and charged upon their successful rivals the very schemes of unholy plunder which Senator Ellington charged and which Calhoun at that time so bitterly denied.

The law to tax the property of the Roads has at length been passed and (after being contested by the Roads for two years) is now in force. It affords some encouragement. If we will show a determined front to these corporations we can make them obey the law.


First. That there is no law for it.


The answer to this is that Railroads are Public Highways and necessarily under the control of the Government. The law of eminent domain condemned the land when the Roads were built. Surely what the law took from the people it can restore. We propose to pay a fair price for the property, to be assessed according to law.

Second. That they would cost too much.

No man loses anything by purchasing good property; especially if that property is injuring him. No tax would have to be laid on the people to pay for the Roads. Legal Tender Treasury Notes can be issued direct from the Treasury to pay for them; thus adding to our circulation without taxing anybody. By operating the Roads upon a basis which would yield 4 per cent. upon their actual value, we would save $250,000,000 per year in freights and yet accumulate a fund in the Treasury which would soon pay the price of the property.

Third. That it is Paternalism.

No more so than the Post Office is. No more so than coining money is. When a power becomes dangerous to the life of the Republic, the Republic must subordinate that power or die. That is the situation today.

Fourth. That persons injured by the trains will have no redress.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims can be extended to embrace such issues. There is no trouble whatever on that point.

Fifth. That it will put the Roads "in Politics."

Where are they now? Would to God we could say they are not in politics: -- controlling, corrupting and enslaving. By substituting Government ownership, we take away the motive for plundering the people and the crime will die with the death of the motive. If the people are capable of Self Government, they can be trusted with the Railroads. Civil Service Reform is an assured fact of the near future and this will prevent indiscriminate use of Railway appointments for Political purposes. Certainly the isolated, moderately paid, closely watched Railway official, whether Republican or Democrat cannot do anything like the harm that is now done by closely organized, lavishly paid Railroad Kings who


defy watching and control elections, and legislative issues, by shameless use of the Corporate funds. This could not be done under Government ownership.


First. It would give a death blow to the "Reign of the Corporation." The people would be boss again.

Second. It would stop corrupt Legislation in their behalf. The motive would be gone.

Third. It would unshackle Trade and Commerce from "the Trust" and "the Ring." They cannot operate without the aid of the Railroad.

Fourth. It would stop discriminations against certain persons and certain places. The motive would be gone. The Post Office treats all alike. So would the Government Railway.

Fifth. It would stop speculative Railroad Buildings. The Government would lay out a new Road where needed and nowhere else.

Sixth. It would to a great extent destroy the tyranny of Capital over Labor and render strikes well nigh obsolete.

Seventh. It would enable the Cotton Planter to exchange products with the Corn Planter on fair terms which would leave a profit to both. At present the Railroads impoverish them both.

Eighth. It would remove the causes of the hatred of the people to the Roads and harmonize all interests.

Ninth. It would equalize all avocations and shippers; and would take away the power the Roads now have to destroy a business, a section or an individual.

Tenth. It would put into the hands of the people a weapon with which they could destroy any Combine among Capitalists in any Article of Commerce.

Eleventh. It would save enormous sums now paid in fancy salaries.

Twelfth. It would save the 30,000 lives lost every year for lack of safety appliances.

Thirteenth. It would bring about absolute Free Trade and cheap traffic between all sections of this great Country; destroy


"the pool:" knock the pins from under the Stock broker: put an end to the insolence with which so many officials treat the Public: remove the leverage which English Capital has on our Labor and its Products: give a death blow to this infernal "booming" of towns and cities at the expense of the country and for the benefit of a few Capitalists over many Laborers. It would be a giant strike in the direction of equality and manhood rights and to the destruction of our Class System of Special Privilege, Shoddy Aristocracy based on Commercial Spoils and advancing through the dirty lanes and perils of bribery and corruption.

In Australia the Government owns and operates the Railroads and does it successfully. So they do in Sweden, Germany, Austria, Russia, Belgium. Really there is no difficulty in the way except that our people have grown so accustomed to the yoke they are difficult to arouse.

Next to the Financial Question, I regard this Transportation Question as the most important issue before us. The debate is just this: "Shall the People rule this Country or let insolent Corporations do it?"

Hon. L. M. Trammel, so long President of the Georgia Railroad Commission, told me last year in Atlanta that he favored Government ownership. He says "we cannot control the Roads in any other way." Hon. Allen Fort, a member of the Commission is likewise in favor of Government ownership. So is Judge Thomas M. Cooley, late Chairman of the United States Interstate Commerce Commission. The job is too big for any Commission to "control." Remove the motive for plunder in the Railroad System and you'll stop the evil. No other plan would succeed. If the Roads were in the hands of the Nation, an official might embezzle a few thousand occasionally but he could not systematically lay plans to ruin a whole State or a whole section. Under our present system this is done. The South and the West are Railroad victims today; plundered remorselessly and constantly of untold millions of dollars.

No wonder Jay Gould despises the people. He thinks that if they possessed either sense or spirit they would not submit. Some day the limit of patience will be reached. Possibly, it has already


been reached. For myself I believe it has not only been reached but passed. I believe that the storm clouds have already been evolved from the angry elements and that the end of the Modern Fendal System is approaching with the accelerated speed of a cyclone. Let no man forget Gould's insolent admission before the New York Legislature that his Railroad had controlled the elections with money. Let no man forget the Credit Mobilier exposure of the Pacific Railroad robbery. Let no man forget how Huntingdon got away with his booty from the same roads by methods fully explained in the Colton Correspondence. Let no man forget how Joe Brown bribed the four leading daily newspapers of Georgia to aid him in his spoliation of the taxpayers of Georgia to the extent of $1,200,000. Half the money was stolen at the expense of the poor little ragged, bare footed, school children of Georgia. Those newspapers are today fighting the Reform movement bitterly. Of course. Joe Brown is fighting it. Of course. Joe Brown is a millionaire. Of course. He was a United States Senator. Of course. He is a convict lessee. Of course. He is a rigidly correct member of the church. Of course.


Chapter XVIII: Final Chapter

In the foregoing pages I have briefly sketched the Legislation, the abuses, the villainies against which the people some years ago began to organize a revolt. The leaders of the people were strong men, fearless and true, and under their guidance the movement grew with startling rapidity. The bosses of the Old Parties, the officials in high places, the money king's in royal palaces paid little heed to the mutterings of the gathering storm. They laughed it aside as did the profligate nobles of the Old Regime in France. Carlyle is quoted as saying that they sneered contemptuously at Rousseau's Book on the social contract wherein was taught the doctrine of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, but that the second edition of the work was bound in their skins. So rapid was the growth of the revolt against ages of tyranny, crime and impoverishment.

In this country we have appealed to reason. We have stated the grievances, their causes and their remedies. We have been met by both the Old Parties with ridicule, with slanders, with abuse, with mere mule headed opposition. We have never owed an advance to the generosity of our adversaries. Each time they have given away when their fears were aroused. Not until then. It is so always. We might as well recognize the fact that human cupidity is always the same and never surrenders till the necessity is plain. There never was a breaking of the lines of plutocracy at any epoch of Reform till some Stonewall Jackson sternly said "we must give them the bayonet."

No concession was ever made to Ireland till England dared not withhold it longer. The fear of Civil War produced remedial


laws which justice had in vain appealed for. Even in England itself, Parliamentary Reform, Ballot Reform, Corn Law Repeal never stood a ghost of a chance till the aggressiveness of the movement put the Rulers in fear. When the Duke of Wellington had seen his windows smashed; when the Duke of New Castle had seen his castle burnt; when Bristol broke out in a flame of riot; when the King and the stubborn Peers were hissed and mobbed in the streets, then and not till then, did the Throne heed the people. Fear conceded what justice had denied. On one Continent the great French Leader hurls his defiance at the Crown and cries out "we are here by the will of the people and no power save the bayonet shall drive us hence." On the other Continent, the great American Leader peals forth the battle cry" We must fight. I repeat it, sir, We must fight!"

It is always the same. Petitions are rejected: remonstrance's spurned: complaints laughed aside: protests silenced: resistance stamped out with iron heel. All these things are done as long as it is supposed they can be safely done. It is only when Tyranny sees danger that it hears reason. It is a sad lesson, but as true a one as humanity ever had need to learn.

There is nothing more singular than the infatuation of a system which has been weighed and found wanting and over which hangs the sentence of doom. Belshazzar is repeated at every epoch and wherever the mad King reaches his last evening on earth his feast is certain to be had. Revelry and wine and music within: the tread of Cyrus and his Persians without. The pampered Aristocrats will listen to no warning, until Daniel strides into the Hall and the laugh of the voluptuary freezes on the lips of the quaking coward.

The Congress now sitting is one illustration. Pledged to Reform, they have not reformed. Pledged to Economy, they have not economized. Pledged to Legislate, they have not legislated. Extravagance has been the order of the day. Absenteeism was never so pronounced. Lack of purpose was never so clear. Lack of common business prudence never more glaring. Drunken members have reeled about the aisles -- a disgrace to the Republic. Drunken speakers have debated grave issues on the Floor and in the


midst of mandlin ramblings have been heard to ask "Mr. Speaker, where was I at?" Useless employees crowd every corridor. Useless expenditures pervade every Department.

Honorable members made strenuous efforts for a Relief Expedition to the starving Russians. They hooted at the idea of relieving starving Americans. Honorable members grew white in the face denouncing the wrong we put on "the poor Chinaman" when we passed a Law requesting him to "Stay at home and board at the same place." But they grabbed their able hats and went to lunch when "the poor American" was mentioned. Distance lends enchantment to the Congressional view -- on the poverty question. They can see a case of distress on the other side of the ocean -- not on this side. That's the kind of eyes they have. The grievances of the Laborers and Producers of America have nothing to hope from these men. A general turning out of this old moss back crowd is the first preparation for real reformation.

In the business world another illustration is found. The Capitalists will not see; will not hear. They offer no conciliation. They not only claim all the advantages they illegally hold, but demand more. They denounce the Reform movement, abuse its Leaders, ridicule its Platform. Mr. Taylor of Illinois (a National Banker) taunts the Farmers on the Floor of the House and says to them "What you want is to talk less and work more." Mr. Boutelle of Maine shouts defiantly during the same debate this insult: "Quit howling and go to work" -- an insult which comes with peculiar cruelty from those who say in the next breath, we have become poor by working too much and producing too much.

Bankers do nothing to relieve the distress. They combine to speculate on it. The Corporations do not lessen their exactions. The actual Railroad returns show fat profits all around. Profits they must and will have. Their labor force is reduced; the streets are full of their discharged employees; those who remain do so with reduced salaries. All this is done that Dividends may be paid on Fraudulent Stock. The Money Kings were never in higher feather. They feel good. The money is on their side; the Law is on their side: the Government is on their side. No wonder they rest cozily in their high places and say "the people be damned." Jay Gould


says the McKinley Tariff may produce higher prices for clothes: but the only effect will he that the working men, who bought two coats before, will now buy one. All right Mr. Gould. But how about the fellow who could only buy one coat before?

The young Emperor of Germany said last year "I alone am Master:" -- the most insolent assertion of despotism since Louis XIV Said "I am the State." Later on, the young Emperor administered the oath of Allegiance to his Army Recruits. He told them that their oath bound them to obey him alone; and that if he should order them to shoot down their own parents in the streets they must obey. This was last spring. Before the leaves had fallen and grown green again, the order was given and was obeyed. The streets of Berlin ran red with the blood of laborers whose grievances are as soundly based on justice as were those of O'Connell or Kossuth or Patrick Henry. This spirit of repression has a strong hold in this country. Strengthening of our Navy; building Forts, Arsenals, and Dock Yards has a deep meaning lurking underneath. Let the people keep their eyes open and their vigilance unrelaxed.

With this spirit above, and with intense suffering beneath, is it any wonder the revolt grew? Millions were wasted on feasts while gaunt starvation walked the streets. Music, dancing, revelry sounded at midnight in the palace of Vanderbilt, and money flowed like water to gratify every whim. Within a few blocks, there were other houses filled with sickness, suffering, premature decay and untimely death. Men, women and children famishing for want of work, food, raiment, shelter. Vanderbilt's ball rooms were lit by the spoils he had wrung from those poor laborers under the forms of law; and at the very moment when brilliant couples waltzed to voluptuous music beneath the thirty thousand dollars worth of flowers which festooned the walls, his superintendent, Mr. Webb, had in his employ a regiment of paid assassins to insult, overawe, and shoot down the employees who were struggling for their plain rights under the law. They earned their money; the wage of the murderer. Innocent men, helpless women, sweet little children were shot down like so many dogs in the streets of Albany.


Carnegie cuts his wages and robs his workmen of a million dollars. He gives ten per cent. of it to Charity; and the Pharisees all cry out, "blessed be Carnegie." Rockefeller plunders the people to the neat extent of Ten Millions per year on the Oil Monopoly. He puts little dabs of the booty here and there among Colleges and Schools and they all flap their wings and crow; while the press says, "blessed be Rockefeller." The pity of it is that humbuggery is so victorious. Nearly every scheme of the Corporations obtains popular favor under the specious pretext of "developing the country." Every real estate job in the cities is sanctified under the name of "building up the city." Labor is robbed under the baptismal designation of Protection and it is very seldom that the Laborers themselves do not assist. They are entrapped, misled, deluded, defrauded, rifled and jugulated in the name of Arcadian Friendship. A millionaire is never so plausible as when he explains why he loves the laborer; how their interests are identical with his; how they must work together. He never explains why the operation leaves all the money in his hands and none in the hands of his laborers.

Seventy-five thousand men have just been made tramps by the Reading Combine. A clearer violation of law never existed. It will go unpunished. The Corporation is more powerful than the law. The infamous sweating system is driving women and children to poverty and crime. Dire necessity is hurling thousands of girls into vice; boys into crime. The red flag of the auctioneer is in every street. The Sheriff's hammer is never idle, and with every minute which passes the light of some home goes out forever.

Where will it stop? How can human nature stand it always! Let no man dream that it can last. The sword of Damocles never hung by a slenderer thread than does the false system of today. When men suffer for food it is hard. When their wives and children so suffer it is harder. But when that suffering is felt to be undeserved, then it is hardest. And when to this undeserved distress is added the belief that some other man is withholding just dues, honest wages, fair reward of toil, then revolt is at hand. And when, to this condition, is added the fact that the man who withholds those just dues is feasting on them, reveling on them in


riotous excess of gathered spoils, while, in the wretched hut of the man to whom they rightfully belong lies the worn and faded wife, dying of hunger, lies the frail and withered child, gasping for God's pure air, then revolution is as inevitable as the laws of the universe. The prophecy of Alex. Stephens is coming home. The naming of Abraham Lincoln rings in the ear. Woe unto the system which robs the people and then mocks them in their agony! These and conditions like these, produced the revolt. Accumulated provocation, increasing burdens, official imbecility and lack of patriotism, has widened the scope of the work and the numbers of the workers. As the Nobleman said to the King, the night the Bastille fell, "No sire, it is not a Revolt, it is a Revolution."

So it is. Peaceful, bloodless, unstained by crime, but as resistless as destiny. It is no longer the fretting of the waves it is the roar of the rushing tide. It is no longer the brush of the picket lines; it is the burst of flame all along the advancing front of battle.

To restore the liberties of the people, the rule of, the people, the equal rights of the people is our purpose and to do it, the revolution in the old systems must be complete. We do not blindly seek to tear down. We offer the good Law for each bad Law; the sound rail for every rotten rail. We work in no spirit of hate to individuals. We hate only the wrongs and the abuses, and the special privileges which oppress us. We call on good men and good women everywhere to aid us. We call on God above to aid us. For in the revolution we seek to accomplish, there shall be Law and order preserved in violate. But the Law shall be founded on right and the order shall silence no man's cry of distress. We do not assert that poverty will disappear. We do not assert that the Law itself shall make no more of it. We do not assert that there will be no more crime we do say that vicious Legislation shall cease to produce it. We do not say that there will be no more suffering; but we do aver that hereafter and forever the statutes shall not empty the homes of the people, turn their children into the streets and fill the hospitals and the alleys and the gutters with the distracted victims of the Law. We do not say that the strong man will cease to have the advantage of the weak one. Put we do say that the


infernal shame of the Law in aiding the strong man to pilfer the weak one can be stopped and must be!

The hot beds of crime and vice today are at the two extremes of Society. One is among the class who have all the work and no money; the other is with the class who have all the money and no work. The one class is driven to crime and vice by hardships, despair, desperation. The other class chooses crime and vice because of their surplus of money, their lack of purpose, their capacity to live in idleness and gratify sensual pleasures. The great Middle Class is the mainstay of life. It is the judicious mixture of work and leisure which makes the complete man; the useful man; the happy man; the God fearing, law abiding man.

Any system which increases the Moneyed Class where there is all money and no work, debauches Society. Any System which increases the class where there is all work and no money debauches and endangers Society. Any system which will add to the great Middle Class where there is reasonable work and fair reward, secures to Society the best results of which humanity is capable. Every principle advocated by the People's Party seeks that end and logically leads to it.

When this System comes, (and it is bound to come) the Revolution will be complete. The dens of vice will lose their feeders. The supply trains of crime will be cut off. The Bar room will disappear and the gambling hell sink to its larger namesake. The attendant train of evils which the present system carries with it will vanish with the system itself.

Manhood will count for more than money. Character will outweigh the dollar. The Laborer whether he work with brawn or brain, with thought or speech, will be the monarch of the new order of things.

That this result is within our reach I do not doubt. I have an abiding faith in the triumph of the right; in the progress of principle; in the royalty of truth and courage and honor; in the eternity of God's Justice. I have an abiding faith that this earth was not created as a Purgatory where man should torture his brother; where virtue should cower before vice; where greed should prey on weakness; where cruelty should mangle its victim.


I see no reason under the sun why the Laws should not be so framed and humanity so directed that happiness could be possible. Believing as I do in the upward tendency of the human race, profoundly impressed with its wonderful capacities and achievements, I cannot believe that the splendid vigor of the Race which has conquered the land, the sea, the air, will allow itself to be sapped and destroyed by the artificial checks and hindrances and oppressions of the Law, as we now have it. The Race will throw them off as the old bark is cast off from the tree; and towering upward toward the sky, humanity will take its imperial growth, fragrant with buds and blossoms.

"Speed the day" is the prayer that hangs on a million lips; the hope that burns in a million hearts!

Over all the grand institutions of our past; over all the glorious principles our fathers bled for, the flood of corruption, consequent largely upon the Civil War, has passed in ruinous strength; burying the landmarks of popular rights; engulphing the boundary lines between might and right, between justice and wrong. Blessed be God for the faith that the waters will ebb away; that the turrets and steeples of our buried institutions will reappear above the turbid tide; that the fruitful land shall once be the home of a chastened and contented and fraternal Human Family.

And when the new order of things shall have remarked the lines of life; reset the avocations of men, I, for one, believe that mere money will not be King; that mere birth shall not be King; that mere position shall not be King; but that honorable labor in every walk of existence, whether high or low, whether in shop or field or office, whether in church or school or State, whether on sea or land, will be counted Monarch among men; enthroned on the hearts of men; recognized in the laws of men; regarded in all the thought and speech and acts of men; and before this Monarch (made up of all who work, and based on God's primal law) let us cast down all other rulers whatsoever; -- while our lips peal forth to our King the grand old Eastern salutation, "O, King! Live Forever!"






Under this amendment the most vicious portions of the present internal revenue laws were enacted. It was championed by Carlisle and defended by the Democratic party, as the votes will disclose. It was one of the grandest steals that this country has ever known, and places almost equal power for evil in the hands of the distilleries that the national banking system lodges with the banks. In fact, the banks and distilleries are the pet institutions of the government, and has been for the past quarter of a century. A careful reading of the revenue laws will convince anyone of this fact. The act of February 18, 1879, passed the Senate by the following vote:

Yea -- Bailey, Barnum, Bayard, Beck, Bruce, Butler, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Cockrell, Coke, Conover, Davis of West Virginia, Dorsey, Eaton, Eustis, Garland, Gordon, Grover, Harris, Hereford, Hill, Ingalls, Jones of Florida, Jones of Nevada, Kellogg, Kernan, Lamar, McCreary, McDonald, McPherson, Matthews, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, Paddock, Patterson, Randolph, Ransom, Saulsbury, Sharon, Shields, Thurman, Voorhees, Wallace, Whyte, Withers -- 45.

Nay -- Allison, Blaine, Booth, Cameron of Wisconsin, Davis of Illinois, Dawes, Edmunds, Ferry, Hamlin, Hoar, Howe, Kirkwood, McMillan, Morrill, Plumb, Rollin, Sargent, Saunders, Teller, Wadleigh, Windom -- 21.

Absent -- Anthony, Burnside, Chaffee, Conkling, Dennis, Johnston, Mitchell, Oglesby, Spencer -- 9.

The House vote was as follows:

Yea -- Acklen, Aiken, Atkens, Banning, Bell, Bicknell, Bisbee, Blackburn, Bliss, Blount, Boone, Bouck, Bragg, Bridges, Bright, Brogden, Cahill, Cain, J. W. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Candler, Carlisle, Chalmers, A. A. Clark, Clark of Mississippi, Clark of


Kentucky, Clymer, Cobb, Cook, Cravens, Crittenden, Davidson, J. J. Davis, Dibrell, Dickey, Durham, Eden, Eickhoff, Elam, Ellis, J. H. Evins, Ewing, Felton, Finley, Forney, Franklin, Fuller, Garth, Gause, Gibson, Giddings, Goode, Hamilton, Hardenbergh, J. F. Harris, Harrison, Hartzell, Henkle, Henry, Herbert, A. S. Hewitt, G. W. Hewitt, Hooker, House, Hunton, Frank Jones, J. T. Jones, Jorgensen, Kelly, Kenna, Kimmel, Knott, Logan, Lockwood, Luttrell, Lynde, Mackey, Manning, McKenzie, McMahon, Metcalfe, Mills, Morgan, Morrison, Morse, Muldrow, Muller, T. M. Patterson, Pollard, Primemore, Rainey, Randolph, Rea, Reagan, Reilly, A. V. Riddle, Robbins, Roberts, Robertson, Ross, Saylor, Scales, Schleicher, Shelley, Singleton, Smalls, W. E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, Steele, Stenger, Throckmorton, R. W. Townsend, Tucker, Turner, Turney, Vance, Waddle, Walker, Wigginton, A. S. Williams, James Williams, A. S. Willis, Wilson, Wood, Yeats, Young -- 130.

Nay -- Aldrich, Bacon, J. H. Baker, W. H. Baker, Banks, Blair, Boyd, Brentano, Brewer, Briggs, Browne, Bundy, Burchard, Burdick, Calkins, Campbell, Cannon, Caswell, Chittenden, Claflin, Conger, Covert, J. D. Cox, Crapo, Cummings, Cutler, Horace, Davis, Dean, Deering, Denison, Dunnell, Dwight, Eames, Errett, I. N. Evans, J. L. Evans, Foster, Freeman, Frye, Gardner, Garfield, Hale, Hanna, Haskell, Hayes, Hazleton, Hendre, Henderson, Hubbell, Humphrey, Hungerford, Hunter, James, Keifer, Keightley, Lapham, Lathrop, Lindsey, Loring, Marsh, McCook, McGowan, McKinley, Mitchell, Monroe, Norcross, Oliver, O'Neill, Overton, Page, Patterson, Peddie, Phelps, Philips, Potter, Pound, Powers, Price, Reed, W. W. Rice, G. D. Robinson, Ryan, Sampson, Sapp, Shellenberger, Sinnickson, A. H. Smith, Starin, Stewart, J. W. Stone, J. C. Stone, Strait, Amos Townsend, M. J. Townsend, Wait, Ward, Warner, Watson, Welch, Harry White, M. D. White, C. G. Williams, Richard Williams, B. A. Willis, Willits, Wren -- 108. -- Dunning's Political Tickler.


On motion to strike out the legal tender clause in the greenback bill in the Senate, in,1863, the following vote was taken in the Senate:

Yeas -- Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Collamer, Cowan, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Kennedy, King, Latham, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Saulsbury, Simons, Thompson and Wiley -- 17.

Nays -- Messrs. Chandler, Clark, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Lane of Ind, McDougall, Morrill, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson of Mass. , and Wilson of Mo. -- 22.




That it is the sense of this house that section 2 of the act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the government for the fiscal year ending June 10, 1882, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1881, which is as follows: That the secretary of the treasury may at any time apply the surplus money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as he may consider proper, to the purchase or redemption of United States bonds; "Provided, That the bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no part of the sinking fund, but shall be redeemed and cancelled," was intended to be a permanent provision of law, and the same is hereby declared to have been since its enactment, and to be now, in the opinion of the House, in full force and effect.

Yea -- Adams (Massachusetts), Allen (Massachusetts), Allen (Michigan), Anderson (Mississippi), Anderson (Illinois), Baker (New York), Bankhead, Barnes, Bayne, Biggs, Blanchard, Bliss, Blount, Boutelle, Breckenridge (Ky.), Browne T. H. B. (Va.), Buchanan, Burkett, Butler, Campbell T. J. (New York), Cannon, Carlton, Caruth, Caswell, Catchings, Clements, Cobb, Cochran, Cogswell, Cooper, Cowles, Crisp, Cummings, Darlington, Davidson (Alabama), Davidson (Florida), Dingley, Dunn, Elliott, Enloe, Ermentrout, Farquhar, French, Gaines, Gallinger, Glass, Goff, Greenman, Guenthier, Hall, Hatch, Hangen, Herbert, Heistandt, Hilt, Howard, Hunter, Kean, Ketchum, Laffoon, Landes, Lee, Lehlbach, Lodge, McAdoo, McCormas, McCreary, McMillin, Merriman, Milliken, Moffit, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Morse, Neal, Newton, Nutting, Oates, O'Donnell, O'Neall (Indiana), O'Neill (Pennsylvania), O'Neill (Missouri), Osborne, Outhwaite, Parker, Peel, Perkins, Peters, Phelan, Phelps, Randall, Reed, Rice, Robertson, Rockwell, Rogers, Rowland, Russell (Connecticut), Russell (Massachusetts), Ryan, Sayers, Seney, Seymour, Shaw, Simmons, Sowden, Spooner, Springer, Stewart (Georgia), Stone (Kentucky), Stone (Missouri), Tarsney, Taylor J. D. (Ohio), Thomas (Kentucky), Thomas (Wisconsin), Thompson (Ohio), Tracy, Townshend, Turner (Georgia), Vance, Vandever, Walker, Washington, Weber, Wheeler, White (Indiana), Whiting (Massachusetts), Wickham, Wilber, Wilkins, Wilson (Minnesota), Wilson (West Virginia), Wise, Yardley, Carlisle -- 158.

Nay -- Abbott, Anderson (Iowa), Anderson (Kansas), Atkinson, Baker (Illinois),Bland, Brower, Brennan, Bunnell, Burnes, Cheadle, Chapman, Conger, Dockery, Dorsey, Fisher, Fuller, Gest, Glover, Grimes, Head, Henderson (Iowa), Henderson (Illinois), Holman,


Hooker, Hopkins (Illinois)) Hopkins (Virginia), Hovey, Johnson (North Carolina), Johnston (Indiana), Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Kilgore, Laidlaw, Laird, Leanham, Lind, Lyman Lynch, McDonald, Martin, Mason, McClammy, McKenna, McRae,Nelson, Nichols, Norwood, Pennington, Plumb, Post, Rowall, Snively, Smith, Snyder, Stewart (Texas), Stockdale, Tilman, Wade, Warner, Weaver, Whiting (Michigan), Wilkinson -- 64.

Mr. Mills did not vote for this because it was a substitute for his own bill.



Reported favorably by Mr. Bayard (Democrat), January 25, 1884, in U. S. Senate.

Bill passed. Yeas 43; nays 12. (Democrats in italics.)

Yeas -- Aldrich, Allison, Bayard, Beck, Blair, Brown, Butler, Call, Camden, Colquitt, Conger, Cullom, Dawes, Dolph, Gibson, Groome, Hale, Hampton, Harris, Harrison, Hawley, Jackson, Jones of Florida, Lamar, Logan, McPherson, Mahone, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Morrill, Palmer, Pendleton, Pike, Piatt, Pugh, Ransom, Riddleberger, Sabin, Sawyer, Van Wyck, Williams, Wilson.

Nays -- Bowen, Coke, Garland, George, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, Maxey, Plumb, Slater, Vest, Voorhees, Walker.

It was not considered in the House.


This bill was passed and approved July 1, 1862. In the Senate the vote was as follows:

Yea -- Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Latham, McDougall, Morrill, Nesmith, Pomeroy, Rice, Sherman, Stark, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri -- 35.

Nay -- Messrs. Howe, King, Pearce, Wilkinson, and Wright -- 5.

In the House the vote was as follows:

Yea -- Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Biddle, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, Buffington, Campbell, Casey, Chamberlain, Clark, Clements, Colfax, Roscoe Conkling, Corning, Cutler, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Dunlap, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Fenton,


Fessenden, Fisher, Fouke, Franchot, Frank, Gouch, Goodwin, Granger, Gurley, Haight, Hale, Hanchett, Hooper, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Knapp, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, Low, McKnight, Maynard, Mitchell, Moorehead, Nixon, Noell, Nugen, Olin, Perry, Timothy G. Phelps, Pomery, Porter, Potter, Price, Alexander H. Rice, Richardson, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, Sedgwich, Segar, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Shiel, Spaulding, John B. Steele, Stevens, Stratton, B. F. Thomas, Trimble, Trowbridge, Vanhorn, Van Valkenburgh, Verree, Wall, Wallace, Walton, Ward, Washburne, Webster, Wheeler, Whaley, Wilson, Windom, Wood, Worcester and Wright -- 104.

Nay -- Messrs. Wm. J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Calvert, F. A. Conkling, Cravens, Crisfield, Delaplaine, Hall, Harding, Harrison, Holman, Johnson, Law, Lazier, J. S. Morrill, Morris, Norton, W. G. Steele, Francis Thomas and Chilton A. White -- 21.


March 17, 1864, the President approved the following bill, which enabled the secretary of the treasury to anticipate the payment of interest on United States bonds. This was a direct steal from the people, and has enabled the banks to obtain the interest on these bonds one year in advance. Let everyone read the bill carefully:

That the secretary of the treasury be authorized to anticipate the payment of interest on the public debt, by a period not exceeding one year, from time to time, either with or without a rebate of interest upon the coupons, as to him may seem expedient; and he is hereby authorized to dispose of any gold in the treasury of the United States not necessary for the payment of interest of the public debt; Provided, That the obligation to create the sinking fund according to the act of February 25, 1862, shall not be impaired thereby.

Approved March 17, 1864.

This was passed by the following vote in the Senate:

Yea -- Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conners, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foote, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Summer, TenEyck, Van Winkle, Wade, Wilkinson, Willey and Wilson -- 30.

Nay -- Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Grimes, Hendricks, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury and Wright -- 8.

The House vote was as follows:

Yea -- Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, J. D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Francis P. Blair, J. B. Blair, Blow, Boutwell,


Boyd, Brandegee, A. V. Clark, Cobb Cole, Creswell, H. W. Davis, Dawes, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch Grinnell, Griswold, Hooper,Hotchkiss, J. H. Hubbard, Hulburt, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, F. W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan Longyear, Marvin, McBride, McClurg, S. F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Norton, Odell, Chas. O'Neil, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Alex. H. Rice, J. H. Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Smith, Spalding Starr, Stebbins, J. B. Steele, Stevens, Thayer, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Wadsworth, E. B. Washburne, W. B. Washburne, Webster, Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge -- 84.

Nay -- Messrs. J. C. Allen, Ancona, Baily, A. C. Baldwin, Bliss, Broomall, Clay, Coffroth, Cox, Thomas T. Davis, Deming, Demson, Eden, Eldridge, Hale, Hall, Harrington, C. M. Harris, Herrick, Higby, Holman, Hutchins, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, Marcy, McAllister, McDowell, Mclndoe, McKinney, Middleton, W. H. Miller, J. R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neil, Pendleton, Price, Pruyn, Radford, S. J. Randall, Rollins, Ross, Wm. G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Thomas, Tracy, Voorhees, Wheeler, J. W. White, Williams and Yeaman -- 57.

Attention is particularly directed to the provisions in this bill which authorized the secretary to dispose of gold. This put him in touch with the gold room and made him referee in the gambling devices of Wall street. This action of Congress was sowing seeds for Black Friday, and whatever influence caused its incorporation in the law was exerted purposely to make that memorable epoch possible. When it is remembered that the gold in the treasury came solely from the taxes paid by the people through the revenue system, and if beyond the purposes for which collected, a reasonable proposition would have made such part of that revenue as represented that excess payable in greenbacks, already a legal tender for every other kind of dues. This would have reduced the premium on gold, and would have removed what was afterwards a cause for scandal in the financial administration.

This act passed Congress as a joint resolution without proper debate, and has stood as a standing bribe for a certain class of rascality ever since. Under this law the secretary can anticipate interest on the whole public debt for one year. The people have never been informed to what extent this arbitrary power has been used, and at this late date it would be impossible to ascertain. One thing is true, however, this power should be taken from the secretary. Interest on the public debt for 1889 was about $40,000,000. Under this law he could hand over to the bondholders the whole amount, giving them the use of it for one whole year, which would be the


same as a present of $3,200,000. It may be said he would not abuse his authority to such an extent.

The safest plan, however, would be to remove the means by which it could be done. During the year in which this law was passed (1864) more than one third of our national debt was contracted. It was at this same period that coin was at its highest average premium, about 250 per cent. The interest on the bonds was payable in coin, and for this reason the act afforded opportunities for extended frauds in the purchase of bonds. For example, a person with $100,000 in coin could sell the coin for $250,000 in greenbacks. With this $250,000 in greenbacks he could purchase $250,000 of United States 6 per cent. bonds, interest paid in coin. At the time of purchase he would receive the $250,000 in bonds, and $15,000 in coin as interest paid in advance. This coin would, in time, sell for $37,500 in greenbacks, to be again converted into bonds; continuing in this manner until the amount is too small for investment, would give the investor nearly $300,000 in bonds for the original $100,000 of coin. The real facts will never be known, but, judging from the manner in which all similar laws have been treated by the banks, it is fair to presume that this one was worked to its utmost capacity. Bonds purchased under these conditions are now being bought back by the same department at the rate of 127 cents on the dollar. The American system of finance is wonderful in construction and marvelous in its application. -- N. A. Dunning, in Political Tickler.


In 1884 an act was passed loaning $1,000,000 to the Cotton Exposition to be held at New Orleans. This bill was fully and exhaustively debated, and finally passed by a vote of 132 to 87. The caption of the bill was:

An act to make a loan to aid in the celebration of the World's Industrial and Cotton Exposition.

SECTION 1. That the sum of $1,000,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the public treasury not otherwise appropriated as a loan to the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, to be used and employed by the board of management thereof to augment and enhance the success of the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition in such manner as board of management may determine.

In course of this debate the matter was at all times treated as a loan, and in nearly every instance spoken of as such. In a question to Hon. W. D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Bland said:

I will ask the gentleman whether the provision is in the same


language as the appropriation in the case of Philadelphia? In that instance the money was only recovered by the government upon suit in the Supreme Court. In other words, the city of Philadelphia refused to pay the money back to the government, and suit was instituted for it. And I remember that the gentlemen from Pennsylvania argued on this floor that the Springer amendment did not reserve repayment of the money.

Mr. Kelley. An amicable action was entered to determine whether it was a loan or a gift.

Mr. Breckenridge. Mr. Chairman, in regard to the proposition now before the committee of the whole, it simply involves the requirement of security for the repayment to the government of this loan of $4,000,000, and the question of constitutional power in the premises. The amendment proposed is a hard exaction; it is an unprecedented exaction. This appropriation is not only justified by precedent, but it is also, in my opinion, clearly within the purview of the Constitution and the province of the Congress. That clause about which some gentlemen here stickle so much gives Congress power to raise revenue: and what does it say you may do with that revenue? It says you may pay the public debt, and you may provide for the general welfare by appropriations of that revenue.

Mr. Bayne. There is but one clause in the Constitution which authorizes the Congress of the United States to expend the million of dollars or to loan it. The clause which authorizes Congress to levy taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare is the source from which Congress must derive its authority to loan this money or expend it.

Mr. Money. A new set of circumstances has now arisen, and if it seems proper to this House that the government should support this great enterprise by a loan to it of $1,000,000, I cannot see any valid objection to it.

Mr. Wolford. I believe it is perfectly constitutional, and I base my belief upon the power given by the Constitution of the United States to Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States. I agree with Judge Story that that is a distinct power, and I believe that under that grant of power the Congress of the United States has the authority to pass any law that will do good, that will bless the people, that will make them happy.

Discussing this proposition, Mr. Oates is on record as saying:

This is not an appropriation proper; it is a loan. While it is an appropriation in form, it is nevertheless a loan upon security for return. This, mark you, is not an appropriation outside of the constitution. It is a loan. It is competent for the government to


make a deposit, and it does it with bankers all over the country, whenever it thinks proper. That money is to be returned, and if this money is returned what harm will be done? If it is outside of the power of Congress to do this, then the action of Congress would be hampered in providing sufficient legislation.

When the vote was taken upon the bill, May 8, 1884, it was passed by 132 to 87. The yeas were as follows:

Adams, G. E., Atkins, Anderson, Barksdale, Bayne, Belford, Belmont, Bennett, Bisbee, Blanchard, Boutelle, Breckenridge, Bremer, F. B., Brown, W. W., Buchanan, Caldwell, Campbell, I. M., Cannon, Clements, Collins, Crisp, Culberson, W. W., Cullen, Cutcheon, Davidson, Davis, G. R., Davis, R. Y., Dibble, Dibrell, Dorsheimer, Dunham, Dunn, Elliott, Ellis, Evins, I. H., Findlay, Follett, Forney, Funston, Garrison, George, Gibson, Glascock, Graves, Green, Hammond, Hanback, Hancock, Hardeman, Harmer, Hart, Hatch, H. H., Hemphill, Henderson, T. I., Henley, Herbert, Hewett, G. W., Hitt, Hopkins, Horr, Houk, Houseman, Howey, Hunt, Jeffords, Jones, B. W., Jones, I. H., Jones, J. T., Jordan, Kasson, Keifer, King, Lewis, Lore, McCord, McCommick, Money, Morrill, Morrison, Murphy, Neece, Nelson, Nicholls, Oates, O'Hara, O'Neill, Charles, O'Neill, J. J., Payson, Peelle, S. J., Perkins, Peters, Petibone, Phelps, Price, Pryor, Pusey, Randall, Rankin, Ranney, Reed, Reese, Rice, Rogers, J. H., Rogers, W. F., Rowell, Ryan, Shelley, Singleton, Skinner, T. G., Smalls, Spooner, Steele, Stevens, Stewart, Charles, Stone, Sumner, C. A., Throckmorton, Tillman, Tully, Van Eaton, Wakefield, Ward, Wellborn, White, Milo, Whiting, Williams, Willis, Wilson, James, Wilson, W. L., Wilford, Woodward, Young.

Nay -- J. J. Adams, Alexander, Arnot, Atkinson, Bagley, Barr, Beach, Bland, Blount, Boyle, Broadhead, Browne, T. M. Burnes, Campbell, Felix, Carleton, Clardy, Clay, Cobb, Connolly, Cook, Cosgrove, Cox, S. S. Cox, W. R. Culberson, D. B. Dargan, Dowd, Duncan, Eaton, Eldridge, Ellwood, Ermentrout, Evans, I. N., Everhart, Ferrell, Fyan, Halsell, Hatch, W. H. Hewett, A. S., Holman, James, Kleiner, Lacey, Lanham, Lawrence, LeFebre, Lowry, Lyman, McAdoo, McComas, Matson, Maybury, Miller, J.F., Mitchell, Morgan, Muller, Murray, Nutting, Patton, Payne, Pierce, Peel, S. W., Ray, G. W., Scales, Seney, Seymour, Shaw, Skinner, Smith, Springer, Stockslager, Storm, Strait, Taylor, J. D., Taylor, J. M., Thompson, Tucker, Turner, H. G., Van Alstyne, Wait, Warner, Richard, Weaver, Wilkins, Winans, E. B., Wise, Yaple, York.

After passing the House the bill went to the Senate. It was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and upon its


recommendation was passed with a few amendments and but little debate. The consensus of opinion in the Senate was so unanimous in favor of the bill that a yea and nay vote was not taken.


Months of hard labor was expended on the measure, and when it came from the committee it was conceded as the Democratic standard of tariff reform, and embodied their ideas of what a tariff should consist. It was debated at great length, which disclosed the fact that it would reduce the tariff less than 6 per cent. if put in operation The bill was a dismal failure and a great disappointment to all tariff reformers, and proved conclusively that the difference between the two old parties was assumed and not real. The Democratic party have never been able since this exposition of their true position to rally the people under their pretended lead of tariff reform, to the exclusion of other vital economic questions. This bill disclosed the hypocrisy of the tariff issue and disgusted many earnest men who had engaged in the contest. As a fit companion to this piece of folly may be found the iniquitous measure known as the McKinley bill. The Mills bill was rushed through the House as a party measure, but did not reach a consideration by the Senate. The vote was taken July 12, 1888.

The House vote was as follows:

Yea -- Abbott, Allen of Mississippi, Anderson of Mississippi, Anderson of Iowa, Anderson of Illinois, Bacon, Bankhead, Barnes, Barry, Biggs, Blanchard, Bland, Blount, Breckenridge of Arkansas, Breckenridge of Kentucky, Brown, Bryce, Buckalew, Burnes, Burnett, Bynum, Felix Campbell, T. J. Campbell, Campbell of Ohio, Candler, Carlton, Caruth, Catchings, Chipman, Clardy, Clements, Cobb, Cochran, Collins, Compton, Cothran, Cowles, Cox, Crain, Crisp, Culberson, Cummings, Dargan, Davidson of Alabama, Davidson of Florida, Dibble, Dockery, Daugherty, Dunn, Elliot, Enloe, Ermentrout, Fisher, Fitch, Ford, Forney, French, Gay, Gibson, Glass, Grimes, Hall, Hare, Hatch, Hayes, Heard, Hemphill, Henderson of North Carolina, Herbert, Holman, Hooker, Hopkins of Virginia, Howard, Hudd, Hutton, Johnson of North Carolina, Jones, Kilgore, Laffoon, Lagan, Landes, Lane, Lanham, Latham, Lawler, Lee, Lynch, Macdonald, Mahoney, Maish, Manfur, Martin, Matkon, McAdoo, McClammy, McCreary, McKinney, McMillin, McRae, McShane, Mills, Mongomery, Moore, Morgan, Morse, Neal, Nelson, Newton, Norwood, Oates, O Ferrall, O'Neill of Indiana, O'Neill of Missouri, Outhwaite, Peel, Pemngton, Phelan, Pidcock, Rayner, Rice, Richardson, Robertson, Rogers, Rowland, Russell of Massachusetts, Rusk Sayers,


Scott, Seney, Shaw, Shively, Simmons, Smith, Snyder, Spinola, Springer, Stahlnecker, Stewart of Texas, Stewart of Georgia, Stockdale, Stone, of Kentucky, Stone of Missouri, Tarney, Taulbee, Thompson of California, Tillman, Tracey, Townshend, Turner of Georgia, Vance, Walker, Washington, Weaver, Wheeler, Whitthorne, Wilkins, Wilkinson, Wilson of Minnesota, Wilson of West Virginia, Wise, Yoder, Carlisle -- 162.

Nay -- Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, Allen of Michigan, Anderson of Kansas, Arnold, Atkinson, Baker of New York, Baker of Illinois, Bayne, Belden, Bingham, Bliss, Boothman, Bound, Boutelle, Bowden, Bowen, Brewer, Browne of Virginia, J. R. Brown of Virginia, Brown of Ohio, Brumm, Buchanan, Bunnell, Burrows, Butler, Butterworth, Cannon, Caswell, Cheadle, Clark, Cogswell, Conger, Cooper, Crouse, Cutcheon, Dalzell, Darlington, Davis De Lano, Dingley, Dorsey, Dunham, Farquhar, Felton, Finley, Flood, Fuller, Funston, Gaines, Gallinger, Gear, Gest, Goff, Greenman, Grosvenor, Grout, Guenther, Harmer, Haugen, Hayden, Henderson of Iowa, Henderson of Illinois, Hermann, Hires, Hitt, Holmes, Hopkins of Illinois, Hopkins of New York, Houk, Hovey, Hunter, Jackson, Johnston of Indiana, Kean, Kelly, Kennedy, Kerr, Ketcham, La Follette, Laidlaw, Laird, Lehlback, Lind, Lodge, Long, Lyman, Mason, McComas, McCormick, McCullough, McKenna, McKinley, Merriman, Milliken, Moffitt, Morrill, Morrow, Nichols, Nutting, O'Donnell, O'Neill of Pennsylvania, Osborne, Owen, Parker, Patton, Payson, Perkins, Peters, Phelps, Plumb, Post, Pugsley, Reed, Rockwell, Romeis, Rowell, Russell of Connecticut, Ryan, Sawyer, Scull, Seymour, Sherman, Sowden, Steele, Stephenson, Stewart of Vermont, Struble, Symes, E. B. Taylor, J. D. Taylor, Thomas or Kentucky, Thomas of Illinois, Thomas of Wisconsin, Thompson of Ohio, Turner of Kansas, Vandever Wade, Warner, Weber, White of Indiana, White of New York, Whiting of Massachusetts, Wickham, Wilber, Williams, Yardley, Yost -- 149.

Not voting -- Belmont, Browne of Indiana, Davenport, Foran, Glover, Granger, Heistand: Hogg, Maffett, Perry, Randall, Spooner, Whiting of Michigan, Woodburn -- 14.


The bill lends $1,500,000. It is not called a loan in so many words as the Cotton Exposition Act was called in 1884.

In order to get around this point the government erects certain buildings, the use of which they donate to the fair, and the buildings are sold when the fair is over, and the proceeds covered into the


treasury. It is a loan, pure and simple, with no security at that. The House vote, March 25, 1890, was as follows:

Yeas -- Adams, Alderson, Anderson, Kan., Allen, Kan., Andrew, Arnold, Atchison, Pa., Atkinson, W. Va., Baker, Banks, Bartine, Barwig, Bayne, Belden, Belknap, Bergen, Bingham, Blanchard, Boatner, Boothman, Boutelle, Bowden, Brewer, Brickner, Brookshire, Browne, Va., Brunner, Buchanan, N. J., Buckalew, Bullock, Bunn, Burrows, Burton, Bynum, Candler, Mass., Cannon, Carlisle, Carter, Caruth, Caswell, Catchings, Cheadle, Chipman, Clancy, Clarke, Ala., Clarke, Mass., Clunie, Cogswell, Coleman, Comstock, Conger, Connell, Cooper, Ind., Cooper, Ohio, Craig, Crain, Cummings, Cutcheon, Davidson, DeLano, Dibble, Dingley, Dolliver, Dorsey, Dunnell, Ellis, Ewart, Farquhar, Finley, Fithian, Flick, Flower, Forman, Fowler, Frank, Funston, Gear, Geissenhainer, Gest, Gibson, Greenhalge, Grosvenor, Grout, Hall, Hansbrough, Harmer, Hatch, Haugen, Hayes, Haynes, Henderson, Ill., Henderson, la., Hermann, Hill, Hitt, Hooker, Houck, Kelley, Kennedy, Kerr, la., Kerr, Pa., Ketcham, Kinsly, Lacey, LaFollette, Laidlaw, Lane, Lawler, Laws, Lee, Lewis, Lind, Lodge, Maish, Manson, Mason, McAdoo, McClellan, McComas, McCord, McCreary, McKenna, McKinley, Miles, Millikin, Moffitt, Moore, N. H., Morey, Morgan, Morrill, Morrow, Mutchler, Niedringhaus, O'Donnel, O'Neil, Mass, O'Neill, Pa., Osborne, Outhwaite, Owens, Ohio, Parrett, Payne, Payson, Perkins, Peters, Pickler, Post, Price, Pugsley, Quinn, Raines, Ray, Reed, la., Rife, Robertson, Rockwell, Rowell, Russell, Sanford, Sawyer, Scull, Seney, Sherman, Shively, Simonds, Smith, W. Va., Smyser, Snider, Spinola, Spooner, Springer, Stewart, Vt., Stivers, Stockbridge, Stockdale, Stone, Ky., Struble, Sweney, Tarsney, Taylor, E. B., Taylor, Ill., Thomas, Tillman, Townsend, Col., Townsend, Pa., Tracey, Turner, Kan., Vandever, Van Schaick, Walker, Mass., Wallace, Mass, Wallace, N. Y., Whiting, Wike, Wilkinson, Wilcox, Williams, Ill., Williams, Ohio, Wilson, Wash., Wilson, W. Va., Wise, Yardley,Yoder -- 202.

Nays -- Abbott, Allen (Miss.), Anderson (Miss.), Bankhead, Bland, Breckinridge (Ark.), Breckinridge (Ky.), Brown J. B. (Buchanan, Va.), Carlton, Clements, Cobb, Crisp, Culberson (Texas), Dockery, Edmunds, Elliot, Forney, Grimes, Hare, Heard, Herbert, Holman, Kilgore, Lanham, Lester (Ga.), Lester (Va.), Martin (Ind.), Martin (Texas), McMillin, McRae, Mills, Montgomery, Morse, Norton, Oates, O'Ferrall, Peel, Pierce, Richardson, Rogers, Rowland, Sayers, Stewart (Ga.), Stewar (Texas), Stone (Mo.), Walker (Mo.), Wheeler (Ala.) -- 48

The Senate vote was as follows:


Yeas -- Aldrich, Allen, Allison, Blair, Blodgett, Butler, Casey, Chandler, Cullum, Dawes, Dixon, Dolph, Evarts, Farwell, Faulkner, Frye, Gorman, Hawley, Hearst, Higgins, Hoar, Jones (Nevada), McPherson, Manderson, Mitchell, Moody, Paddock, Pierce, Platt, Plumb, Power, Quay, Ransom, Sanders, Sawyer, Spooner, Stewart, Stockbridge, Teller, Turpie, Voorhees, Washburn, Wolcott -- 43.

Nays -- Barbour, Berry, Blackburn, Cockrell, Coke, George, Hampton, Morgan, Pugh, Reagan, Vance, Vest, Walthall -- 13.


This bill grants a subsidy on certain sums of money to vessels ostensibly for carrying the mails, but really to aid in enlarging the foreign trade of the nation. It is one of these disguised steals of public money that nauseates the well informed and bewilders the ignorant, It places in the hands of the Postmaster General an opportunity and power for corrupt practices that few men in this age that occupy that position will be able to withstand it is a bad law and should be repealed. The House vote February 27, 1891, was as follows:

Yeas -- Adams, Allen, Anderson of Kansas, Arnold, Atkinson of Pennsylvania, Baker, Banks, Beckwith, Belden, Belknapp, Bergen, Bigg, Bingham, Bliss, Boutelle, Bremer, Brosius, Brower, Browne of Virginia, Buchanan of New Jersey, Burrows, Burton, Butterworth, Caldwell Candler of Massachusetts, Cannon, Carter, Cheadle, Cheatham, Clark of Wyoming, Cogswell, Coleman, Comstock, Culbertson of Pennsylvania, Dalzell, Darlington, DeLano, Dingley, Dolliver, Dorsey, Dunnell, Farquhar, Featherston, Flick, Flood, Funston, Gear, Gest, Gifford, Greenhalge, Grant, Hall, Harmer, Haugen, Hayes, E. R., Hill, Hitt, Hopkins, Kennedy, Kerr of Iowa, Ketcham, Kinsey, Knapp, Lacey, LaFollette, Laidlaw, Langston, Lansing, Louis, Lehlbace, Mason, McComas, McDuffie, McKenna, McKinley, Miles, Miller, Millikin, Moffitt, Moore of New Haven, Morey, Morrill, Morrow, Mudd, Neidringhaus, Nute, O'Donnell, O'Neill of Pennsylvania, Osborne, Owen, of Indiana, Payne, Payson, Perkins, Peters, Pickler, Post, Pugsley, Quackenbush, Raines, Ray, Reed of Iowa, Reyburn, Rife, Roswell, Russell, Sanford, Sawyer, Scranton, Scull, Sherman, Smith, of Illinois, Smith of West Virginia, Smyser, Snider, Spinola, Spooner, Stahlnecker, Stephenson, Stone of Pennsylvania, Struble Sweet, Sweeney, Taylor, E. B., Taylor of Illinois, Taylor, J. D., Taylor of Tennessee, Thomas, Townsend of Colorado, Townsend of Pennsylvania, Waddill, Wade, Walker, Wallace, Wheeler, Wickham, Wilson of Washington, Wright, Yardley -- 139.

Nays -- Abbott, Anderson, Bankhead, Barnes, Barwig, Bland,


Blount, Boatner, Boothman, Breckinridge of Arkansas, Breckinridge of Kentucky, Breckner, Brookshire, Brown, J. B., Brunner, Buchanan of Virginia, Buckalew, Bunn, Campbell Candler, Carlton, Caruth, Clancy, Clements, Clunie, Cobb, Connell, Cooper, Covert, Cowles, Cram, Crisp, Cummings, Dibble, Dickerson, Dockery, Dunphy, Edwards, Ellis, Finley, Fitch, Fithian, Forman, Fowler, Gear, Gibson Goodnight, Grimes, Grosvenor, Hare, Hatch, Haynes, Heard, Hemphill, Henderson, Herbert, Holman, Hooker, Kerr, Lane, Lanham, Lawler, Lee, Lester of Georgia, Lester of Virginia -- 129.

The Senate vote March 2, 1891, was:

Yeas -- Aldrich, Allen, Blair, Carey, Carlisle, Casey, Chandler, Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Edmunds, Evarts, Farwell, Hawley, Hiscock, Hoar, Ingalls, Jones of Nevada, McConnell, McMillan, Manderson, Morgan, Morrill, Pierce, Pugh, Sanders, Sawyer, Sherman, Shoup, Spooner, Stanford, Stewart, Stockbridge, Warren, Washburn, Wilson -- 37.

Nay -- Bate, Berry, Blackburn, Butler, Call, Cameron, Coke, Colquitt, Daniel, Faulkner, Frye, George, Gorman, Gray, Hale, Hampton, Harris, Jones of Arkansas, Kenna, Mitchell, Moody, Pasco, Payne, Pettigrew, Plumb, Ransom, Reagan, Teller, Turpie, Vance, Vest, Walthall, Wolcott -- 33.


(Democrats in italics.)


1888 -- April 16. Mr. Wilkins moved to suspend the rules and pass this resolution:

"Resolved by the House of Representatives, that it is the sense of this House that section 2 of the act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1881, which is as follows: ‘That the Secretary of the Treasury may at any time apply the surplus money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, or so much thereof as he may consider proper, to the purchase or redemption of United States bonds. Provided, that the bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no part of the sinking fund, but shall be redeemed and cancelled,’ was intended to be a permanent provision of the law; and the same is hereby declared to have been since its enactment, and to be now, in the opinion of the House, in full force and effect."

Which was agreed to -- yeas 138, nays 64 (not voting 123):


Yeas -- Messrs. G. E. Adams, C. H. Allen, E. P. Allen, C. L. Anderson, G. A. Anderson, C. S. Baker, Bankhead, Barnes, Bayne, Biggs, Blanchard, Bliss, Blount, Boutelle, W. C. P. Breckenridge, T. H. B. Browne, Buchanan, Buckalew, Burnett, Butler, T. J. Campbell, Cannon, H. H. Carlton, Caruth, Caswell, Catchings, Clements, J. E. Cobb, Cochran, Cogswell, Cooper, Cowles, Crisp, Cummings, Darlington, A. C. Davidson, R. H. M. Davidson, Dingley, Dunn, Elliott, Enloe, Ermentrout, Farquhar, French, Gaines, Gallinger, Glass, Goff, Greenman, Guenther, N. Hall, Hatch, Hangen, Herbert, Hiestand, Hilt, Howard, Hunter, Kean, Ketcham, Laffoon, Landes, Lee, Lehlback, Lodge, McAdoo, McComas, McCreary, McMillan, Merriman, Milliken, J. H. Moffitt, Montgomery, Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Morse, Neal, Newton, Nutting, Oates, O'Donnell,J. H. O'Neill, C. O'Neill, J. J. O'Neill, Osborne, Outhwaite, Parker, Peel, Perkins, Peters, Phelan, Phelps, Randall, Reed, E. Rice, S. M. Robertson, Rockwell, Rogers, Rowland, C. A. Russell,J. E. Russell, Ryan, Sayers, Seney, H. W. Seymour, Shaw, Simmons, Sowden, Spooner, Springer, J. D. Stewart, Stone of Kentucky, Stone of Missouri, Tarsney, J. D. Taylor, G. M. Thomas, O. B. Thomas, A. C. Thompson, Tracey, Townshend, H. G. Turner, Vance, Vandever, Walker,Washington,Weber, Wheeler, J. B. White, W. Whiting, Wickham, Wilber, Wilkins, T. Wilson, W. L. Wilson, Wise, Yardley, Carlisle, Speaker -- 138.

Nays -- Messrs. Abbott, A. R. Anderson, J. A. Anderson, Atkinson, J. Baker, Bland, Brower, Brumm, Bunnell, Burnes, Cheadle, Chipman, Conger, Dockery, Dorsey, Fisher, Fuller, Gest, Glover, Grimes, Heard, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Henderson, Holman, Hooker, A. J. Hopkins, S. I. Hopkins, Hovey, J. T. Johnson, T. J. Johnston, J. F. Jones, Kelly, Kerr, Kilgore, Laidlaw, Laird, Lanham, Lind, Lyman, Lynch, MacDonald, W. H. Martin, Mason, McClammy, McKenna, McRae, Nelson, Nichols, Norwood, Penington, Plumb, Post, Rowell, Shively, Smith, Snyder, C. Stewart, Stockdale, Tillman, Wade W. Warner, J. B. Weaver, J. R. Whiting, Wilkinson -- 64.


(Democrats in Italics.)

Passed by the vote given below, Jan. 1887. Cleveland vetoed it and it failed to get the necessary two thirds afterwards:

Yeas -- Messrs. G. E. Adams, J. J. Adams, C. H. Allen, C. M. Anderson, J. A. Anderson, Atkinson, Bacon, C. S. Baker, Bayne, Bound, Boutelle, Boyle, Brady, C. E. Brown, W. W. Brown, Brumm, Buck, Bunnell, Burnes, Burrows, Butterworth, Bynum, J. M. Campbell, J. E. Campbell, Cannon, E. C. Carleton, Caswell, Clardy, T. R.


Cobb, Conger, Cooper, Curtin, Cutcheon, Davenport, Davis, Dingley, Dorsey, Dougherty, Durham, Eden Eldridge, Ellesberry, Ely, Ermentrout, Evans, Everhardt, Farquhar, Fisher, Fleeger, Foran, G. Ford Frederick, Fuller, Funston, Gallinger, Gay, C. H. Gibson, Goff, Grosvenor, Grout, Gunther, Hale, B. J. Hall, Harmer, Hatch, Hayden Haynes, D. B. Henderson, Henley, Hepburn Herman, Hiestand, Hill, Hitt, Holman, A. J. Hopkins, Howard, F. A. Johnson, J.T. Johnson, Kelly, Kitcham, Kleiner, LaFollette, Landes, Lawler, LeLebre, Lehlbach, Libbey, Lindsley, Little, Long, Lore, Louttit, Lovering, Lowry, Lyman, Markham, Matson, McAdoo, McKenna, McKinley, Merryman, Millard, Milliken S. C. Moffatt, Morrill, Morrison, Morrow, Murphy, Neece, Negley, Nelson, O'Donnell, C. O'Neill, J. J. O'Neill, Osborne, Outhwaite, Owen, Parker, Perkins, Paters, Pettibone, Phelps, Pindar, Price, Plumb, Randall, Ramney, Reed, W. W. Rice, Riggs, Rockwell, Romeis, Rowell, Rusk, Ryan, Sawyer, Scott, Scranton, Seney, E. W. Seymour, Shaw, Souden, Spooner, Springer, Stahlnecker, Steele, Stephenson, C. F. Stone, Stone, of Missouri, Strait, Struble, Swope, Taulbee, E. B. Taylor, I. H. Taylor, J. R. Thomas, O. B. Thomas, A. C. Thompson, Townshend, Van Schaick, Viele, Wade, Wadsworth, Wait, Wakefield, J. H. Ward, T. B. Ward, A. J. Warner, W. Warner, J. B. Weaver, Weber, A. C. White, M. White, Wilkins, Winans, Wolford, Woodburn, Worthington -- 180

Nays -- Messrs. J. M. Allen, Ballentine, Barbour, Barksdale, Barnes, Bennett, Blanchard, Bland, Blonnt, Bragg, C. R. Breckenridge, W. C. P. Breckenridge, Cabell, Caldwell, Catchings, Clements, Compton, Comstock, Cowles, W. R. Cox, Crisp, Croxton, Culberson, Dargan, A. C. Davidson, R. H. M. Davidson, Dawson, Dibble, Dunn, Glass, Glover, W. J. Green, Halsell, Hammond, Harris, Hemphill, J. S. Henderson, Herbert, Hullon, Irion, T. D. Johnson,J. H. Jones,J. T. Jones, Laffoon, Lanham, J. M. Martin, McCreary, McMillan, McRae, Miller, Mills, Meal, Oates, O'Ferrall, Peel, Perry, Richardson, T. A. Robertson, Rogers, Sadler, Sayers, Singleton, Skinner, C. Stewart, Storm, J. M. Taylor, Throckmorton, Tilghman, Trigg, Tucker, H. G. Turner, Van Eaton, Welborn, Wheeler, Willis, Wise -- 76.

January 27 -- The Senate passed the bill without a division.


[For previous action on this subject, see McPherson's Hand Book of Politics for 1878, pp. 127-139; Hand-Book of Politics for 1880, pp. 46, 50, 146; Hand Book of Politics for 1882, pp. 25, 37, 57, 174.]



1886 -- April 8, Pending this bill (H. R. 5690) reported adversely by the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures:

"Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act all holders of silver bullion of the value of fifty dollars or more, standard fineness, shall be entitled to have the same coined into standard silver dollars, of four hundred and twelve and a half grains troy of standard silver to the dollar, upon like terms and conditions as gold is now coined for private holders; that the standard silver dollar heretofore coined and herein provided for shall be the unit of account and standard of value in like manner as now provided for the gold dollar, and shall be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except where otherwise stipulated.

"SEC. 2. That so much of the provisions of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled ‘An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and restore its legal tender character,’ as provides for issuing certificates on the deposit of silver dollars, shall be applicable to the coin herein named; and so much of the said act of February 28, 1878, as provides for the purchase of silver bullion, to be coined monthly into standard silver dollars, be and the same is hereby repealed.

"SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this act."

The bill for free coinage (H. R. 5690) was then rejected, (the question being, shall it pass?) -- yeas 126, nays 163.

Yeas -- Messrs. J. A. Anderson, Ballentine, Barksdale, Barnes, Barry, Bemictt, Bland, Brady, C. R. Breckenridge, Brumm, Barnes, Bynunt, Cabell, Caldwell, Candler, Carleton, Clardy, Clements, Cobb, Comstock, Cowles, Crisp, Croxton, D. B. Culberson, Curtin, Daniel, Dawson, Dockery, Dunn, Eldridge, Ellsberry, Ford, Forney, Frederick, Funston, Glass, Goff, W. J. Green, Hale, Halsell, Hammond, Hanback, Harris, W. H. Hatch, J. T. Heard, T. J. Henderson, Henley, Hermann, Hill, Holman, Honk, Howard, Irion, J. T. Johnston, T. D. Johnston, J. H. Jones, King, Kleiner, Laffoon, Landes, Lanham, Lawler, Le Fevre, Loutitt, Lowry, Markham, Matson, Maybury, McMillin, McRae, J. F. Miller, Morrill, Morrow, Neal, Neece, O'Ferrall, O'Hara, J.J. O'Neill, Owen, Payson, Peel, Perkins, Perry, Peters, Plumb, Price, Reagan, J. R. Reid, Reese, Richardson Riggs, Robertson, J. H. Rogers, Ryan, Sayers, Seney, Sessions, Singleton, F. G. Skinner, Snyder, Springer, C. Stewart, St. Martin, W. J. Stone of Missouri, Symes, Tarsney, Taulbee, J. M. Taylor, Z. Taylor, Throckmorton, Tillman, Trigg, Van Eaton, Wade, A. y. Warner,


W. Warner, A. J. Weaver, J. B. Weaver, Wellborn, Wheeler, A. C. White, Wilkins, C. D. Wise, Wolford, Woodburn, Worthington -- 126.

Nays -- Messrs. G. E. Adams, C. H. Allen, C. M. Anderson, Arnot, Atkinson, Baker, Barbour, Bayne, Beach, Belmont, Bingham, Blanchard, Bliss, Blount, Bound, Boutelle, Boyle, W. C. P. Breckenridge, T. M. Browne, W. W. Brown, J. Buchanan, Bunnell, Burleigh, Burrows, Butterworth, F. Campbell, J. E. Campbell, T. J. Campbell, Cannon, Catchings, Cole, Collins, Conger, Cooper, W. R. Cox, Crain, Cutcheon, Davenport,A. C. Davidson, R. H. M. Davidson, R. T. Davis, Dibble, Dingley, Dorsey, Dougherty, Dowdney, Dunham, Eden, Ely, Ermentrout, Evans, Everhart, Farquhar, Felton, Findlay, Fisher, Fleeger, Foran, Fuller, Gallinger, Gay, Geddis, C. H. Gibson, Gilfillan, Glover, R. S. Green, Grovesnor, Grout, Guenther, Hall, Harmer, Haynes, Hemphill, D. B. Henderson, J. S. Henderson, Hepburn, Herbert, A. S. Hewitt, Hiestand, Hires, Hitt, Holmes, A.J. Hopkins, James, F. A. Johnston, Ketchum, La Follette, Laird, Lehlbach, Lindsley, Little, Long, Lore, Lovering, J. Lyman, Mahoney, Martin, McAdoo, McComas, McCreary, McKenna, McKinley, Mirriman, Millard, Milliken, Mitchell, Moffatt, J. B. Morgan, Morrison, Midler, Murphy, Norwood, Oates, O'Donnell, C. O'Neill, Osborne, Outhwaite, Parker, Payne, Phelps, Pinder, Pulitzer, Randall, Ranney, T. B. Reed, Rockwell, Romeis, Rowell, Sawyer, Scott, Scranton, Seymour, F. T. Shaw, Smalls, Sowden, Spooner, Spriggs, Stahlhnecker, Steele, Stephenson, J. W. Stewart, E. F. Stone, Storm, Strait, Struble, Swinburne, Swope, E. B. Taylor, O. B. Thomas, A. C. Thompson, Tucker, H. G. Turner, Viele, W. H. Wadsworth, Wait, Wakefield, J. H. Ward, Weber, West, M. White, Whiting, Willis, W. L. Wilson -- 163.


Pacific Railroad, 1871.


1871 -- March 3. The bill passed the house -- yeas 125, nays 64:

Yeas -- Messrs. Allison, Ames, Archer, Atwood, Axtell, Ayer, Banks, Beaman, Beck, Bennett, Bethune, A. Blair, Boles, Booker, Bowen, G. M. Brooks, Buck, Buckley, Burdett, B. F. Butler, R. R. Butler, Catkin, Cessna, Churchill, W. T. Clarke, C. L. Cobb, Conger, Conner, Corker, Cowles, Darrall, J. Dixon, N. F. Dixon, Dockery, Dox, Duke, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Fisher, Fitch, Gilfillan, Griswold, Hambleton, Hamill, Hamilton, Harris, Hawkins, Hays, Heflin, Hoar, Hoge, Holmes, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Ingersoll, Jenckes, J. A. Johnson, A. H.


Jones, T. L. Jones, Judd, Kelley, Kelsey, Kitcham, Knapp, Laflin, Lash, Logan, Long, Lynch, Manning, Mayham, Maynard, McCarthy, McGrew, McKee, McKenzie, J. H. Moore, Morey, Morphis, Morrell, Morissey, Mungen, L. Myers, Negley, O'Neill, H. E. Paine, W. TV. Paine, Palmer, Perce, Piatt, Poland, Pomeroy, Porter, W. O. Price, Prosser, Rainey, Roots, Sargent, Sawyer, Schumaker, Shanks, L. A. Sheldon, Sherrod, Shober, J. S. Smith, W. J. Smith, W. C. Smith, Stokes, Stoughton, Strader, Strickland, Swann, Sypher, Tillman, W. Townsend, Trimble, Twichell, Van Auken, Wallace, Wheeler, Whiteley, Whitmore, Williams, E. M. Wilson, Young -- 125.

Nays -- Messrs. Ambler, Asper, Beatty, Biggs, Bingham, Bird, J. Brooks, Buffinton, Burchard, S. Clarke, A. Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Crebs, Donley, Ela, Finkelnburg, Garfield, Height, Halderman, Hale, Hawley, Hay, Hill, Holman, Julian, Lawrence, Lewis, Marshall, McCrary, McNeely, Mercur, E. H. Moore, W. Moore, Morgan, Morrill, Niblack, Orth, Packer, Peck, Peters, Phelps, Potter, Randall, Reeves, Rice, Schofield, J. A. Smith, Starkweather, Stevenson, Stiles, Strong, Tanner, Taylor, Upson, Van Trump, Van Wyck, Ward, W. B. Washburn, Welker, Willard, J. T. Wilson, Wolf, Wood -- 64.


1871 March 3. A motion to lay the bill on the table was disagreed to -- yeas 22, nays 33.

Yeas -- Messrs. Anthony, Buckingham, Cassedy, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Hamilton of Maryland, Harlan, McDonald, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson, Pool, Pratt, Ramsey Rice, Shurz, Sherman, Sprague, Stockton, Trumbull, Vickers, Willey -- 22.

Nays -- Abbott, Ames, Blair, Boreman, Brownlow, Cattell, Chandler, Conkling, Edmunds, Fenton, Flanagin, Hamlin, Harris, Hill, Howard, Howell, Kellogg, Lewis, McCreay, Nye Osborne, Pomeroy, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott, Spencer, Stewart, Sumner, Thayer, Tipton, Warner, Wilson, Yates -- 33.

After further debate, another motion to lay it on the table was lost; yeas 13, nays 40:

Yeas -- Messrs. Cragin, Edmunds, Gilbert, Harlan, Howell, McDonald, Pool, Ramsey, Rice, Shurz, Scott, Sprague, Tipton -- 13.

Nays -- Messrs. Abbott, Ames, Bayard, Blair, Boreman, Buckingham, Cameron, Chandler, Conkling, Corbett, Davis, Fenton, Flanagan, Fowler, Hamilton of Maryland, Harris, Hill, Howard, Johnston, Kellogg Lewis, McCreary, Miller, Nye, Osborne, Pomeroy, Revels, Robertston, Ross, Sawyer, Sherman, Spencer, Stearns, Stewart, Stockton, Trumbull, Warner, Williams, Wilson, Yates -- 40.

The bill then passed without a division.



June 15, 1878. Defeated by the following vote:

Yeas -- Messrs. Atkins, J. H. Baker, Banning, H. P. Bell, Bicknell, Blackburn, Boone, Bouck, Bragg, Bright, Brogden, T. M. Browne, H. C. Burchard, J. W. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Calkins, Chalmers, J. B. Clark, Jr., Clymer, Cobb, Collins, Cook, S. S. Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Culberson, Cummings, Cutler, Davidson, Deering, Dibrell, Dickey, Dunnell, Durham, Eden, J. L. Evans, Ewing, Foster, Franklin, Fuller, Gardner, Garth, Ganse, Giddings, A. H. Hamilton, H. R. Harris, Harrison, Hartzell, Haskell, Hatcher, Henderson, G. W. Hewitt, House, H. L. Humphrey, Hunter, Keightley, Kenna, Kimmel, Ligon, Marsh, McKenzie, McMahon, Morgan, Morrison, Muldrow, Oliver, Page, W. R. Phillips, Pollard, Pound, Price, Rea, J. B. Reilly, A. V. Rice, Riddle, Sayler, Schleicher, Sexton, Singleton, W. E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Strait, J. M. Thompson, Throckmorton, R. W. Townshend, Turner, Turney, R. B. Vance, Welch, H. White, Whittorne, B. Wilson, Young -- 94.

Nays -- Messrs. Acklen, Aldrich, Bacon, G. A. Bagley, W. H. Baker, Banks, Bayne, Bisbee, Blair, Bliss, Blount, Boyd, Brentano, Brewer, Bridges, Briggs, Burdick, Cabell, Cain, J.M. Campbell, Candler, Cannon, Carlisle, Chittenden, Chaflin, A. A. Clark, J. B. Clarke, Cole, Conger, Covert, J. D. Cox, Crapo, Danford, H. Davis, J. J. Davis, Dean, Denison, Douglas, Dwight, Eames, Eicklwff, Elam, Ellsworth, Errett, I. N. Evans, J. H. Evins, Torney, Garfield, Gibson, Goode, Hanna, Gardenbergh, Harmer, B. W. Harris, J. T. Harris, Hartridge, P. C. Hayes, Hendee, Henry, Herbert, A. S. Hewitt, Hooker, Hubbell, Hungerford, Hunton, Ittner, James, F. Jones, J. F. Jones, Jorgensen, Joyce, Keifer, Kelley, J. H. Ketcham, G M Landers, Lapham, Lathrop, Lindsey, Lockwood, Loring, Mackey, Maish, Mayham, McCook, McKinley, L. S. Metcalfe, Monroe, Morse, Muller, Norcross, O'Neill, Overton, G. W. Patterson, Peddie, C. N. Potter, Pridemore, Pugh, Rainey, Randolph, Reed, W. W, Rice, W. M. Robbins, Roberts, Robertson, G. D. Robinson, M. Ross, Sampson, Scales, Shallenberger, Shelley, Sinickson, Smalls, A. H. Smith, Springer, Starin, Steele, Stenger, Stewart, J. W. Stone, A. Townsend, M. I. Townsend, Tucker, Veeder, Waddell, Wait, G. C. Walker, W. Ward, Warner, M. D. White, A. S. Williams, A. Williams, C. G. Williams, J. Williams, R. Williams, A. S. Willias, B. A. Willis, Willits, F. Wood, Yates -- 139.


The bill as amended was then passed finally yeas 145, nays 130 (not voting 15), as follows:


Yeas -- C. H. Adams, G. A. Bagley, W. H. Baker, Ballou, Banks, Banning, Barnum, Bass, Blaine, Blair, Bliss, Bradley, W. R. Brown, Burleigh, Cason, Caswell, Chopin, Chittenden, Clymer, Crapo, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Davy, Denison, Dobbins, Dunnell, Eames, Egbert, Ellis, Farwell, Forney, Foster, C. Freeman, Frost, Frye, Garfield, Gause, Gibson, E. Hale, Hancock, Haralson, Hardenbergh, B. W. Harris, C. H. Harrison, Hathorn, A. S. Hewitt, Hill, G. F. Hoar, Hopkins, Hubbell, Hunter, Hurlbut, Hyman, Jenks, T. L. Jones, Kasson, Kelly, Ketcham, King, Lamar, G. M. Landers, Lane, Lapham, Leavenworth, Levy, Luttrell, E. W. M. Mackey, L. A. Mackey, Magoon, Maish, MacDougall, McCrary, J. W. McDill, Meade, Miller, Money, Munroe, Morey, Morgan, Mutchler, Nash, Norton, O'Brien, Oliver, O'Neill, Page, W. A.' Phillips, Pierce, Piper, Plaisted, T. C. Piatt, Powell, Pratt, Purman., Rainey, Randall, Reagan, J. Reilly, J. Robbins, W. M. Robbins, C. B. Roberts, M. Ross, S. Ross, Sampson, Schleicher, J. G. Schumaker, Seelye, Sinnickson, Slemons, R. Smalls, A. H. Smith, Strait, Stowell, Swann, Tarbox, Teese, C. P. Thompson, Throckmorton, M. I. Townsend, W. Townsend, Van Vorhes, Waddell, A. S. Wallace, J. W. Wallace, Walls, E. Ward, Warren, E. Wells, G. W. Wells, Wheeler, Whitehouse, Whiting, Wigginton, A. Williams, A. S. Williams, C. G. Williams, Wilshire, A. Wood, Jr., F. Wood, Woodburn, Woodworth, C. Young -- 145.

Nays -- Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, Bagby, J. H. Bagley, Jr., J. H Baker, Beebe, S. N. Bell, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Boone, Bradford, Bright, J. Y. Brown, Bucknor, H. C. Burchard, S. D. Burchard, Cabell, J. H. Caldwelll, W. P. Caldwell, Campbell, Candler, Cannon, Cate, Caulfield, J. B. Clarke, J. B. Clark, Jr., Cochrane, Collins, Conger, Cook, Cowan, Cox Culberson, Joseph F. Davis, De Bolt, Dibrell, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Evans, Faulkner, Felton, Fort, Franklin, Fuller, Glover, Goode, Goodin, Gunter, A. H. Hamilton, H. R. Harris, J. T. Harris, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Haymond, Hendee, Henderson, Henkle, Hereford, G. W. Hewitt, Holman, Hooker, Hoskins, House, Hunton, Hurd, T. Jones, Joyce, Kehr, Kimball, Knott, F. Landers, B. B. Lewis, Lord, Lynde, McFarland, McMahon, Metcalfe, Milliken, Mills, Morrison, Aral, New, J. Phelps, J. F. Philips, Poppleton, A. Potter, D. Rea, A. V. Rice, Riddle, M. S. Robinson, Rusk, Savage W. Sayler, Scales, Slieakley, Singleton, W. E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, Stenger, Stevenson, Stom, Terry, P. F. Thomas, Thornburgh, Tucker, Tufts, Turney, J. L. Vance, R. B. Vance, Waldron, G. C. Walker, Walling, Walsh, Whithorne, Wike, G. Willard, J. Williams, J. D. Williams, W. B. Williams, Willis, B. Wilson, J. Wilson, Yeates -- 130.




1876 -- July 24. Mr. Kelly moved to suspend the rules and pass this bill:

A Bill to provide for the coining of the standard silver dollar of the United States and for restoring its legal tender character.

Whereas, by the omission to name the legal tender silver dollar in the enumeration of the silver coins of the United States in the act of February 12, 1873, the authority to coin said silver dollar was withheld; therefore,

Be it enacted, etc., That there shall be, from time to time, struck and coined at the several mints of the United States silver dollars of the weight of 412/1/2 grains, as provided for in the act of January 18, 1837, upon which shall be the devices and legends provided by said act, and that the said dollar shall be a legal tender of payment for any sums whatever.

Which was disagreed to -- yeas 119; nays 66; not voting 99; two thirds being required -- as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Atkins, J. H. Baker, Bland, Boone, Bradford, Bradley, Bright, J. Y. Browne, W. R. Brown, Buckner, H. C. Burchard, S. D. Burchard, Cabell, J. H. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Campbell, Candler, Cannon, Cason, Cate, Caulfeld, J. B. Clarke, J. B. Clarke, Jr., Clymer, Cochrane, Conger, Cook, Joseph P. Davis, DeBott, Dibrell, Dobbins, Douglas, Dunnell, Durham, Eden, Egbert, Evans, Felton, Finely, Forney, Fort, Franklin, Goode, Goodin, Gutter, A. H. Hamilton, Hartzell, Hays, Hereford, Hilt, Dolman, Hopkins House, Hunter, Hurlbut, T. L. Jones, Kelley, Knott, F. Landers, Lane, Levy, Luttrell, Lynde, L. A. Mackey, J. W. McDill, McFarland, McMahon, Miliken, Mills, Neal, New. Page, J. Phelps, W. A. Phillips, Piper, Purman, Randall, D. Rea, Reagan, J. Reilly, J. B. Reilly, A. V. Rice, Riddle, W. M. Robbins, M. S. Robinson, Rusk, Sampson, Savage, Scales, Sheakley, Singleton, Siemens, W. E. Smith, Springer, Stevenson, Stone, Terry, Thornburgh, Tufts, Turney, Van Vorhes, J. L. Vance, R. B. lance, Waddell, E. Wells, J. D. White, Whiting, Whittorne, Wiginnton, G. Willard, C. G. Williams, J. D. Williams, J. N. Williams, W. B. Williams, J. Wilson, Woodburn, Woodworth -- 119.

Nays -- Messrs. C. H. Adams, G. H. Bagley, W. H. Baker, Ballon, S. N. Bell, Burleigh, Caswell, Chittenden, Crapo, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Davy, Durand, Eames, Ely, Frye, Garfield, Gibson, E. Heale, Hancock Hardenbergh, B. W. Harris, Hendee, Hoskins, Habbell, F. Jones, Kehr, Kimball, Lamar, Leavenworth, Lynch, Magoon, MacDougall, Made, Metcalfe, Miller, Monroe, Mitchler, Norton, O'Neill Packer, Payne,


Pierce, Plaisted, A. Potter, Rainey, J. Robbins, Schleicher, Seely, Sinnickson, R. Smalls, Stowell, Tarbox, Teese, C. P. Thompson, M. I. Townsend, W. Townsend, Tucker, Wait, C. C. B. Walker, Ward, Warren, G. W. Wells, Wike, A. S. Williams, J. Williams, Willis -- 68.




1876 -- January 17. Mr. Holman moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is unwise and inexpedient at this time that a specific and arbitrary period should be prescribed by law at which legal tender notes of the United States should be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury in coin, and therefore the act entitled "An act to provide for the resumption of specie payment," approved January 14, 1875, ought to be repealed, and the committee on banking and currency is instructed, at as early a period as may be practicable, to report to the House a bill for that purpose.

The motion was disagreed, to -- yeas 112; nays 158; not voting 20 -- two thirds being required, as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, J. II. Bagley, Jr, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Boone, Bradford, Bright, J. Y. Brown, Buckner, Cabell, J. H. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Campbell, Cason, Cate, J. B. Clarke, J. B. Clarke, Jr., Clymer, Cochrane, Collins, Cook, Cowan, Joseph J. Davis, DeBolt, Dibrell, Dobbins, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Egbert, Evans, Faulkner, Felton, Forney, Franklin, Fuller, Gause, Glover, Goode, Goodin, Gunter, A. H. Hamilton, H. R. Harris, J. T. Harris, C. H. Harrison, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Haymond, Hereford, G. W. Hewitt, Hill, Holman, Hopkins, House, Hunton. Jenks, T. L. Jones, Kelley, Knott, F. Landers, B. B. Lewis, L. A. Mackey, McFarland, McMahon, Milliken, Morgan, Heal, New, Oliver, J. Phelps, J. F. Philips, W. A. Phillips, Piper, Poppleton, D. Rea, J. Reilly, A. V. Rice, Riddle, W. M. Robbins, C. B. Roberts, M. S.; Robinson, Savage, M. Sayler, Scales, Sheakley, Slemons, W. E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, Stenger, Stevenson, Stone, Terry, Tucker, Turney, J. L. Vance, Waddell, G. C. Walker. Walling, Whitthome, J. D. Williams, J. N. Williams, Yeates, C. Young -- 112.

Nays -- Messrs. C. H. Adams, Bagby, G. A. Bagley, J. H. Baker, W. H. Baker, Ballou, Banks, Bass, Beebe, S. N. Bell, Blaine, Blair, Bliss, Bradley, W. R. Brown, H. C. Burchard, S. D. Burchard, Burleigh, Candler, Cannon, Caswell, Caulfield, Chapin, Chittenden, Conger, Cox, Crapo, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Davy, Dennison, Dunnell, Durand, Eames, Ellis, Ely, Farwell, Fort, Foster, C. Freeman, Frost,


Frye, Garfield, Gibson, E. Hale, R. Hamilton, Hancock, Haralson, Hardensburg, B. W. Harrison, Hathorn, Hendee, Henderson, Henkle, A. S. Hewitt, G. F. Hoar, Hoge, Hooker, Hoskins, Hubbell, Hunter, Hurd, Hyman, F. Jones, Joyce, Kasson, Kehr, Ketchum, King, Lamar, G. M. Landers, Lane, Lapham, W. Lawerence, Leavenworth, Levy, Luttrell, Lynch, Magoon, Maish, MacDougall, McCreary, J. W. MacDill, Meade, Metacalfe, Miller, Mills, Money, Monroe, Morrison, Mitchler, Norton, O'Brien, Odell, O'Neil, Packer, Page, E. Y. Parsons, Payne, Pierce, Plaisted, T. C. Platt, A. Potter, Powell, Pratt, Rainey, Randall, Reagan, J. Robbins, M. Ross, Rusk, Sampson, Schleicher, Seelye, Singleton, Sinnickson, R. Smalls, A. H. Smith, Starkweather, Strait, Stowell, Tarbox, C. P. Thompson, P. F. Thomas, Thornburgh, Throckmorton, M. I. Townsend, W. Townsend, Tufts, Van Vorhes, Waldron, C. C. B. Walker, A. S. Wallace, J. W. Wallace, Walls, Walsh, Ward, Warren, E. Wells, G. W. Wheeler, J. D. White, Whitehouse, Whiting, Wigginton, Wike, G. Willard, A. S. Williams, C. G. Williams, J. Williams, W. E. Williams, J. Wilson, A. Wood, Jr. F. Wood, Woodburn -- 158.



March 27. Mr. Payne moved that the rules be suspended so to allow him to introduce, and the House to pass, the following bill to provide for the gradual resumption of specie payments:

A Bill to provide for the gradual resumption of specie payments.

Be it enacted, etc., That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, during each and every year, from and after July 1, 1876, and until the legal tender notes of the United States shall have appreciated to par value with gold and shall be convertible into coin, to cause to be set aside and retained in coin an amount equal to 3 per centum of such legal tender notes outstanding; and from the date of such convertibility as aforesaid the amount of coin to be set aside and retained, as aforesaid, shall be held as a resumption fund in respect to said legal tender notes, and shall at no time be less than 30 per centum of such outstanding legal tender notes. Provided, however, that the coin to be set aside and retained, as above provided, shall be counted as part of the sinking fund for the purchase or payment of the public debt, as required by section 3,694 of the revised statutes.

Section 2. That it shall be the duty of each national banking association during each and every year from and after July 1, 1876, and until the full and complete resumption of the payment in specie


of its circulating notes, to set aside and retain from the coin receivable, as interest on the bonds deposited with the Treasurer of the United States, as security for its circulation, an amount equal to three per centum of its circulating notes issued to such association and not surrendered; and from the date of its resumption of specie payments as aforesaid, the amount of coin to be held and maintained as a resumption fund shall at no time be less than thirty per centum of its outstanding circulation; Provided, however, That the coin by this section directed to be set aside and retained shall be counted as a part of the lawful money reserve, which said associations are by existing law required to maintain.

Sec. 3. That so much of section three of an act entitled "an act to provide for the resumption of specie payments," approved January 14, 1875, as requires the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem legal tender notes to the amount of eighty per centum of the sum of national bank notes issued to any banking association increasing its capital or circulation, or to any association newly organized as provided in said section three as relates to or provides for the redemption in coin of the United States legal tender notes on and after January 1, 1879, and all other provisions of law inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.

Mr. Holman asked if it was in order to divide the several propositions embraced in the bill, so as to have a separate vote on the last section.

The Speaker said: It is not.

Others made the same request. But Mr. Payne refused to yield for any purpose.

The vote was then taken on the motion, and it was disagreed to, (two thirds being required) yeas 81, nays 157, (not voting, 51) as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Ashe, Bagby,J. H. Bagley, Jr., Barnum, S. N. Belt, Blount, Bradford, J. Y. Brown, Cabell, J. H. Caldwell, Caulpeld, Chapin, Clymer, Cochrane, Collins, Cook, Cox, Culberson, Cutler, DeBolt, Douglas, Durham, Felton, Forney, Gibson, Goode, Gunter, Flancock, Hardenbergh, H. R. Harris, C. H. Harrison, Hartridge, Henkle, G. W. Hewitt, Hooker, Hopkins, Hunton, Hurd, Knott, G. M. Landers, Lane, Levy, Luttrell, Lynde, Maish, Meade, Metcalfe, Miliken, Money, Morrison, Mutchler, E. Y. Parsons, Payne, J. Phelps, Piper, Powell, Randall, Reagan, W. M. Robbins, C. B. Roberts, M. Ross, Schleicher, Singleton, Siemens, W. E. Smith, Stenger, Swann, Terry, P. F. Thomas, Throckmorton, Tucker, Turney, R. B. Vance, Walsh, Wigginton, Wike, A. S. Williams, J. Williams, J. N. Williams, Yeates, C. Young -- 81.


Nays --Messrs. C. H. Adams, Anderson, Alkins, G. A. Bagley, J. H. Baker, W. H. Baker, Ballow, Banks, Beebe, Blackburn, Blair, Boone, Bradley, Bright, W. R. Brown, H. C. Burchard, Burleigh, W. P. Caldwell, Campbell, Cannon, Cason, Caswell, Cate, Chittendon, J. B. Clarke, J. B. Clarke, Jr., Conger, Crapo, Crounse, Danford, Joseph F. Davis, Denison, Dibrell, Dobbins, Dunnell, Duraud, Eames, Eden, Egbert, Ely,Evans, Farwell, Faulkner, Fort, Foster, Franklin, Fuller, Garfield, Glover, Goodin, E. Hale, A. H. Hamilton R. Hamilton, Hartzell, Hathorn, Haymond, Hendee, Henderson, Hereford, A. S. Hewitt, G. F. Hoar, Holman, Hoskins, Hubbell, Hunter, Hurlbut, Hyman, T. L. Jones, Joyce, Kasson, Kehr, Kelley, Kimball, King, F. Landers, Lapham, Leavenworth, Lynch, Magoon, McCrary, McFarland, McMahon, Miller. Monroe, Morey, Morgan, Nash, Neal, New, Norton, O'Brien, Oliver, O'Neill, Packer, Page, J. F. Philips, W. A. Phillips, Pierce, Plaisted, T. C. Platt, Poppleton, A. Potter, J. Reilly, A. V. Pice, Piddle, J. Robbins, M. S. Robinson, S. Ross, Rusk, Sampson, Savage, M. Sayler. Scales, Seelye, Sheakley, Sinnickson, R. Smalls, A. H. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, Strait, Stevenson, Stone, Stowell, Taxbox, Teese, C. P. Thompson, Thornburgh, M. I. Townsend, W. Townsend, Tufts, Van Vorhes, J. L. Vance, Waddell, Waldron, A. S. Wallace, J. W. Wallace, Walling Walls, Ward, Warren, G. W. Wells, Wheeler, J. D. White, Whiting, Whitthorne, G. Willard, A. Williams, C. G. Williams, J.D. Williams, W. B. Williams, Willis, J. Wilson, A. Wood, Jr., Woodburn, Woodworth -- 157.

[This bill is understood to have been adopted in a caucus of Democratic Representatives, March 15, 1876, by a vote of 69 to 46 and ordered presented to the House "as the best practicable compromise of differing opinions on the financial question."]

May 1 -- Mr. Holman moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to introduce, and the House to pass, a bill to repeal so much of the act entitled "an act to provide for the resumption of specie payment," approved January 14, 1875, as authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem and cancel United States notes and to issue and sell United States bonds for the accomplishment of that purpose.

Which was disagreed to, (two thirds not having voted in the affirmative) yeas 115, nays 111, not voting 64) as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Atkins, J. H. Baker, Banning, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Bradford, J. Y. Brown, Buckner, S. D. Burchard, Cabell, J. H. Caldwell, W. P. Caldwell, Canon, Cason, Cate, Caulfield,J. B. Clark, Jr. Clymer, Cochrane, Collins, Cook, Cowan, Culberson, Joseph F. Davis, DeBolt, Dibrell, Douglas, Durham, Eden, Ellis, Evans, Faulkner, Felton, Finley, Forney, Fort,


Franklin, Fuller, Clover, Goode, Goodin, A. H. Hamilton, H. R. Harris, J. T. Harris C. H. Harrison, Hartridge, Hartzell, Hatcher, Haymond, Hereford, Hill, Holman, Hopkins, House, Hunter, Hunton, Kelley, F. Landers, W. Lawrence, MacFarland, McMahon, Miliken, Morgan, Neal, New, Packer, E. Y. Parsons, Payne, Phelps, J. F. Phillips, W. A. Phillips, Poppleton, Randall, S. Rae, Reagan, J. Reilly, J. B. Reilly, A. V. Rice, Riddle, J. Robbins, W. M. Robbins, C. B. Roberts, M. S. Robinson, Savage, M. Saylcr, Scales, Sheakley, Slemons, W. E. Smith, Southard, Sparks, Springer, Stengcr, Stephenson, Stone, Terry, Tucker, Turney, J. L. Vance, R B. Vance, G. C. Walker, J. W. Wallace, Walling, Walsh, E. Wells, Whitthorne, J. D. Williams, J. N. Williams, Wilshire, Woodworth, Yeates, C. Young -- 115.

Nays -- Messrs. C. H. Adams, G. A. Bagley, J. H. Bagley, Jr., Banks, Barnum, Beebe, S. N. Bell, Blaine, Blair, Bradley, H. C. Burchard, Burleigh, Candler, Chapin, Crittenden, Conger, Crapo, Crounse, Cutter, Sanford, Davy, Denison, Dunnell, Eames, Ely, Farwell, Foster, Frost, Frye, Garfield, Gibson, E. Hale, R. Hamilton, Haialson, Hardenbergh, Hendee, Henderson, Henkle, G. W. Hewitt, Hoge, Hoskins, Hubbell, Joyce, Kehr, Ketcham, Kimball, Lamar, G. M. Landers, Lane, Leavenworth, Levy, Luttrell, Lynch, Maish, MacDougall, McCrary, J. W. McDill, Metcalfe, Miller, Monroe, Morrison, Mutchler, Norton, O'Brien, O'Neill, Page, Pierce, Piper, Plaisted, T. C. Platt, A. Potter, Powell, Pratt, Rainey, Rusk, Sampson, Schleicher, J. G. Schumaker, Seelye, Singleton, Sinnickson, R. Smalls, A. H. Smith, Stowell, Tarbox, C. P. Thompson, Thornburgh, Throckmorton, M. I. Townsend, W. Townsend, Tufts, Wait, Waldron, A. S. Wallace, Warren, Wells, Wheeler, J. D. White, Whitehouse, Whiting, Wigginton, G. Willard, A. Williams, A. S. Williams, C. G. Williams, /. Williams, W. B. Williams, J. Wilson, A. Wood, Jr., F. Wood, Woodburn -- 110.



Mr. Stevens moved an amendment to insert after the word "notes," the following: "and payments to be made to officers, soldiers and sailors in the army and navy of the United States, and for all supplies purchased for the said Government."

Mr. White of Indiana -- "I appeal to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw that amendment. It was only intended to illustrate an absurdity, and I hope he will withdraw it."

Mr. Stevens -- "No sir, I cannot withdraw it."


Mr. Bingham -- "I demand the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment."

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. Baker -- "I should like to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question."

The Speaker -- "No debate is in order at this time."

The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative -- yeas 67, nays 72 -- as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Aldrich, Ancona, Babbitt, Joseph Bailey, Baker, Biddle, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, George H. Browne, Buffinton, Campbell, Chamberlin, Clark, Cobb, Davis, Diven, Edwards, Ely, Fenton, Fessenden, Fisher, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Granger, Hale, Hanchett, Harrison, Holman, Hooper, Johnson, Julian, William Kellogg, Killinger, Lehman, McPherson, Marston, Maynard, Mitchell, Anson P. Morrill, Noell, Odell, Olin, Perry, John H. Rice, James S. Rollins, Shanks, Sherman, Shiel, Sloan, Spaulding, William G. Steele, Stevens, Van Horn, Van- Valkenburg, Verree, Voorhees, Wall, Wallace, Ward, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, Woodruff and Worcester -- 67.

Nays -- Messrs. Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Baxter, Blake, Wm. G. Brown, Burnham, Calvert, Clements, Frederick A. Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Conway, Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Dawes, Duell, Dunlap, Dunn, Eliot, English, Goodwin, Grider, Gurley, Haight, Hall, Harding, Hickman, Horton, Kelley, Knapp, Law, Leary, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKnight, Mallory, May, Menzies, Moorehead, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Noble, Norton, Nugen, Patton, Timothy G. Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Alexander H. Rice, Riddle, Robinson, Sargent, Sedgwick, Sheffield, Smith, John B. Steele, Stratton, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, Train, Trimble, Trowbridge, Vallandigham, Chas. W. Walton, E. P. Walton, Washburn, Webster, Wheeler, Wickliffe and Wright -- 72.




1880 -- December 21. Mr. Price moved to suspend the rules and pass this bill:

A Bill (H. R. No. 5897) repealing section 3418 of the Revised Statutes, in reference to stamps on bank checks.

Be it enacted, etc., That section 3418 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby repealed, and that from and


after the passage of this act no stamp shall be necessary upon any check, such as is named in said section 3418.

Which was disagreed to -- yeas 129, nays 68 (two thirds being necessary.

Yeas -- Messrs. N. W. Aldrich, W. Aldrich, Atherton, Backman, Bailey, Bicknell, Bingham, Blackburn, Blake, Bliss, Bowman, M. S. Brewer, Briggs, Browne, Buckner, Calkins, Cannort, Carpenter, Caswell, Clymer, Coffroth, Conger, Cook, Covert, Craps, Crowley, Daggett, G. R. Davis, H. Davis, J. J. Davis, Deering, Dunnell, Einstein, Ellis, Errett, Evins, Felton, Field, Fisher, Ford, Godshalk, Goode, Hall, J. Hammond, N. F. Hammond, Harmer, B. W. Harris, Hatch, Hawk, Henderson, Henkle, Henry, Herbert, Herndon, Hiscock, Hooker, Horr, Humphrey, Hunton, Hutchins, Joyce, Ketcham, Killinger, Kimmel, E. L. Martin, Mason, McCook, McKinley, Mitchell, Money, Monroe, Morse, Morton, Myers, Neal, New, Nichols, Norcross, O'Connor, O'Neill, Osmer, Overton, Page, Philips, Phister, Pound, Prescott, Price, Reed, W. W. Rice, D. P. Richardson, G. M. Robeson, G. D. Robinson, Ross, W. A. Russell, T. Ryan, J. W. Ryan, Sapp, Sawyer, Scoville, Shallenberger, A.H. Smith, Speer, Springer, Starins, J. W. Stone, Talbott, E. B. Taylor, Thomas, W. G. Thompson, A. Townsend, Tyler, J. T. Updegraff, T. Updegraff, Upson, Van Arman, Van Works, Vorhis, Wait, Washburn, Whitaker, C. G. Williams, T. Williams, Willis, Willits, M. R. Wise, F. Wood, W. A. Wood, T. L. Young -- 129.

Nays -- Messrs. Acklen, Armfield, Berry, Blount, Bouck, Boyd, Brigham, Bright, Butterworth, Caldwell, Chalmers, Ar. N. Clements, Cobb, Coleriei, Converse, Cravens, L. H. Davis, Dibrell, Dunn, Finley, Forney, Fort, Geddes, Gillette, Gunter, J. T. Harris, W. D. Hill, Hostetter, House, Hull, Hurd, Johnston, G. W. Jones, Ladd, Le Fevre, Lowe, Marsh, B. F. Martin, McCord, McLane, McMillin, Mills, Muldrow, O'Reilly, Phelps, Reagan, Rothwell, Seales, Simonton, O. R. Singleton, Slemons, Sparks, W. L. Steele, Stevenson, R. L. Taylor, P. B. Thompson, Jr., Tillman, R. W. Townshend, O. Turner, T. Turner, Urner, Vance, A. J. Warner, Weaver, H. White, Whitthorne, Wilson, Yocum -- 68.


Many a Democrat in the South will be astounded when he reads the names of the thirteen Democratic Senators who voted against Mr. Vance's amendment to refund that unjust and illegal tax.

1888. January 18. Mr. Vance moved to add these sections:

SEC. -- . That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to credit and pay to each State a sum equal


to the amounts collected therein respectively as a tax or duty on raw cotton, under the provisions of the act approved July 1, 1862, and the supplementary and amendatory acts thereto, which sums, when so credited and paid, shall be accepted and led by the states in trust. First, for such of the producers who paid said tax or duty, or their legal representatives, as may make claim to and prove their identity, and the amount of taxes paid in two years after the passage of this act; and second, the remainder, if any, to be held and used only as a free school fund; provided That where cotton was produced in one State, and under permit from the taxes thereon collected in the latter State, then the amount of all such taxes shall be paid to the State in which cotton was produced.

SEC. -- . That there is hereby appropriated out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act: Provided, That any state accepting the trust hereby created is prohibited from paying any parts of the funds received to any person, syndicate or corporation, except the producers who paid the taxes on cotton grown by then or legal representatives; and in no case shall the payment be made to an assignee of such claim, which was disagreed to -- yeas, nays 46.

Yeas -- Messrs. Bate, Berry, Batler, Call, Coke, Daniel, George, Harris, Jones of Arkansas, Pugh, Quay, Ransom, Reagan, Vance, Walthall, Wilson of Maryland -- 16

Nays -- Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Beck, Blair, Blodgett, Brown, Cameron, Chace, Chandler, Cockrell, Cullom, Davis, Dawes, Dolph, Evarts, Farwell, Faulkner, Frye, Gorman, Hale, Hawley, Hiscock, Hoar, Ingalls, McPherson, Manderson, Mitchell, Morgan, Paddock, Palmer, Payne, Platt, Plumb, Sabin, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Sherman, Spooner, Stanford, Stewart, Stockbridge, Teller, Turpie, Vest, Voorhes, Wilson of Iowa -- 46.



Let the reader note the names of those Senators who voted "No," and thus obeyed the will of that fearful gambling hell which the people of Louisiana have tried so hard to abolish.

Mailing Lottery Advertisements.


1887 -- February 28. Senate bill (260) to prohibit the mailing of


newspapers and other publications containing lottery advertisements and prescribing a penalty for violation of the same, was passed.Yeas 39; nays 10.

Yeas -- Messrs. Aldrich, Berry, Blair, Cameron, Chace, Cheney, Cockrell, Cullom, Dawes, Edmunds, Evarts, Farwell, George, Hale, Harrison, Hawley, Hoar, Ingalls, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, McMillan, Mahone, Manderson, Maxey, Mitchell of Oregon, Morrill, Palmer, Payne, Piatt, Plumb, Pugh, Sabin, Spooner, Teller, Vest, Walthall, Williams, Wilson of Iowa -- 39.

Nays -- Messrs. Blackburn, Butler, Call, Coke, Gray, Hampton, Harris, Morgan, Vance, Whitehouse -- 10.


The following is the final vote:

February 6. The report of the conference was adopted in the House -- yeas 178, nays 60 (not voting, 84).

Yeas -- Abbott, Adams, Allen of Mass., Anderson of Ill., Arnold, Atkinson of Pa., Baker of N. Y., Bankhead, Barnes, Belden, Bliss of N. Y.,Bound, T. H. B. Browne, Browne of Ind., Browne of Ohio, J. R. Brown, Brumm, Bryce, Buchanan of N. J., Burnett, Burrows, Butler, Bynum, T. J. Campbell, Cannon, Carlton, Caruth, Caswell, Catchings, Chipman, Clardy, Cogswell, Collins, Compton, Conger, Cooper of Ohio, Cothran, Cowles, Cox, Crisp, Crouse, Dargan, Darlington, Davenport, Davidson of Ala., Davidson of Fla., Davis, Dibble, Dingley, Dockery, Dorsey, Durham, Dunn, Elliott, Farquhar, Felton, Fitch, Foran, Ford, Funston, Gallinger, Gay, Gear, Gibson, Glover, Grout, Guenther, Hatch, Hangen, Hayden, Hayes, Heard, Hemphill, Henderson of Iowa, Herbert, Hermann, Hiestand, Hires, Hitt, Holmes, Hopkins of N. Y., Howard, Hudd, Hutton, Johnston of Ind., Jones, Kelley of Pa., Kennedy, Kerr of Iowa, Ketcham, Laffoon, Lagan, Laidlaw, Landes, Latham, Lee, Long, Macdonald, Mansur, Mason, Matson, McAdoo, McClammy, McComas, McCormick, McCreary, McKinley, McKinney, McMillan, Merriman, Milliken, Moffit, Moore of Texas, Morrill, Newton, Nichols, Norwood, Oates, O'Donnell, O'Neill of Pa., O'Neill of Mo., Osborne, Outhwaite, Owen of Ind., Parker, Patton, Payson, Peel, Perkins, Perry, Peters, Phelps, Plumb, Posey, Pugsley, Rayner, Richardson, Rockwell, Rowell, Russell of Mass., Rusk, Sawyer, Scott, Scull, Seymour, Simmons, Smith of Wis., Spinola, Spooner, Springer, Stevenson, Stewart of Texas, Stewart of Vt., Stone of Ky., Stone of Mo., Struble, Symes, Tarsney of Mich., Taulbce, E. B. Taylor, Thomas of Ky., Thomas of Ill., Thomas of Wis., Townshend, Vance, Vandever, Wade, Walker of Mo., Weaver, Weber, West, Wheeler of Ala., Whiting of Mass., Wickham, Williams of Ohio, Woodburn, Yardley, Yoder -- 178.


Nays -- Messrs. Allen of Michigan, Anderson of Iowa, Anderson of Mississippi, Anderson of Kansas Baker of Illinois, Bland, Boothman, Breckenridge of Arkansas, Breckenridge of Kentucky, Brewer, Buckalew, Butterworth, F. Campbell, Candler of Georgia, Cheadle, Clements, Cobbs, Culberson of Texas Cummings, Finley, Forney, Fuller, Gest, Glass, Grimes, Hare, Harmer, Henderson of Illinois Holman, Hooker, Hopkins of Virginia, Jackson, Johnston of North Carolina, Kilgore, La Follette, Lane, Lanham, Lehlback, Lind, Maish, Martin of Texas, McKenna, McRae, Montgomery, Morgan, Nelson. Pennington, Randall of Pennsylvania, Rogers, Rowland, Sayers, Seney, Shively, Stewart of Georgia, Stockdale, Thompson of Ohio, Tracey, Turner of Georgia, Wilson of Minnesota, Wilson of West Virginia -- 60.

February 7. The Senate concurred in the report without division, and the bill was approved February 20, 1889.


The final vote in the House was as follows:

July 10 -- The report of the Committee of Conference, being the law as it stands, was agreed to -- yeas no, nays 79.

Yeas -- Messrs. Aiken, W. Aldrich, Barr, Bayne, Bisbee, J. H. Brewer, Briggs, Browne, Buck, Buckner,J. C. Burrows, Butterworth, Campbell. Candler, Cannon, Carpenter, Caswell, Chace, Crapo, Cutts, Darrall, Dawes, Deering, DeMotte, Dingley, Dunnell, Dwight, Ermentrout, Errett, S. S. Farwell, George, Gibson, Godshalk, J. Hammond, Hardenbergh, B. W. Harris, Haskell, G. C. Hazelton, Hepburn, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Horr, Houk, Hubbell, Jadwin, Kasson, Kelley, Ketcham, Lacey, Lord, Lynch, Mackay, McCook, McKinley, McLane, Miles, Moore, Morey, Morse, Mutchler, Neal, Norcross, Oates, O'Neill, Orth, Pacheco, Parker, Payson, Peelle, Peirce, Pound, Prescott, Ranney, Ray, Reed, J. B. Rice, W. W. Rice, Rich, Ritchie, G. D. Robinson, J. S. Robinson, Scranton, Shallenberger, Shelley, Shultz, A. H. Smith, D. C. Smith, Spaulding, Spooner, E. F. Stone, Strait, Talbott, E. B. Taylor, W. G. Thompson, A. Townsend, Tyler, I. T. Updegraff, T. Updegraff, Urner, Valentine, Van Aernam, Wadsworth, Wait, W alker, Ward, Washburn, Webber, J. D. White, C. G. Williams, Willits -- 110.

Nays -- Messrs. Anderson, Armfield, Atkins, Belford, Belthoover, Berry, Blount, Brumm, Buchanan, y. W. Caldwell, Cassidy, Chapman, Clardy, Cobb, Converse, Cook, S. S. Cox, W. R. Cox, Covington, Cravens, Culberson, Davidson, Dibrell, Doud, Dugro, Dunn, Evins, Ford, Frost, Fulkerson, Geddes, N. J. Hammond, Hardy, I.


S. Hazeltine, Hatch, G. W. Hewett, Hoge, Holman, Hooker, House, G. W. Jones, Kenna, Klotz, Knott, Ladd, Latham, Lowe, Matson, McKenzie, McMillin, Mills, Morrison, Moulton, Page, Paul, Phelps, Phister, Randall, Reagan, Rosecrans, Scales, Simonton, O. R. SingleIon, Speer, Springer, P. B. Thompson, Jr., Tillman, R. W. Townshend, Tucker, H. G. Turner, O. Turner, Upson, Vance, R. Warner, Wellborn, T. Williams, Wilson, G. D. Wise, M. R. Wise -- 79.

July 11 -- The Senate agreed to the report without a division.

Before the adoption of the conference report the Senate had passed the bill, with amendments, by the following vote (yeas 34; nays 13):

Yeas -- Messrs. Aldrich, Allison, Blair, Call, Chilcott, Conger, Davis of West Virginia, Dawes, Ferry, Frye, Gorman, Groome, Hampton, Harrison, Hawley, Hill of Colorado, Hoar, Jonas, Lapham, Logan, McMillan, Mahone, Miller of California, Miller of New York, Morgan, Morrill, Ransom, Rollins, Saunders, Sawyer, Sewell, Sherman, Van Wyck, Windom -- 34.

Nays -- Messrs. Brown, Cockrell, Coke, Farley, George, Grover, Jones of Nevada, Maxey, Pugh, Vance, Voorhees, Walker, Williams -- 13.



While the bill was on its passage through the House, Mr. Rice (Greenbacker) moved an amendment which would have deprived the banks of that fearful power. It was as follows:

"That from and after the passage of this act, all redemptions of national bank notes shall be made by a new issue of legal tender Treasury notes, to be issued by the Secretary of the Treasury as redemption notes, and such issue shall be in excess of the Treasury notes now in circulation and in amount equal to the national bank circulation.

"And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to prepare, at the earliest practical period, such amount of legal tender Treasury notes as may from time to time be necessary for the redemption of all national bank notes, as they may be presented for redemption or payment. All redemption of national bank notes, whether made by the banks or by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be made in such legal tender Treasury notes and in no other lawful money or coin."

"The Treasury notes authorized by this section shall be a legal


tender for all debts public and private and in practicable denominations of one dollar and upward"

Which was disagreed to -- yeas 44, nays 147.

Yeas -- Messrs. Anderson, Brumm, J. H. Burrows, Cabell, Cobb, Cohnck. Cook, Culberson, L. H. Davis, J. J, Finley, Ford, Forney, Geddes, Gunter, I. S. Hazeltine, Hatch, Holman, G. W. Jones J. K. Jones, Kenna, Ladd, Matson, McKenzie, McMillin, Mills, Muldrow, Murch, Phelps, T. M. Rice, T. S. Richardson, Shackelford, J. W. Singleton, O. R. Singleton, Sparks. Springer, Stocklager, O. Turner, Vance, Van Horn, R. Warner, Wellborn, Whitehorne, T. Williams, Wilson -- 44.

Nays -- Messrs. Aiken, W. Aldrich, Atkins, Bayne, Beach, Beltzhoover, Bingham, Bland, Bliss, Blount, Briggs, Buck, Buckner, J. C. Burrows, Caldwell, Calkins, Campbell, Candler, Cannon, Carpenter, Caswell, Chace, Clardy, J. B. Clark, J. C. Clements, Converse. Covington, Crapo, Cravens, Cullen, Cutts, Darrall, G. R. Davis, Dawes, Deering, DeMotte, Deuster, Dibble, Dingley, Dugro, Dunnell, Dwight, Ellis, Ermentrout, Errett, Evins, S. S. Farwell, Flower, Garrison, Gibson, Godshalk, Grout, Guenther, Hall, J. Hammond, N. J. Hammond, Hardenbergh, B. W. Harris, H. S. Harris, Heilman, Henderson, Hepburn, A. S. Hewitt, G. W. Hewitt, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Houk, House, Humphrey, Hutchins, Jacobs, Jadwin, Kelley, Klotz, Lewis, Lord, Lynch, Marsh, Mason, McClure, McCoid, McCook, McKinley, Miles, S. H. Miller, Moore, Morey, Morrison, Mutchler, Neal, Norcross, O'Neill, Orth, Parker, Payson, Peelle, Peirce, Pettibone, Pound, Prescott, Randall, Ranney, Ray, Reagan, J. B. Rice, W. W. Rice, Rich, D. P. Richardson, Ritchie, G. M. Robeson, G. D. Robinson, J. S. Robinson, Ross, W. A. Russell, T. Ryan, Shelley, Shultz, Simonton, Skinner, A. H. Smith, D. C. Smith, J. H. Smith, Spaulding, Spooner, E. F. Stone, Strait, Thomas, P. B. Thompson, Jr., W. G. Thompson, Tillman, A. Town-send, H. G. Turner, Tyler, J. T. Updegraff, T. Updegraff, Urner, Van Aernam, Wait, Ward, Watson, Webber, West, J. D. White, C. G. Williams, Willits, W. A. Wood, T. L. Young -- 147.


While the bill was on its passage through the House, Mr. Buckner proposed that the banks be chartered for ten years instead of twenty.

The vote was as follows:

Yeas -- Messrs. Aiken, Anderson, Armfield, Atherton, Atkins, Beltzhoover, Berry, Blackburn, Blanchard, Bland, Blount, Buchanan, Buckner, J. H. Burrows, Calkins, Carlisle, Clardy, Clark, J. C. Clements, Cobb, W. R. Cox, Cravens, Curtin, Cutts, L. H. Davis, Deuster, Dibble, Dunnell, Ermentrout, J. J. Finley, Ford, Forney, Fulkerson, Garrison, Gunter, I. S. Haseltine, Haskell, Hatch, Hepburn, Herndon, G. W. Hewitt, Hoge, Holman, House


G. W. Jones, J. K. Jones, Kenna, King, Klotz, Knott, E. L. Martin, Matson, McKenzie, McMillan, Mills, Money, Morrison, Muldrow, Murch, Oates, Paul, Peele, Peirce, Phelps, Randall, Reagan, T. M. Rice, E. W. Robertson, G. M. Robeson, Rosecrans, Scales, Shackleford, O. R. Singleton, Sparks, Springer, G. W. Steele, Stockslager, Tillman, Tucker, H. G. Tucker, O. Turner, Upson, Vance, Van Horn, R. Warner, Wellborn, Wheeler, Whitehorne, T. Williams, Willis, Wilson -- 91.

Nays -- Messrs. W. Aldrich, Barbour, Barr, Bayne, Beach, Bingham, Bowman, Briggs, J. C. Burrows, Butterworth, Campbell, Candler, Cannon, Carpenter, Caswell, Chace, Converse, Cook, Crapo, Cullen, Darrall, G. R. Davis, Dawes, Deering, DeMotte, Dingley, Dunn, Dwight, Errett, Evins, S. S. Farwell, Fisher, Flower, Godshalk, Grout, Guenther, N. J. Hammond, Hardenbeigh, Harmer, H. S. Harris, G. Z. Hazelton, Heilman, A. S. Hewitt, Hiscock, Hoblitzell, Houk, Humphrey, Hutchins, Jacobs, Jadwin, Kasson, Kelley, Ketcham, Lewis, Lord, Lynch, Marsh, Mason, McClure, McCoid, McCook, McKinley, Miles, S. H. Miller, Moore, Morey, Mutchler, Neal, Norcross, O'Neill, Orth, Page, Payson, Pound, Prescott, Ranney, Ray, W. W. Rice, Rich, Ritchie, G. D. Robinson, J. S. Robinson, Ross, W. A. Russell, Scoville, Scranton, Shelley, Skinner, A. H. Smith, D. C. Smith, Spooner, Strait, E. B. Taylor, Thomas, W. G. Thompson, A. Townsend, Tyler, J. T. Updegraff, T. Updegraff, Urner Valentine, Van Aernam, Van Voorhis, Wadsworth, Wait, Walker, Ward, Watson, Webber, West, j. D. White, C. G. Williams, Willets, G. D. Wise, W. A. Wood, T. L. Youngs -- 116.


February 24, 1891. Mr. Oates' proposal for a test case to decide the constitutionality of the tax. The white and colored farmers of the South during the dreadful years just after the war found this tax a most distressing burden. It was class legislation aimed at the staple product of one section where the people were trying to reclaim their wasted fields and rebuild their ruined homes.

The poor privilege of going into the courts and testing the question of the legality of that tax was denied them by the following vote: Yeas 80, nays 199.

Among the Democrats voting against the measure were Messrs. Bland, Buchanan of Virginia, Bynum of Indiana, Dockery of Missouri, Mills of Texas, Randall of Pennsylvania, Shively, Stone of Kentucky, and Stone of Missouri, Holman of Indiana, Goodnight of Kentucky, McCreary of Kentucky, Springer of Illinois.

Thirty three Democrats voted no.


Of Nebraska, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, May 10, 1892-

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill (H. R. It. 7520) making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1893, and for other Purposes.

Mr. Kem said:

Mr. Chairman: Of the many bills that come before this body for its consideration I know none of more importance than the appropriation bills, one of which is now before us, known as the "sundry civil bill." These bills appropriate vast sums of money, reaching into the millions, and the Fifty first Congress came so near appropriating a billion that it became notorious for extravagance, and known throughout the land as the "billion dollar Congress."

This, indeed, is a vast country, and must take, in aggregate, an enormous amount of money to defray the expenses of government; in fact, it is so large, our interests so diversified, and the holes so many and deep into which money may be poured without seemingly any perceptible effect, that it is perhaps difficult to determine just where to draw the line or when to stop; but as difficult as this may be to determine, and as radically as we may differ respecting it, we will agree upon the one fact, that there is a point where a halt should be called, and in my opinion we reach that point long before the burden of tax becomes out of all proportion to the ability of the people to bear; and when they complain we may rest assured the bounds of economy have been overstepped and it is time to begin the work of retrenchment.

That these bounds have been disregarded in the past is amply attested by the general discontent that prevails and the political revolution that is spreading to the uttermost parts of our country, which we hope may bring to the people that long-promised and looked for relief that has evaded them from time to time, like a will o' the wisp, and at the end of each Congress left them looking back over the pathway trod, strewn only with broken promises, and the future holding those same promises, but to be broken again.

Mr. Chairman, in the consideration of an appropriation it is proper to determine but three questions: First, is it necessary? Second, can we afford it when considered in connection with all the other bills that go to make up the grand total and our ability to pay? Third, are the different appropriations so distributed over the country as to meet impartially the requirements of the people? When


these questions are properly determined, there are no extravagant appropriations, nor people complaining of burdensome taxes.

Of recent years these three questions, seemingly, have been ignored, and the only question asked was, "How much do you want?" and when anyone dared enter protest against the amount designated, he was at once branded as a cheese paring Pecksniffian reformer, worthy only of contempt. Time and again have I heard the point urged on the floor of this House in favor of an appropriation, that it was small and ought to meet with no objection. Particularly was this true of the appropriation asked for the Russian sufferers, and when it was refused a great cry went up from a certain class of newspapers, and we were accused of the sin of refusing to donate to suffering humanity the paltry sum of $100,000.

Let me remind these gentlemen that it was the appropriation of these paltry sums of ten, fifty, and one hundred thousand dollars, here and there, gathered together, that brought the last Congress up to the billion dollar point, and the wrath of the people down upon those responsible. The argument favoring an appropriation because it is small is not the argument of a statesman, neither is it worthy the consideration of such, other than with feelings of the greatest contempt. The legislators are the disbursers of the people's wealth, and by a yea or a nay vote may take from the pockets of one class and place in the pockets of another millions of dollars; hence the greatest care should be exercised in distributing these appropriations, so that: each part of the country will receive its just proportion of that which the whole people must supply, and it is just as wrong to appropriate one dollar more than enough to defray the just expenses of the Government, and meet the requirements of the people based on their ability to pay, as it is to appropriate many thousands more.

There seems to be a well-settled conviction among the people that each session of Congress appropriates vast sums of money that amount to but little less than an actual theft of their substance, and but a few days since a member who has been on this floor for years said to me that he had never voted for a river and harbor bill because of the great steals embodied therein. This evil is looked upon by alt with too great indifference and as unavoidable in procuring the appropriations necessary. Mr. Chairman, this ought not to be. It is; a state of affairs that should call forth the best thought of every statesman and arouse the indignation of the whole people till some plan is devised by which the false may be known from the true, and the rotten cut out.

Since the vote taken yesterday on the passage of the river and harbor bill, I am driven to the conclusion that the time has come


when nothing short of heroic treatment will ever reach this evil, and that is in the future to absolute, refuse to pass any appropriation bill until it has been thoroughly investigated and this House satisfied that the steals have been completely eliminated. Now, I do not say of my own knowledge that any steals are embodied in the bill which passed yesterday, but I find upon the floor of this House men who have said that they were satisfied that it was true. I hear it talked upon the street; I hear it talked here and there, and it seems to be the general opinion that such is the case, although there was no evidence offered in the discussion of the bill to show that it was true.

But one of two things is certain, a great number of people are badly mistaken in regard to this matter, or else there are items and amounts in these bills that ought not to be there. But inasmuch as they are wedged in with other appropriations that we must have, and cannot do without, it is very difficult to remedy the evil, and these steals, if steals they be, are appropriated and the people robbed. But I say here and now, whether this be actually the case or not, that the time has come when the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and henceforth this House satisfied beyond a doubt that these appropriation bills do not contain anything that does not belong there, and nothing but what is just to the whole people.

It is my opinion that the same difficulty lies in the way of appropriation reform that interferes with tariff reform, viz., individual selfishness. I have seen cropping out in a marked degree in the discussion of these bills the same trait of human nature that seems to control a part of the great party whose shibboleth is tariff reform.

They are very zealous reducers and reformers of tariff, but insist in doing it all in the other fellow's district. Likewise some very vigorous protests have been made against certain appropriations, but it has invariably been in the other fellow's territory, and not in a single instance have I heard of a member asking to have an appropriation cut down in his own territory.

Mr. Dockery. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? If I did not misunderstand the gentleman a moment ago, he was criticizing the river and harbor bill.

The Chairman. Does the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Kern] yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Dockery?]

Mr. Kem. I yield, if it will not come out of my time.

The Chairman. It will be taken out of the time of the gentleman?

Mr. Dockery. I understood the gentleman to be criticising the river and harbor bill.

Mr. Kem. The gentleman misunderstood me. I said what I had heard reported on the floor of the House, and what I had heard


talked on the street corners, and said there had been no evidence to prove those statements.

Mr. Dockery. Then I misunderstood the gentleman. The Record shows that he voted for the bill.

Mr. Kem. Yes, sir, I did. This question of the distribution of appropriations among the people in proportion to their requirements is perhaps as difficult of adjustment, if not more so, than any other feature of the problem, and I am on my feet at this time not to ask for an increase of the amount this bill carries, but to protest against the manner in which the amount is to be distributed, believing it unjust to a portion of my constituents. On page 46, lines 14, 15, 16, and 17, the bill provides $240,000 for topographic surveys in various parts of the country, one half of which shall be used west of the one hundredth meridian.

These surveys have been conducted for years and millions of dollars expended in the work, but not one dollar of this has been used in the State of Nebraska. We believe it is time she received her just dues in this matter, and in their proper order two amendments will be offered, one of which sets apart $60,000 of the above sum for the prosecution of the work in a part of this territory which has been largely neglected in the past, and embracing, as we believe, the future garden spot of the United States -- a territory containing millions of acres of as productive soil as the sun shines on, and with sufficient moisture, capable of sustaining a population as dense as any part of the globe.

Over this territory are scattered today hundreds of thousands of as good citizens as you will find anywhere; men and women advanced in years, who know by experience the cost of citizenship when blood was the price paid; men and women of middle age, who are earnestly endeavoring to repair in some little degree their impaired fortunes, and establish a home they can call their own, where their declining years may be passed in peace, free from the demands of the landlord or rent gatherer; young men and women, full of hope, courage and energy, striking sturdy blows to subdue the virgin soil and prepare the way for coming generations. These comprise the class of citizens in whose interest these amendments will be offered, that we hope may result in the work being done, that will be followed by the establishment of a system of irrigation which in time will give to the people a supply of water, under their own control, free from the manipulations of corporation or trust. The other amendment seeks to change line 7, same page, by inserting the words "subterranean waters" after the word "and."

The appropriation we ask for is the preliminary to, and affects a


problem, upon the proper solution of which hangs the prosperity and welfare not only of thousands of our own generations, but millions of those to follow. The water necessary to irrigation, like every other necessity of the people, is fast passing under the control of corporations and if not checked in a short time the water supply of the West will be completely in the hands of a few individuals and the millions will be at their mercy, for he who controls that supply is monarch of all he surveys, and the people will be compelled to pay him whatsoever avarice and greed dictate.

A few days ago I referred to the proper committee a petition asking for some relief along this line, and signed by seventeen hundred of these sturdy pioneers, who exercised the right given them by the Constitution to ask, not for charity, but for a part of that which is justly due them, and that their own may be returned. These people took possession of that land under the homestead, preemption and timber-culture laws in good faith, believing the rainfall sufficient for the purposes of agriculture; but after paying millions into the Government Treasury, and wasting their substance in a vain endeavor to grow crops without rain, hoping against hope that each succeeding year would prove better than the last, they now realize their mistake, and their only hope is in their ability to furnish that moisture which nature at intervals and for long periods refuses to give.

Mr. Chairman, if we were to ask for all that these people are justly entitled to, we would ask that every dollar paid to the Government for these lands, over and above the filing fee, should be applied to the establishment of an irrigation system that would place them on an equality with the lands lying in the rain belt, that were opened under the homestead laws, and until this is done the principle of that law will not be fulfilled, the intent of which was to give homes to the homeless. But in this case it not only fails to carry out the spirit of the law, but enables loan companies to get possession of large tracts of land, upon which small loans have been made to the settler who was compelled to borrow because of failure of crops, and in the end he not only loses his home, but what little property he was possessed of at the time of settlement.

The $60,000 asked for is the amount necessary to do the work, as estimated by Col. Powell, who has had charge of the work for years and therefore competent to judge. Inasmuch as this does not increase the appropriations a dollar, and only seeks to change the location of a small portion already in the bill, I hope this eminently just and proper request may be granted. [Applause.]


Of Kansas, in the House of Representatives, Friday, April 8, 1892.

The House being in committee of the whole and having under consideration the bill (H. R. 6006) to admit free of duty bagging for cotton, machinery for manufacturing; bagging, cotton ties, and cotton gins --

Mr. Simpson said:

Mr. Chairman -- In the discussion of this question, I presume that it is right and proper that one who represents farmers and who is a farmer himself, and a laborer, should have something to say about it. I have been identified with the laboring class all my life. For the last fourteen years I have been a farmer, and have tried as hard and as honestly as any man to make a living at that business. Therefore, I think I can speak with some authority in regard to the benefits of this protective tariff system to the agricultural class of the American people. I have sat here patiently listening to the arguments on both sides, the Republican and the Democratic sides, and I have been instructed and sometimes amused.

I have listened attentively to the speeches from the Republican side, and I am free to say that I have been surprised to find the Republican Party represented here by men having such indistinct ideas, in regard to the system of trade and the laws which govern it. I listened to the apostle of the protective tariff on the Republican side; I listened to the silver tongued orator from Michigan (Mr. Burrows), and to his grand appeal to the people, as represented here, to support and foster the special privileges of which he is the champion, but I am free to say that I did not get much information out of his appeal. [Laughter.] He started out with the proposition that a system of protection increased the price of everything, and that it yielded a great benefit to labor because the manufacturers, getting high prices, for their goods, would be enabled to pay high wages to their laborers.

Then he turned round and told us that to put wool on the free list would be to strike a deadly blow at the wool interest of this country by cheapening wool. And yet, when he concluded his speech, he concluded it with the statement that the intention of the McKinley bill and the intention of a protective tariff generally was to cheapen, everything. His speech was a contradiction from the beginning to the end. Now, if the McKinley bill and the protective tariff system, have the effect of cheapening everything, where are these grand and good manufacturers going to get the surplus money to pay high wages to labor? That is the question, gentlemen. If the tariff has the effect to cheapen everything, and make prices low, then I ask any gentleman on the Republican side to tell me where the employers, the manufacturers, are going to get the money to pay high wages?


Now, Mr. Chairman, I am a free trader -- absolute. I am not one of those men who are ready to compromise with wrong. Either a thing is right or it is wrong. I learned my Republicanism when the Republican party meant something -- when it stood for a principle -- when old William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips said they would have no compromise with wrong; that slavery was "an agreement with death and a covenant with hell." They refused to compromise with wrong. That is the time when I was a Republican. But when the Republican party became the champion of special interests, when the money power and the manufacturing class got control of it to use it as a vehicle through which to foster their special interests, I left the Republican party, and today I stand for absolute free trade in every sense of the word.

Now, gentlemen, what is free trade? Is it a natural or an unnatural condition? Are not human beings so constituted that they must trade? No matter how primitive the state of society, men must trade. With the developments of human progress, the inventions of machinery and the division of labor, different classes and different countries producing separate and distinct articles, we must have a system of trade. In olden times this cropped out because the settlements were along public highways or water courses, by means of which the people could communicate with one another. Trade is a natural condition. What do these protectionist gentlemen propose? To protect against trading, to prevent people from trading with one another? Is it not obvious to every man that a protective tariff law has for its object to prevent some one from trading with some one else? It is evident that there must be men in this country who wish to trade with those in some other country, or you would not pass a law to prevent this trading. Here, then, is a country where men are prevented by law from trading.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that trade is natural. If left to take care of themselves, men will trade with other men who will give them good bargains. When I produce anything on my farm -- grain or hogs or Cattle -- I produce a larger quantity than I can use myself, because I hope to trade the surplus with other men who have articles that I want; and I want to trade with the man or the people or the nation Who will give me the best bargains. I want to trade where I can get rich instead of getting poor. But the law steps in to prevent this. The protective tariff law confines me to a particular section of country. It assumes that the people, if left at liberty to trade, will make bad bargains. Is that the history of the American people? Is not the Yankee particularly noted all over the world for making smart trades and good bargains?


The protective tariff goes on the theory that a nation gets rich by keeping out wealth, by sending out its products and bringing nothing in. It assumes that the more wealth you send out and less you bring in, the richer country becomes; and gentlemen quote here statics showing that the "balance of trade" is in our favor; that we sent out last year $120,000,000 worth of products more than we brought in; and it is argued that for the reason we are getting rich.

Sir, when I was down in Florida a little over a year ago, as I stood on the deck of a streamer passing out through the magnificent harbor of Pensacola, I saw sixty five ships in that harbor, all except two flying a foreign flag. I inquired of the collector of the port, "How many of these vessels come into this port laden?" He said, "not a single one enters this port with a cargo; they bring only ballast." Those vessels were loading up with the productions of the great State of Florida; they were preparing to carry out the wealth of the United States; but not a single one brought anything in but old ballast and dirt gathered from foreign countries and unloaded over at Quarantine Island. Now, how does such a business benefit this nation? Every ship taking out a cargo was forced to charge double freight because she brought no cargo in. How did that benefit the country? Why should we be sending out our wealth and bringing nothing in?

But it so happens that this is an agricultural country. It so happens that we have a very large agricultural surplus here that must seek a market somewhere because of the inability of consumers in our own manufacturing districts to purchase what they need. The Secretary of Agriculture in his report a year or so ago said that if the consumers of wheat bread had eaten but an ounce and three quarters each more of wheat bread we would have had no wheat for export. We have no market here. The farmers must of necessity seek a foreign market. Seeking that foreign market, they must trade for


goods in that country, and as soon as they make that trade you set your custom house officers upon them and levy a tribute of 52 cents on every dollar's worth that they trade for. How does that benefit agriculture? How does it benefit the agricultural laborer of the country?

Why, Mr. Chairman, we are driven from the markets of the whole world. It is a well known fact that there was a great failure of the crops on the other side of the Altantic, nearly all over Europe recently. Millions of people are dying -- starving or about to die of starvation -- at least they told us so when they wanted to get a hundred thousand dollars or so for the purpose of hiring some good Republican's ship to carry over a cargo of flour to relieve them daughter], and yet, sir, because we can not trade the products of our farms for the products of labor in foreign countries, we are restricted to the markets of this country by the tariff monopoly, and although there is a demand for these products abroad they are sinking lower and lower in price every day, until today they are away below the cost of production. How does this benefit the farmers of America?

Why, the Western and the Southern farmers have been driven into the cities and the towns of manufacturing States for their market where you promised the farmers you would build them an exclusive market. We are obliged to go there; there is no help for it, and today Kansas corn is selling in Massachusetts and Ohio, and driving out the very farmers whom you promised protection and a home market, because you have confined us to this local market, and because of the inability of the laboring classes to employ themselves in the production of wealth which they could and would exchange for the products of the farm -- for these reasons we find the products of our farms thrown upon an ever-cheapening market for want of consumption. Mr. Chairman, I want to read an extract here from a great man, the governor of a Republican State, and himself a Republican, to show you the effect of this policy upon the farmers of a great agricultural State, and I know that my Republican friend from a Ohio will take this extract as good evidence.

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am in favor of this bill, because it will place certain articles on the free list; because it will help the Southern farmers. Every bill that takes a tax off their energies, off from the products of their labor, is in the interest of every other man in the United States, whether he lives in the North or in the South. I want to say to the Southern cotton planter that I want to see him relieved from every tax upon his industry, simply from a selfish interest, if from no other cause. For cotton we trade corn and wheat; and the Southern planter is a large buyer of Kansas corn, and


the less he is robbed, the less money is taken from him by a robber tariff, the more he will have left to buy Kansas corn with. So, from a selfish point of view, if for no other reason, I am in favor of this bill.

I want to say, further, that I am in favor of this bill, because it takes a step towards putting everything else on the free list finally. I want to say to you that every time you take protection off from any favored industry you place the man interested in that industry in the ranks of those who are fighting against protection. I want to say to you that this is the way that protection was built up. As one man got protection on his article, the man that had to consume his article saw that the only way to balance himself and to even himself up with the other fellow was to have protection put on the product of his labor; and thus we went to logrolling, and put a tariff" on different things, until we got them all into the ring. My friend from Iowa (Mr. Dolliver), one of the most brilliant men in the House, in his speech the other day let the cat out of the bag and showed how protective tariffs are built up by grants of special privileges; how, whenever you get them, when any community is benefited by this system, they at once fall into the ranks of those who battle for protective tariffs to help the other fellows out.

I will read you an extract from his speech, which may explain the whole matter:

"No people in the United States see more clearly the relation of the farm to its customers than the people of Iowa and Nebraska. Last summer the contract of building a little torpedo cruiser was awarded to the Dubuque Iron Works. We were agreeably surprised to find a shipyard in Iowa equipped for such a contract. The Dubuque newspapers were filled with rejoicing over the building of that one little cruiser costing $112,000. The Democratic newspapers opened its account with the headline in flaming capitals: ‘Hallelujah’ -- the first time that old Hebrew expression ever found its way in a Democratic newspaper in that section of the country. [Laughter.] It pointed out how every citizen of the town and the whole adjacent community would share in the bounty of that expenditure of money.

"Turning over to the editorial page the reader found an argument very like that delivered a week ago by my friend from Nebraska, in effect advising us, whenever we wanted anything else, to go to England for it, and I said to myself that if the Democracy of the West would only take into their politics a little of the common sense that they apply to their business, instead of winning new victories on the free trade platform, as predicted by my friend from Nebraska, there would not be enough of them left to call the caucus to order [laughter]; for the principle to which I refer is recognized by the wise and simple alike."

They were going to have $112,000 distributed among the people of the city of Dubuque; and this will explain how you can make even a Democrat a defender of the "robber tariff." Every Democrat and


Republican of that town saw that they had gotten their hands into the public pocket to the extent of $112,000, which the people of the United States were paying in taxes, and that there was that much money to be distributed in that little town. They were to get part of the boodle. I can readily conceive what rejoicing there was in the camp, just as I can imagine what a rejoicing there was in the home of the feudal baron who built his castle on a hill and made his forays down upon the plain to rob the husbandmen who tilled the soil or grazed his herd in the valley.

Under this modern system of robbing the people, you can readily conceive how Democrats and Republicans would rejoice in their robbery of the citizens of the United States, inasmuch as they were getting $112,000 to be distributed among them.

Let us follow that out a little, Mr. Chairman. Here is a manufacture built up at the expense of the people. The people are taxed for the benefit of Dubuque. At once it becomes a good city to live in. Labor finds a new field of employment and recieves better wages. Idle labor seeks the city of Dububue. Others say at once "it is a good place to keep a store." Business begins to revive in that city storekeepers go in there, and then there is another gentleman comes along who makes the discovery that it is a good place to buy land. Land values are advancing all the time in Dubuque; and so the town boorner and the land grabber get there and buy up all the vacant land.

Then what happens? Prices begin to go up. Men hold the land out of use. The rents begin to increase and the laborer, who was getting a fair profit out of his labor, finds that what he gets in extra wages he is forced to pay out in extra rent. The merchant finds his rent going up and is obliged to raise the price of his goods, and the burden of extra rents and extra taxes is shifted from shoulder to shoulder until at last it rests upon the farmer, and when you figure it all up at last, the lion's share of the profits growing out of this special Privilege goes to the land speculator and to the protected monopolist, and not to the farmer or the laborer.

And what is true of Dubuque in this case is true of every city in the United States whose industries are built up by a legalized spoliation, by special privileges secured from government by their paid attorneys in Congress.

Then an era of speculation sets in. We continually have these speculative periods. Prices go up beyond their normal condition, when reaction ensues, and panics follow. I have listened to men in this hall who told us how prosperous we were under a low tariff; I have heard men say how prosperous we were under a high tariff, but


I have failed to hear a single member satisfactorily explain the cause of the panic of 1873 under one of the highest tariffs we have ever had in this country. The protective tariff stimulates certain businesses beyond their normal condition and the requirements of trade, their results apparent overproduction, and in order to maintain prices combinations and trusts are organized, the output is cut down, labor is locked out to become a criminal or a tramp, and all grows out of what I believe to be an unnatural system of trade which in the last analysis is the distribution of the products of labor.

How does it come, Mr. Chairman, that labor needs protection? How does it come that some men in this country are in a position to grant to labor protection? What is labor? Is not labor the factor that produces all the wealth of the world? Whether it be on the wealth? How is it, then, that some gentlemen are in a position to grant privileges to labor? How does it come that labor needs protection in this country?

Did you ever think of that? In this country, that has but nineteen people to the square mile, this new and undeveloped country, not a state in the Union that has yet half its land occupied; with all its inventive genius and machinery, with all its great means of transportation for effecting the exchange of the products of the labor, with its untold and unmeasured resources in every form, how comes it that labor is insulted by having those who live upon it offer a tariff law to "protect" it. Does it not follow, gentlemen, that somebody has deprived labor of its natural rights?

Does it not follow gentlemen, that labor, the king, labor, the sovereign, has been pushed from his throne where capital now reigns, a bastard monarch, in his stead? Does it not follow that the people have been deprived of their natural rights? We all know that in the first settlement of this country it was settled by men who came here to escape the protection of a ruling class, people made criminals by a bad state of society, not so bad probably as we have today, but still bad enough to produce criminals by law; but, coming here and finding a new continent undeveloped men of such genius that they produced apparently without effort a government which will yet lead to the highest state of individual liberty.

Under the system of protection competition from abroad is shut out. The capitalists buy up the coal deposits, the iron deposits, all the mineral deposits of the land, and hold them out of use, and thereby labor is denied access to those resources of nature, and so a surplus of labor


arises; a fierce struggle for existence among laborers sets in and then it is proposed to cure that evil by a protective tariff system, which so far from opening up new avenues of production really enables the few to still further monopolize the natural resources of wealth.

I speak in the interest of the laborer. I can properly speak for him, because I have been a laborer all my life; having come in contact with laboring people I think I know their views and wishes as well as any lawyer or manufacturer. It appears to me that when the laborer exchanges his labor, although directly he may exchange it for money, he in fact exchanges his labor for the product of the farm or the factory He wants something to live on; he wants something to eat, something to drink, something to wear. Now, when you put a protective tariff on those articles what do you do but increase their cost to him? And how you benefit the laborer by increasing the cost of the products of the factory or the farm, or anything else for which he must exchange his labor? Some good Republican will please tell me now the wages of the laborer are increased by increasing the cost of the articles for which he exchanges his labor.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I regard agricultural labor as the great ocean, in accordance with which every other form of labor must seek its level. If agriculture, more ancient than all other forms of labor, is not profitable, so that men seek the cities in order that things may reach a level you may dam up the rivers, you may back up the creeks, you may undertake to hold back the flood, but finally there will be an overflow, and labor, like water, will seek its level in this great ocean All other trades and professions are the bays and rivers. To raise their level it is only necessary to raise the level of the ocean.

You have placed a great burden upon agriculture. Why? Simply because under the existing system of indirect taxation the manufacturer, when you undertake to tax him shifts his burden to the middleman; in many cases the middleman can shift his burden to the consumer but at last, the shifting process must stop, and when it does, the burden rests upon the back of the agriculturists of this country. The statistics of the census report will bear me out in what I say. I quote from the eleventh census of the United States on farms, homes, and mortgages:

In ten Kansas counties out of nine farms two are owned free of nine farms two are owned free of debt; three are worked by tenants, and four are occupied by owners, subject to an incumbrance of 38 per cent. of their value. In the Kansas countries out of ten homes three are owned free of debt; five are hired, and two are occupied by owners subject to an increase of 39 per cent. of their value. This is not only true of Kansas, but taking ten Ohio countries -- Ohio, which is the great manufacturing State, and the farmers ought to be prosperous if they are prosperous anywhere -- in ten Ohio countries out of eight farms four are owned free of debt;


three are worked by tenants, and one is occupied by owners subject to an incumbrance of 37 per cent. of its value. In the Ohio counties out of 15 homes four are owned free of debt; ten are hired and one is occupied by owners subject to an incumbrance of 43 per cent. of its value. In the Ohio counties outside of Cincinnati, out of twelve home's five are owned free of debt, and six are hired, and one is occupied by owners subject to an incumbrance.

And now I appeal to you gentlemen on both sides of this chamber if these are not alarming conditions? I appeal to you if it is not time that we should address ourselves to these conditions, and see if there is not a road out of the difficulty. I appeal to you to cease your bickerings and quarrelings about party success. See if there is not some way to help the people of this country. We have seen the example of Ireland. We know what that means. When a nation becomes a nation of tenants and landlords, let us while it is time apply the remedy. You may call us calamity howlers. It is time that we had calamity howlers in this country. You can not afford to pass by and disregard the cry of the people.

I have here some facts that are startling, showing that we are a. nation of borrowers; that this system intended to enrich the people, as its advocates claimed, has succeeded in impoverishing them.

And now, Mr. Chairman, to show you how protection protects the laborer, how it protects the farmer, I will quote some facts from the twenty first annual report of the Massachusetts bureau of statistics and labor, page 177 to 258. This is in the manufacturing district; it is from the State where my friend Mr. Walker is from, the gallant protector of the protective tariff. I will quote some facts and figures there to show how this has helped agriculture in the great State of Massachusetts, in the cradle of liberty, where the first gun that was fired in the defense of liberty that was heard all around the world, that first gun in defense of liberty fired by the farmers' sons; to show you how this protective tariff has helped the farmer I will quote the amount of abandoned farms in the great commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The extent of the abandonment is indicated in part in the recapitulation on pages 192 and 193, showing the total number of abandoned farms of the State by counties. From it we learn that there are 1,461 such farms, 689 of which are without buildings, while 772 are supplied with buildings. The aggregate acreage is 126,509 ź acres, the assessed valuation being $ 1,076,328. Farms with buildings aggregate 66,650 acres, the total value of property being 1690,000, while the farms without buildings aggregate 59,858 ˝ acres.

Mr. Dockery, in his speech in the House, quoted from the July report of the superintendent of the census, giving the amount of


mortgage debt of the farms and homes of the country at $2,565,000,000. It is well understood that these figures have been kept as low as possible, because the present administration, the defenders of this tariff system, did not want to make it appear that the farmers are getting in debt, and we can well suppose that those figures are very conservative, if they tell the truth. I will quote here some figures taken from the St. Louis Republic, which I suppose are nearly accurate. It says:

If all the real and personal property of Missouri, all its lands, houses, railroads, cattle, grain, stocks, farms, bonds, promissory notes, merchandise, and other property of all kinds was sold at auction for its total assessed value in 1890 it would take more than three times as much to pay this debt. In taking the States in alphabetical order in 1890, if they had been sold for the total assessed value of all their real and personal property, the proceeds of the sale of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida and Georgia, would have been only $2,545,000,000, $20,000,000 less than the amount of this mortgage debt imposed upon the farms and homes of the country under the past legislation of the Republican party. The annual interest on this debt at 10 per cent. would be 2256,000,000. If the State of Alabama had been sold at its assessed value in 1890, including all personal property, there would still have been a shortage of $59,000,000 on the interest of this single year, and throwing in Idaho at $25,000,000, and Arizona at $21,000,000, the total value of the two States and one Terrority would have been still $13,000,000 short of the year's interest debt. Now, nearly all of this debt is on the States of Mississippi valley, nearly all of the interest is paid by the labor of the people of Mississippi valley, who are the same time bearing the enormous burden of the Republican tax on trade.

We are not repudiators out there. The Republican party drove us into this debt, but we borrowed that money and we will repay it, principal and interest, all that is named in the bond. But we must have a system of trade that will allow us to exchange the products of our labor for the products of other people's labor; trade it, not in a restricted market, but in a free market. We must have a system of transportation which will enable us to get the goods to market without paying tribute to Jay Gould and Vanderbilt and the other robbers that stand at the head of the railroad organizations of this country. The Republican party, through its leaders, has poured out copious streams of sympathy for poor, down trodden Ireland, and I quote the following from the National Tribune, which I hope the Republicans will consider good Republican authority. It says:

England has mortgages on Irish lands to the amount of eight hundred million, at an average interest of 5 per cent. This would make an annual tribute of forty million a year from the little island to the English capitalists. As the population of Ireland is 5,000,000, this would make an annual interest charge of $8 per head or $40 a family. No wonder at all that the people of Ireland are poor.


Now, Kansas can beat this all to pieces. According to the last United States census, Shylock has mortgages on Kansas lands to the amount of $243,146,096. At an average interest of 10 per cent. this would make an annual tribute of $24,314,681.60 a year from the people of Kansas to Shylock, or an annual interest charge of $17 per head, or $85 per family. And yet we are told by the old parties that we are the most prosperous people on the face of the earth.

I want the Republican leaders, when they meet in annual convention again, to save some of their sympathy for the citizens of this country. Thirty years ago the people of Kansas received that grand State fresh from the hands of nature. It is peopled by the most industrious class, I say, in America, the most frugal, sober, and industrious, and yet, under present laws and present conditions, they have seen themselves sinking into debt from year to year, until now they are about to lose their homes and surrender everything they have got to the cormorans who have besieged legislation and passed laws in the interest of corporate powers.

I want to read now a statement showing about how much our foreign obligations are, and then I am going to quote a little from my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Walker.) The English income tax returns, which are considerably below the true mark instead of over it, for no man exaggerates his income for taxing purposes, show that in 1890 English taxpayers admitted the receipts of a hundred and fifty millions more from other foreign investments.

Mr. Watson. If my friend will allow me, I will remind him that Dr. Norvin Green, of the Western Union Telegraph Company, testified that we owed foreign countries $2,000,000,000 on which we were paying about $80,000,000 a year.

Mr. Simpson this is what we pay Great Britain. According to the table published in the journal, one fourth of the foreign investments by English capitalists is made in the United States, and it follows that we pay to Great Britain alone sixty millions as annual interest on our large debt. This condition of things is so far from showing any signs of change that it threatens to become permanent.

The foreign investments of English capitalist are reported to have increased 50 per cent. in volume since 1885. Robert Giffen, England's greatest statistical authority, estimates them at five thousand million. The inference is that England now has from fifteen to eighteen hundred millions in American investments, and that she actually levies today a tax upon the incomes derived by her citizens through American


investments more than ten times greater than that other historic tax which she once attempted to impose upon the colonies.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that shows where the surplus of this country is going. That shows where the stream of wealth that the laborers and producers of this country are creating is flowing to. England has adopted this policy that comes by free trade: When she sends out a shipload of goods to any foreign country she endeavors to trade it off for a shipload of goods that is worth more than the one she sent out. She has based her policy upon this principle, that a nation gets richer and gathers more wealth by bringing goods into her territory instead of sending goods out, and when she sends out a shipload of goods it is sent out on the principle that she must get another shipload of goods that is worth more than the one that she sent out.

It is by pursuing this policy that England has been able to gather to her shores a great part of the wealth of the world, that she is trading all over the world; her ships are found in every port, and she has become the mistress of the world because she has adopted this true policy of trade, while we who have adopted the protective tariff and are sending out more wealth than we bring in are laying up a loss every year, and this will account for the sixty odd millions in gold that went abroad in the last year, and that have failed to come back. We are sending a steady stream of wealth out of this country instead of bringing it in. What we want, gentlemen, is more goods. We want to trade for things that we need; and in opposition to what my friend from Michigan [Mr. Burrows] says, instead of calamity coming from a flood of good things, I apprehend that what we want is to have the world flood us with good things.

Did you ever hear of any country sending things into another country when she did not take something out in return? During the arguments on the silver bill we heard from the Republicans and the Democrats both -- because they are a unit on that question, so to speak -- that great danger would come to us from European nations flooding this country with silver. They were going to send silver into our country. I said "Let it come." It is not reasonable to suppose they will give us silver for nothing. I apprehend that when they send silver, they will take our surplus wheat and corn and cotton in pay for it; and taking our surplus out will increase the wealth of this country, because they will leave some of the things that we want and that will be of greater value to us. Our debts are payable in dollars, not in 10 cent corn and 6-cent cotton.

The same thing is true of other countries. If they bring in their goods here, it is evident that they are not going to give them to us for nothing; and in exchanging them they must take out such things


cotton; and having a large surplus of those goods, they are the things we want to get rid of, and the goods they have are the ones we want. My friend from Michigan [Mr. Burrows] says if we were to tear down this protective wall it would flood us with disaster. Why, gentlemen, it would be about as reasonable to suppose that the Israelites when they were wandering in the wilderness would have roofed themselves over for fear the manna would fall upon them to sustain them. [Laughter.]

The protective tariff wall that the gentleman speaks of is keeping good things out, and not bad things. The wall that he spoke about I remember, has been compared with that great wall the patient Dutchman built around Holland devote a certain number of days every year to repairing the dikes. With his willow basket filled with sand he repairs it and puts back all the earth that has been removed. So he watches and guards against the tyrant that is continually wearing down the wall to reclaim the realm that man has won from him.

Free trade means relief from taxation on personal property. It means free access to the natural storehouses of wealth to produce something on which to trade. Labor cannot produce anything out of the air. It can produce but very little from the sea. It must have to land and any system which places the land of the country in the hands of the few is fatal not only to production but to trade, for without easy access to land the laborer can produce nothing to exchange.

This brings on the transportation question, which is really a part of the question of trade. For example: When the tariff was taken of the question of trade. For example: When the tariff was taken off sugar and sugar being reduced in price, the Western railroads formed a combination and raised their tariff on sugar, so that what escaped in duties to the custom house we paid to the railway.

Mr. Chairman, we have built up by special privilege great lines of transportation throughout this country, which, under our modern system of division of labor each man must use in getting his product to the consumer.

We have granted special privileges to railroad corporations whereby they can levy a toll on every man who uses them in sending their goods to the public markets. They lay in wait and levy a tariff upon the products of labor, a tribute which amounts to more than $350,000,000 per annum more than a reasonable profit upon the capital invested in the roads and rolling stock. The right to tax is admitted by everybody, but we believe all taxes should foster production and trade and not speculation and monopoly. We would put a tax upon who buy up and hold out of use the mineral deposits, the


coal deposits, the iron deposits, and the copper deposits. They hold these things out of use so that their increased value can go into their pockets. We would take that value to the community and give back to the people who made the value, and this would open up new fields for the laborer, and instead of going around to the manufacturer begging for the privilege of producing wealth, he could go and produce it without being robbed by the capitalists. This is what we mean by free trade: Access to opportunities to produce wealth and perfect freedom of exchange.

We say that this is another tax upon labor which cripples it, which absorbes the wealth that it produces. It is a part of the grand scheme of protection, and never will the laborer be free from the oppression of his master, never will the farmer be free from the oppression of these monopolies, until the government resumes its natural functions, takes charge of these great public highways, and says to the people: "This railway is the evoluted dirt road, and is to be controlled by us. And then, instead of spending millions of dollars upon the rivers that have now become useless as means of transportation, we shall say to the people: "These iron roads have now become the great highways of the country; we will run them under government supervision and let him that wants to, run his train upon them." [Laughter and applause.]

There remains Mr. Chairman, another great factor in trade, my mind money is one of the greatest factors in exchange. In the development of society we have come to the use of money instead of barter. We say that it is a function of the government to furnish the necessary currency of the country, and to relieve us from the grasp of the national bank system. We believe it is the function of government to furnish this essential medium of exchange at cost without the intervention of the national banks. We believe that the money question is a part of the great question of trade, or so mixed up with it that you can not separate them.

We believe that gentlemen here are honest in their advocacy of the protective tariff, some of them at least, all except those who have personal interests involved. [Laughter.] We believe that the Democrats are honest but a little timid, afraid, just now, of doing anything that will hurt their party. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very much gratified when I had the privilege of coming into this Hall and sitting here with the great statesmen of the country, and I can assure you that I had a very high and exalted opinion of those statesmen until as time went on I came to learn more about them and their proceedings here. [Laughter.] Then there came back to my mind a story told by Lucian, the Roman writer, of a


man who had gotten a lot of monkeys and educated them to perform on the stage till at last they went through their performances just like human beings; until one day some wag in the audience threw a handful of nuts and raisins on the stage, whereupon the performers went down at once on all fours scrambling for the nuts and raisins. [Laughter.] They were no longer men but monkeys. [Laughter.]

I saw here exalted statesmen advocating great policies of state, and I had an idea that they were truly interested in this great country, until all at once some special privilege was thrown upon the stage, and then they suddenly got down on all fours scrambling to see who should first get his little special privilege through this great body of lawmakers. [Laughter.]

We believe Mr. Chairman, that that is what is behind this protective tariff system. We believe that once you begin to take off the special privileges you will rapidly recruit the ranks of the reformers until finally you will entirely overthrow this bad system of trade, and we shall be able to take our place by the side of the greatest nations or ahead of the greatest nations in the world. There is no good reason why the people of this country should be poor. There is no reason why the farmers of this country should be in debt. There is no reason why there should be two and a half billion dollars of mortgage indebtedness upon the farms and homes of this country.

With our productive capacity, with our steam power and water power, and our improvements in machinery sufficient to do the work of 22,000,000 men per annum, there is no good reason why there should be 1,000,000 tramps in this country. There is no reason why there should be 100,000 people in the city of New York living upon charity. There is no reason why 7,000 paupers should be buried in the potter's field of the city of New York every year. There is no reason why the farmers and farmers' wives of the West and the South should go clothed in rags, but there is every reason why this should be the greatest nation, the wealthiest nation, the happiest nation on the face of the globe. [Applause.]


The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4426) for the free coinage or gold and silver, for the issue of coin notes, and for other purposes --

Mr. Davis said:

Mr. Speaker -- When discussing an important question like this, it is just as well to go to the bottom of it and get at the exact truth. The questions first arise, then, whence came the silver dollar of the United States? What is it? And, what is its history?

These questions were settled by our patriot ancestors, and the friends


of the American silver dollar are neither theorists nor impracticable dishonest cranks. The credit of our decimal money is due to Robert Morris, and it was by the joint request of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that the "Spanish milled dollar" of 371ź grains of pure silver was adopted as the standard of value and unit of account in this country. This was in 1785. The silver dollar was sanctioned by the financial wisdom of Robert Morris, the solid practical judgment of Gen. Washington, and "the learning, genius, and philosophy of Thomas Jefferson." It is as much a tradition and emblem of patriotism in the United States as are our national military airs or as the Star Spangled Banner itself. "And," says the United States Monetary Commission of 1876, "it is a policy as well as a tradition."

By the mint act of 1792, the Spanish milled dollar was made the standard of value and unit of account for the United States. The law bears the approving signature of President George Washington. For eighty one years that law remained in full force and effect, unquestioned and unrepealed. During all that time the amount of pure silver in our standard silver dollar remained unchanged. All monetary transactions in this country referred to it and were based upon it as the standard of value and unit of account. The bullion in the gold dollar was sometimes changed to make its value conform to the unchanging silver standard. It was known and respected everywhere in the commercial world as the "honest dollar" of the United States of America. The gold dollar was the fluctuating, unreliable dollar then, as it is yet, changing value with every changing wind always being dearest and hardest to get when most wanted.

Prof. Vissering, of the University of Leyden, in 1876 said that England --

Was subject to frequent monetary crises, because she had the gold standard. The mass of silver in circulation and the condition of the production of that metal, give it a fixity of value to which gold can not pretend.

An English writer of the London Statistical Society has stated the matter as follows:

England is the peculiar seat of monetary crises, just as Egypt is of the plague and India of the cholera. The monetary plagues are the bane and opprobrium of our country.

The United States Monetary Commission of 1876 says:

In addition to the irregularities of its production, gold lacks sufficiency of mass to give it steadiness. It is necessarily so subject to reduce all business to gambling. No merchant can buy goods with gold to be sold for gold a year afterwards, or even a few months afterward, without being subjected to a heavy risk. If he covers the risk by extra profits in the nature of insurance, he must impose a heavy tax upon those who deal with him. Whoever enters into a


contract to pay gold in one, two, or three years can not, by any possibility, foresee what its value may be when the contract matures. Gold, when unsteadied by silver, is as unstable as water. The long experience of England has shown it to be one of the most fluctuating, treacherous, and dangerous currencies ever devised.

The present head of the British ministry said three years ago that England did not become rich by adopting gold, but adopted gold because it was already rich. He might have added that it was only the great wealth of England, acquired under a sounder and better system, which has enabled it to endure the mischiefs of a currency which has made it "the peculiar seat of monetary crises, just as Egypt is of the plague and India of the cholera." If England was not the creditor of all the world on gold contracts, and if that consideration did not really dominate over everything else in determining its policy, it would abandon a system which is its bane and opprobrium.

Mr. Speaker, in 1873, an act was passed by the American Congress, under British influences, demonetizing the ancient silver dollar of the realm and substituting for it the fluctuating gold dollar. This act was passed so stealthily and adroitly that the members of Congress who voted for it, and President Grant, who signed the bill, afterward, many of them, declared that they did not know that the standard dollar of the country was then and there demonetized. It was afterwards suggested that some of our Congressmen had been "hypnotized." In order to see that the crime was committed under British influences, it is but necessary to refer to the report of the committee in charge of the bill. The chairman, Mr. Hooper, said:

Mr. Ernest Seyd, of London, a distinguished writer and bullionist, who is now here, has given great attention to the subject of mint and coinage. After having examined the first draft of this bill, he made various sensible suggestions, which the committee adopted and embodied in the bill.

There was a report current afterward that England and Germany having previously demonetized silver, this Mr. Ernest Seyd, of London, was sent to the United States with half a million dollars in his pocket "to procure the demonetization of silver by the American Congress." Whether this report was true or not, the crime was stealthily committed by the said Congress, in the presence and under the advice of the alleged emissary. And that the British money power is familiar with the committing of monetary crimes, I will abundantly prove before I am through.

In 1873, when the law was passed demonetizing silver, the bullion in the silver dollar was worth three cents more than the bullion in the gold dollar. That law increased the demand for gold and decreased the demand for silver. This new demand for gold caused that fluctuating metal to rapidly rise in value. But silver bullion did not fall in value, and has not fallen in value, as compared with the values of the


commodities of commerce. The bullion in the silver dollar will buy as much, or more, of the average commodities of commerce now as it would in 1873, when it ruled above the gold dollar. Gold has risen since 1873 not less than 30 per cent.; silver has risen about 3 to 10 per cent.

During the war of the American Revolution the British Government embarked in the business of counterfeiting the Continental money. Gen. Howe advertised in the colonial papers that he could supply "any number of counterfeit Congress notes at the price of Paper per ream." And Gen. Clinton included "the arts of counterfeiting" in the items of his regular dispatches to his home Government.

On one occasion the Americans captured and destroyed a shipload of this counterfeit Continental money coming from Britain." It was this same unscrupulous money power which sent Mr.Ernest Seyd into the American Congress, where he offered "some sensible suggestions," which were embodied in the bill demonetizing the ancient standard of value and unit of account in the great American Republic. And it is this crime which our gold men now justify and fight so sturdily to perpetuate, calling its repeal "highwaymanship!"

I desire to call attention to one more specimen of the criminality of the great London money power, which uses the British Government as its willing tool and accomplice, and, in some cases, as its police force to enforce its robberies, as in the case of Egypt, where a whole country was devastated and a populous city of innocent and helpless people were bombarded by a British ironclad to "enforce the rights of the bondholders."

In his History of the Assignats and Mandats of France, published in Philadelphia in 1877, Stephen D. Delalie says:

But finding that the Revolution was stronger than the clergy, stronger than the nobility; that Imperial France was conquering the enemies of liberty everywhere; that nation after nation was yielding to its power; that its armies were victorious and its principles, as developed by the constitution and laws, were such as reason and humanity approved, the clergy and the nobility set criminal law, honor, and every principle of honesty at defiance, and organized forgery as a business and made the passage of counterfeit assignats their occupation -- thus attempting by crime, by stealth and by felonious and secret infamy to undermine the credit of the assignat, deprive France of its resources, and overthrow the Revolution.

This business was prosecuted by individuals in a small way in Belgium and Switzerland, but mainly in the city of London, under the eye and approval of William Pitt, the premier of England.

The historian proceeds as follows:


Seventeen manufacturing establishments were in full operation in London, with a force of 400 men, devoted to the production of false and forged assignats. The extent and the success of the labor may be judged by the quantity and value they represented. In the month of May, 1795, it was found that there were in circulation from 12,000,000,000 to 15,000,000,000 francs of forged assignats, which were so exact inform, appearance, texture and design as to defy detection except by the most minute examination and exact knowledge of the secret signs by which the initiated were taught to distinguish them.

Thomas Doubleday, an eminent English historian, in his Life of Sir Robert Peel, corroborates the above statements, and describes a personal visit of himself and friend to an old Scotch paper mill on North Tyne, where the paper was made for the counterfeit assignats. He expressly states and proves that Sir William Pitt, premier of England, conceived the device and authorized the manufacture of counterfeit assignats, bearing date 1790. The issues were "sanctioned by the Government."

In the light of history like that, it cannot be doubted that Mr. Ernest Seyd, of London, with his half million dollars, was the secret agent of that colossal, merciless and unscrupulous London money power, sent here, it is said, "to procure the demonetization of silver." The demonetization of silver put several millions additional value into the United States bonds", which by their terms were payable in coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870; but henceforth, after 1873, were to be paid in gold only. It also added billions to the monetary obligations resting in various forms on the people of the United States. The demonetization made all debts and taxes harder to pay, by cutting off half the means of payment. The remonetization will add to the means of payment and lighten the weight of all debts and taxes. Is it not right to undo a wrong? Is it "highwaymanship" to recover my property when found in the hands of the thief?

As matters now stand, with the Government in the market buying silver, we have a regular silver bullion gambling room, as we had a gold room during the war. Silver bullion is bought in London at a discount and shipped to India or to the South American countries, where it is coined (free) into the money of the respective countries. Tie coinage adds to the value of the metal. It is then, at the enhanced value, invested in wheat, cotton, beef and hides for the London market, where they are sold in competition with American products. Free coinage will abolish that discount which now operates against the interests of American producers. Free coinage thus raises the prices of all American products. The rise in the price of silver is incidental and will encourage the mining industries of the mountain States and Territories. This makes a better market for the products of adjacent agricultural States and for the


manufactures of the Eastern States. The agricultural States, having a larger and better market for their products, will in turn become better customers of the manufacturing States. So, with every proper view of the case, it appears to me that the remonetization of silver and the undoing of the colossal wrong of the century is an act of "statesmanship," and not of "highwaymanship!" Honesty is the best policy in all cases, and there surely can be no doubt now, in view of all the facts, where the honest course lies.

Mr. Speaker, I have thus far discussed silver with incidental mention of gold. A Senator of the United States, standing high in the councils of the nation at that time, has described that treacherous metal in the words substantially as follows:

No people in a great emergency ever found a faithful ally in gold. It is the most cowardly and treacherous of all metals. It makes no treaty it does not break. It has no friend it does not sooner or later betray. Armies and navies are not maintained by gold. In times of panic and calamity, shipwreck and disaster, it becomes the agent and minister of ruin. No nation ever fought a great war by the aid of gold. On the contrary, in the crisis of the greatest peril, it becomes an enemy more potent than the foe in the field; but when the battle is won and peace has been secured gold reappears and claims the fruits of victory. In our own civil war it is doubtful if the gold of New York and London did not work us greater injury than the powder and lead and iron of the enemy. It was the most invincible enemy of the public credit. Gold paid no soldier or sailor. It refused the national obligations. It was worth most when our fortunes were the lowest, livery defeat gave it increased value. It was in open alliance with our enemies the world over, and all its energies were evoked for our destruction. But, as usual, when danger had been averted and the victory secured, gold swaggers to the front and asserts the supremacy. -- Ingalls's speech, in the United States Senate, February 15, 1878.

That is a short but fair description of the men who are called "Shy locks." Thomas Jefferson called them the "traitorous class." Senator Wilson called them "brokers, jobbers, and money changers." Thaddeus Stevens called them "bullion brokers," who sent their cashiers and agents into Congress to influence legislation in their own interest; also, "sharks and brokers."

It appears, then, that "Shy lock" is not "a phantom of somebody's brain," but a living reality, who, according to Mr. Spaulding, would only loan his currency to the Government for big interest, on good security, and interest and principal payable in gold.

Gold and silver have both made a record in history. Silver bought the field of Machpelah, where Abraham laid to rest his beloved Sarah. Gold was the ally and tool of Philip of Macedon when he overthrew the liberties of Greece. Silver was the only coin in the pockets of poverty during the struggle for American independence. Gold was


the coin of the enemy, for which the first American traitor sold himself and his country's liberties.

Mr. Speaker, let us stand by the dollar of the common people -- the money of liberty, the money of the Constitution, the money of four fifths of the population of the world. Let us place the honest silver dollar of steady habits on an equal footing with that "jumping jack" known as the gold dollar. As a basis of values the fluctuating gold dollar is about as appropriate as is a powder keg for the corner stone of a family residence. Silver is steady and reliable, constituting the favorite hoards in the pockets of the people, and serving as a balance wheel on the approach of panics. Gold has ruined Germany, covering 80 per cent. of the people's homes with irredeemable mortgages, and at this moment the unhoused and unfed people are jostling the throne of the Empire with the thunders of revolution. Silver and paper were the money of France in the days of anquish and adversity. They have raised France to be the most prosperous and independent nation of Europe. Mr. Speaker, let us profit by the lessons of history. Let us restore and rehabilitate the money of the common people.

It is claimed by the gold men that the present gold standard must be maintained injustice to labor; that it would be very wrong to pay the wage workers a so called "70 cent dollar." And yet the great bulk of the wages paid to labor under the present system is paid with token money, nickels, light subsidiary silver coin, and currency redeemable in "70 cent dollars." It is the present prerogative of the rich bondholders to demand gold coin. Labor has no part or lot in the handling of the coin of the money kings. The advocates of silver coinage would place the coin and currency of the poor man on a level with that of the rich man. It is only just that this should be done.

Mr. Speaker, gold has been called "the money of the world." This is not true. There is no international money. Gold and silver bullion and wheat and cotton are alike used to settle balances and to adjust accounts in the world's commerce. There is no "money of the world." But, since this cosmopolitan view of the subject has been broached, let us examine it. There are in the world, not counting the United States, say, 1,000,000,000 of people. In round numbers seven-tenths of the people of the world use for money silver only; two-tenths use both gold and silver, and one tenth use gold as the standard, with silver as a subsidiary coin of light weight, with which to pay the wages of the poor.

In this account I have not included our own country, that we may view the case impartially. Now, the question arises, shall we cast in


our lot with the great family of silver republics of America, with the Republic of France, which is friendly to silver, and with the great rich and populous continent of Asia, where gold is unknown as money, or shall we discard and abandon our own silver product as base metal, on demand of the fundholders and gold gamblers New York and London. The case is so plain that to state it is argument sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, gold men claim that to pay debts with silver is repudiation; that gold coin is the only just means of paying debts. And yet, in the face of this claim, the fact exists that of all the twenty billions ($20,000,000,000) of public and private debts resting on the people of the United States, not one per cent. of all that vast indebtedness was incurred through loans of gold coin. Why should we be expected to pay money more valuable than that we borrowed? The Attorney General of the United States in 1884 declared that every bond and monetary obligation of this Government in existence at that time was legally and justly payable in standard silver dollars.

Mr. Speaker, shall we pay more than is due, and load our children with burdens grievous to be borne, merely to get the applause of our overpaid creditors? The case is too plain to require argument. It is a question for our patriotism and love of justice to answer.

Of Kansas, in the House of Representatives, Thursday, March 24, 1892.

The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4426) for the free coinage of gold and silver, for the issue of coin notes, and for other purposes --

Mr. Otis said:

Mr. Speaker: I most heartily agree with the gentleman from Illinois, when he says this is the "most important bill yet brought before this Congress or that is likely to come before it this session." I only regret that so brief a space of time has been applied to its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, there are three separate, distinct money schools in this country to-day, to wit, the monometalist, the bimetal list and the industrialist. The first believes in a single gold standard. The second believes in a dual standard of both gold and silver. The industrialist believes that the currency of the nation should be based on all the wealth of the nation; that labor is the only true measure value.

Money is purely a creation of law and can be fashioned of any material whatever, and should be based not only upon gold and silver, but upon iron, lead, copper, coal, land, cotton and wheat, and


every conceivable value and more than that, upon the faith and credit of a sovereign nation. Our money should be in the national credit duly coined, "coined labor," so to speak. Between the metallic school and the industrial school there is bound to be an irrepressible conflict. Interest on money is the life of one system. Interest in all mankind is the life of the other. One is founded in selfishness, the other in broad philanthropy. One believes in usury, the other believes usury is a sin. The one is ever striving to do the business of the country through the agency of private credit. The other is ever struggling to have the business of the country done through the agency of public credit, coined into dollars. One is in the interest of capitalists, the other is in the interest of the common people.

One of the principal objects of the People's party in their monetary policy is to lower interest: in fact, to do away with usury altogether, and make the furnishing of money by the General Government at a low rate of interest, direct to the States, counties and individuals a source of revenue, national, State and county. We hold that the greatest tax upon the American people today is high interest; that the second highest tax is high transportation, telegraph and telephone charges; and that the third great tax is the so-called


Our support of this silver bill is along the line of an increase in currency. But we would not quarrel about the kind of money, if the volume can be made adequate and placed back where it was in 1866, over $50 per capita. If our gold friends want gold, let them have it. If our silver friends want silver, let them have it. But we demand a money untainted with interest or usury. Labor is the true measure of all value, and the only true measure.

We demand an industrial currency that shall overthrow interest, for to our mind, in the language of another --

Interest is usury.

Usury is robbery.

Usury pays no taxes.

Usury possesses no soul.

Usury never works.

Usury produces nothing.

Usury consumes everything.

Usury pays no doctor bills.

Usury never goes on the battlefield.

Usury lives in fine houses that labor builds.

Usury wears fine clothes that the laborer fashions.

Usury concentrates wealth.

Usury undermines free government.

Usury mocks at liberty.


Usury makes the rich richer.

Usury makes the poor poorer.

Usury mocks God, wrecks manhood, destroys womanhood, stifles childhood and robs humanity. It is the Up as tree that is poisoning the whole fabric of free American institutions. It is the giant of Rant robbers, threatening every phase of our national life and demanding toll on every dollar's worth of production. Let the ungodly thing be banished from our midst and labor be brought at once to the front.

Herein lies the whole contention.

Mr. Speaker, we lay it down as a proposition that cannot be successfully controverted, and one that the Eleventh Census corroborates, that high interest, high transportation and high tariff have greatly impoverished one section of country while they have built up another; that banks, railroads and manufacturers are controlling the distribution of wealth in this country to-day. Let facts be submitted to a candid, thinking people.

From these figures we deduct the following facts, and make the following comparisons:


contain 56 per cent. of the entire population of the Union, and about 32 per cent. of the wealth; they contain nearly six times the area as the North Atlantic or wealth States of New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania; and twice the population. And now what has been the relative gain in wealth, as shown by the assessed valuation during the last decade, taking the Eleventh Census for our guide?

Why, Mr. Chairman, taking these twenty one agricultural States of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, a vast empire of itself, with unbounded natural resources, this vast farming territory is outstripped in wealth accumulation nearly two to one by a little neck of land that you could cut off from the rest of the Union by drawing a straight line from Detroit to Washington city; these six New England States, with New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, have increased in wealth from 1880 to 1890, amounting to $3,054,762,722, while the gain during the same time for the twenty one agricultural States amounts only to $1,698,195,657, or nearly double for the nine over the twenty one. Will some high protective Republican or some silver fighting Democrat please inform us how this condition of things comes about? The farmer, the planter, ask why is it?

These are stubborn facts that cannot be successfully controverted.


Take another example drawn from this same table. Place upon one side the little State of Massachusetts, and upon the other side we place four great Western States and five great Southern States, and stand the nine up beside the one, and what is the result, the Eleventh Census being our standard of measurement? To our mind it is simply astonishing. Here are the figures: One has 8,315 square miles of territory: the nine have an area of 486,040 square miles. Out of these nine States you can carve fifty eight States as large as Massachusetts and have a large farm left. In 1880 the population of Massachusetts was 1,783,085, while the population of the nine States mentioned was 13,409,167, thus standing in the ratio of 1 to 7 in population. At the same period the assessed valuation of Massachusetts was $1,584,756,802, while the nine States was $2,792,919,155, or in about the ratio of 1 to 2.

In the ten years from 1888 to 1890 the nine States increased their assessed value $559,441,974, whilst the one little State gained $569,377,824, surpassing the nine great States by nearly $10,000,000. Will some gold standard bank president, some watered stock railroad magnate, or some infantile woolen manufacturer rise and explain the situation, and fully convince us that in order to be a happy and prosperous people we Western and Southern farmers must pay high interest on money, a good round dividend on watered railroad and other stocks, and take the tariff off of raw wool, but be sure and keep it on all the manufactured fabrics? The Ways and Means Committee, when they reported the wool bill, must have thought all the representatives of agriculture were rustic "mutton heads."

But let us draw another picture from this census table. It is a wonderful prolific little table. We have found that nine agricultural States could not keep pace with little Massachusetts. Let us add three more to this list of mine -- take Kansas, with her corn, wheat and cattle; Kentucky, with her tobacco and whisky; Florida, with her oranges and pineapples. Now we will stand these twelve States up alongside the old Keystone State, Pennsylvania, and note how they will compare.

By the census of 1880 they stand thus:

  Pennsylvania. Twelve States. Ratio.
Land (square miles) 45,215 667,100 1 to 14
Labor (population) 4,281,891 16,323,441 1 to 4
Capital (assessed valuation) $1,683,459,016 $3,335,313,124 1 to 2

And yet the gain in ten years of these twelve States was only $897,184,160, while Pennsylvania piled up a gain of $909,382,016. Who


says that the manufacturing interest is still a little puny infant and must still be rocked in the cradle of protection?

One more example from this table will suffice our purpose at present. Let us add three more agricultural States to our list of twelve, making fifteen States that we want to place alongside the State of New York. We will add Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. Now, bear in mind we have eight great grain and stock growing States and seven great cotton and sugar producing States, and we are uniting them to compete with the Empire State of New York.

During ten years last past the census shows a gain for the fifteen agricultural States of only $1,117,188,213, whilst New York alone has gained the sum of $1,123,385,932, or one State has $6,000000 more than fifteen States.

Will some Wall street Republican or some Wall street Democrat rise and explain? It makes no difference which; for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ray] a few days ago informed us that both Democrats and Republicans in his section were a unit upon protection and (what he pleased to term) "honest (?) money." How long do these representatives of Wall street imagine the Western and Southern farmers are going to rest quiet beneath such gross injustice? How long shall the contents of our cribs and granaries, of our fields and our warehouses, be emptied into the coffers of banks, railroads and wealthy manufacturers?

Mr. Speaker, our People's party leaders are sometimes called wild fanatics. But if gentlemen will carefully examine the facts and study the situation they will see we are advocating measures the most beneficent and far reaching, having for their ultimate object the attainment of that general prosperity which we all so much desire and ought to labor to accomplish.

Of Nebraska, in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, March 23, 1892.

The House having under consideration the bill (H. R. 4426) for the free coinage of gold and silver, for the issue of coin notes, and for other purposes --

Mr. McKeighan said:

Mr. Speaker: In the outset of this discussion I confess myself at some disadvantage and under some embarrassment. It is not that I am out of sympathy with the general purpose or with any particular provision of this bill; but it is because it does not go far enough. After this piece of legislation shall have gone into effect and shall


have conferred upon our people the full measure of benefit inherent in its provisions (which I grant will be much), there will still remain unrepressed an incalculable amount of wrong suffered and yet to come upon the most meritorious classes of our population -- meritorious, I mean, from the standpoint of economic legislation.

After all the silver that will be offered at the mint shall have been certified into money, there will still be a grossly inadequate volume of money for calling out and sustaining in full exercise the boundless energies of our people in the development of the equally boundless resources of our country.

If I could only believe in the sincerity of the predictions of our opponents, or still better, if I could entertain a reasonable hope of their fulfillment, if I could believe that the "swiftest ocean greyhounds" would be brought into requisition to "dump" their cargoes of silver upon our shores, and would carry away with them such things as we had to spare at such swapping rates as we could mutually agreed upon, I should espouse this advocacy with a heartier zeal than is just now at my command, for I am compelled to take these frantic prophesyings as mostly insincere, and any fulfillment of them as unbelievable.

But, Mr. Speaker, I represent, and am proud to represent and voice on this floor, because I most heartily sympathize with them, the principles of a party that favors a legal constitution of money which cuts loose from all pretense of metallic definition, a constitution of it which puts the regulation of its volume under intelligent scientific control, leaving it no longer subject to the accidents and uncertainties of gold and silver discoveries and the wild variations of the mineral output, as well as the malignant and selfish manipulations of crafty creditors and money mongers, who have hitherto controlled the monetary legislation of the world, and who, by present indications, will for generations to come continue to control it in their own interest in all European countries.

I must, however, deny myself the pleasure of expounding and advocating that theory of money as not entirely relevant to the matter in hand.

Still, this bill cannot be comprehensively or adequately discussed unless we consider certain elementary principles of monetary science, the exposition of which will, by necessary implication, be an advocacy of some better mode of regulation than the so called "natural" or "automatic regulation."

But, before entering upon any affirmative exposition, a few words upon the minority report. This wonderful document is redolent with the odor of the counting house. There is in it no flavor of the soil


of the harvest field. It has no suggestion in it as to the interest of those who smite the rock, who delve in the mine, who forge, fell the forest, break the ground, reap and gather into barns. From its reading no one would infer that money had any necessary relation to the vulgar products of toil, or that cotton, grain or meat should have any voice in its legal constitution. Observe with what delicacy the claims of these security holders is put. They are based upon their expectations and the "faith" that these expectations would be met in the "best money." That faith is a sweet-scented bloom, till you materialize it.

On close inspection it is found to have been begotten by avarice, nurtured in hypocrisy and falsehood, and its fruition is the spoliation of industry. It is not true, and these gentlemen know it is not true, that their "expectations is the measure of the duty of government in relation to its outstanding obligations. It is not true, and they know it is not true, that honor and good conscience demand their payment m what they call "best money." They know, and everyone who has ever given the subject any thought knows, that there never was any government promise to pay dollars in this country that was not equitably, honestly and legally dischargeable in whichever of the two standard coins, was of the lesser value at the time of payment. This "best money" outcry, and the claim of "honesty" and governmental duty in that regard, is of recent birth and is palpable hypocrisy. The government and everybody always claimed and exercised the undisputed right to pay in the cheaper coin. Whoever accounted himself cheated when his debtor always, prior to 1873, compelled him to take in payment gold coin of less value by 3 per cent. than the "best money?"

They know better, and they willfully prevaricate who claim that there is any express or implied promise, or any usage or right to expect any payment but in the least valuable money. The pretense that silver payment is partial repudiation, "only 70 cents on the dollar," is a deliberate attempt to suborn the popular conscience and ally it to their own selfish purposes. They know as well as we know that the clap trap of "debased "money," 70 cent dollars, is a linguistic debauchery, an assault upon the dictionary. They know that a standard coin dollar is 100 cents in virtue of our legal decimal notation, utterly regardless of its value or its commercial relation to any other money. It is a bad case that can be made only by an abuse of words.

The integrity and honor of one standard coin is not impeached under a genuine bimetallism upon the ground that it is not the commercial equivalent of the other. On the contrary, it comes to the


front in the value defining office and comes rightfully whenever the other rises above it in value. It is, therefore, not merely a false pretense, but an innovation and denial of the essential quality of bimetallic money. The honor of gold payment was never called in question upon the ground that it was of less value than silver, or because someone received a promissory note for dollars on the "faith" that he should get "best money."

The minority report is discreetly silent as to what constitutes the supreme test of excellence in a money constitution and wherein its chief beneficence consists. They discreetly forgot that money is a measuring instrument and that its office is not to measure itself or other money, but to measure out for distribution product and goods. They forget to mention that the true test of its excellence and honesty is found in the way it works as an instrument for the appraisement of goods.

But I am impatient to dwell longer upon the defects and priggishness of this minority report. For one who has gone afield, visited the seats of production, who has studied this subject as it is related to the processes of wealth creation and the economic well being of our people, it is difficult to abstain from such characterization of that report as would not comport with the proprieties of the occasion.

It is reported that there are hundreds and maybe thousands of millions of mortgage obligations in this country, and more making every day, specifically payable in gold. A little consideration of this state of things, and a study of the rights and duties growing out of it, will lead us up to important elementary principles of immediate application to this proposed legislation.

Very likely constitutional objections will be successfully interposed against legislation which seeks to interfere with a strict compliance with the terms of such contracts, i. e., the delivery of gold or whatever may be, at the time, its commercial equivalent. So let us see what that contract essentially is. At bottom it is nothing more or less than an investment by the creditor, in gold, and is a promise by the debtor to deliver a definite weight of that metal -- "dollar" being simple a weight unit.

The commercial value which the gold may take on forms no part of the contract. Each party to the contract takes his chances, the debtor hoping it will cheapen, and the creditor that it will enhance in value. It is in no respect different from a contract to pay bushels of wheat, and the question is, what may the debtor individual, or a nation whose people are largely so indebted, honorably, equitably, and legitimately do to lessen the burden of such obligations? The answer lies upon the surface. They may do anything to reduce the value of gold, to make it cheap and easy to get.


If specifically payable in bushels of wheat, it would not be competent to lessen the weight or lower the grade, but if by a better chemistry of the soil, improved machinery or command over the rainfall, it should be possible to raise it twice, or ten times as cheaply, or if some more easily produced material for bread could be discovered, so that wheat should become of trifling value, it would not only be legitimate, in relation to that and similar obligations, but it would be an honest payment of them, and would on all sides be pronounced a progress in civilization. The fact that any one, or any number of people, had adopted it as a standard for deferred payment, or, in the slang of the stock board, had become "long" in wheat, would not make such a cheapening any the less beneficent.

The same principle would apply to a contract for gold. It is not in contravention of any legal or equitable principle, nor is it against public policy or good faith in relation to that kind of contract to do anything that would lessen the value of gold. A debtor nation that would not do that for itself or for its subjects would be justly chargeable as being in guilty league against its own people. As to the mode in which that could be accomplished, any considerable increase in the output of gold is out of the question. For the last twenty years it has been diminishing, and enlarged requirements are being made upon it in the arts; and, if we may believe our opponents, there is an increasing scramble for it in Europe to take the place of their "discarded silver." Shall we join in this scramble, or shall we not take a cheaper substitute, and so partially relieve the strain upon gold.

A confusion arises here in the current presentation of this subject whereby a gross imposture is practiced upon the popular conscience. In becoming more valuable, gold, of course, becomes more desirable as a possession. But it is not in that capacity we are considering it. In becoming more valuable it becomes a vicious and unconscientious instrument of appraisement. It becomes a fraud upon every other economic quantity which has to submit to being priced by it, before it can become an article of commerce. I do but speak words of truth and soberness, carefully weighing them, when I denounce as a through and through utterly vile, cruel, and extortionate scheme of dishonesty as was ever concocted by the selfish ingenuity of man, this imposture of "best money" and the denial of freedom to fabriricate standard coin dollars, upon the ground that thereby they would become "too cheap."

My argument proceeds upon the theory of metallic definition of a dollar and the orthodox or automatic regulation of money supply; and I pronounce it a gross invasion of the essential principle of that


theory to put an arbitrary limitation upon it for the purpose, or with the effect, of enhancing the value of the measuring unit. It is a repudiation of the entire theory of a commodity money, at that precise point where there is any justification for or tenableness in the theory, to invoke a legislative limitation of the volume in the interest of extortion, since upon the long established theory a contract to pay dollars is simply a contract to pay the least valuable of the different kinds that will answer the lawful definition.

It is pretended that gold has a marvelous property of being "always at par" -- with itself -- as coin or bullion. That shallowness is put forward in all seriousness by the single standard advocates. As though the freedom of the mint to silver would not instantly and forever wipe out the disparity between the silver coin and its bullion. It is also pretended that legislation has no effect upon the value of the metals, especially of gold. The British royal commission are more candid. Arguing against any enlarged use of silver for money they say:

It must be remembered, too, that this country (England) is largely a creditor country of debts payable in gold, and any change which entails a rise in the prices of commodities generally, that is to say, a diminution of the purchasing power of gold, would be to our disadvantage.

It would be difficult to find in all literature emanating from honorable gentlemen a more cruel and selfish doctrine of legislative policy than this subordination of the rights and interests of all the industrial classes, their own included, to the extortionate demands of great creditors, than is thus deliberately made by this royal commission. Mow vain is the hope that England or any other great European country whose monetary policy is dictated and controlled by great creditors will join us in a policy that will raise prices generally. For my own part, I thank God that I live in a country where the people will dictate their own monetary policy.

I rejoice in a rapidly growing intelligence on this subject which will make it impossible much longer, by the sanctimonious claim of singular "honesty" in single standard money, to impose upon the people. If anything can arouse the scornful indignation of a debt oppressed people, it is the spectacle of a plutocrat, who never in all his life contributed a dollar to the wealth of the country, but whose pockets are plethoric with the spoil of that crowning spoliation of the century, rolling his pious eyes, with uplifted hands, protesting against the "dishonesty" of those who would pay by a different standard than the one foisted upon the country by that "holy conclave" in 1873, or who would lay sacrilegious hands upon that "honest" legislation.

No; these hypocrites understand as well as we do that the restoration


of silver to the full legal equality with gold as a valuator will restore our money, at least in part, to a normal relation to goods. This is too plain to require argument. They are fully aware that the gold standard will, in economic effect, become a very different standard from what it is under the present policy; and that that difference will inure to the advantage of those classes who have no way to buy money but by the products of their labor. The certainty that the restoration of silver will materially lessen the value or purchasing power of gold, and that it will be easier for the farmer to pay gold debts, is the real occasion of all this outcry from the money centers against free coinage.

Our adversaries do not have the hardihood to deny that silver coin is lawful payment. They pretend, however, that there is a moral obligation upon Congress to make it equal to the "best money." Upon what principle that claim is based it is difficult to discover. I doubt if any contract ever made specified "best dollars." The theory of duty to maintain parity between the coins comports as well with bringing gold down to silver as carrying silver up to gold. But the truth is no such duty exists. It is a pretense, born of an unscrupulous greed. Still, assuming that there will be a commercial disparity between the two coins under free coinage we are driven to the consideration of which one of the two will be the most equitable instrument of appraisement, having regard to the interest and rights of both debtor and creditor and the beneficences of all economic intercourse in the future.

This question is not to be so cheaply and superficially settled as by saying that the dollar that "has 100 cents in it" is the true one. In such a contention it is illegitimate to submit the claim of one of the contestants to the umpirage of the other. Upon the question of which metal is the best standard we must first settle upon what constitutes the chief excellence in a money standard and then see which metal has conformed most nearly to that requirement. We have no difficulty in getting a full admission that constancy in value is the prime requisite in a standard. That is a threadbare commonplace in monetary discussion. The trouble begins when we ask just what that admission means. They assert that gold is more constant because the bullion is always at a commercial parity with the coin. That shallowness satisfies most of these eminent financiers.

But even a kindergarten intelligence goes deeper than that, and knows that such a parity is the result of free coinage of gold, and that silver will behave the same way with an open mind to it. The value of a dollar is to be gotten at the same way as we find the value of everything else. Value is commercial equivalence. It is the


second term in a swap. You cannot find the value of a dollar till you swap it for something that is not money. The same market reports, which gives the prices of all vendible things, gives the value or purchasing power of money. If these reports show that since 1873 the general range of prices in gold standard countries has fallen one third, then they show an increase in the value of gold. It is familiar information and a painful experience in all the productive industries that in gold standard countries there has been such a fall of prices.

The fluctuation in the value of gold in the period between 1860 to 1886 as tested by a composite commodity unit made up of 200 leading articles, as diagrammatized in the Congressional Record of April 15, 1886, ranged over 61 points, while the silver dollar at its bullion value, fluctuated but 37 points. No one has ever tried to controvert the statement that the price range in silver standard countries has been more constant since 1873 than where prices have been made in gold. No one has ever attempted to disprove our claim of superiority of silver in respect of constancy of value. Of course, while the two metals were linked together by bimetallic legislation, as always until 1873, their fluctuations, though considerable, run on paralleled lines. Since then, gold, let loose from its ancient moorings to silver, has run riot in value fluctuation, and has been a disastrous money standard.

So that if free coinage fails to restore gold to its old parity with silver and conforms our money to silver only, we are still, by the experience of all the past, upon a better and more constant-valuing metal. If gold goes to a premium, which only those who are ignorant of the forces that control value will affirm, then will that premium make manifest to the dullest intellect what all students have all along affirmed, namely, that the act of 1873 foisted upon us a dollar which has extorted from industry one third too much of every product measured out by it.

This conclusion is verifiable, and has been over and over again verified by the severest methods known to students of economics, and I need not enter upon any detailed demonstration of it here.

The restoration of silver is therefore demanded upon every theory of money that has ever been propounded by any responsible writer. It is demanded, also upon the ground that the act of 1873 was uncalled for, clandestine, fraudulent, and designedly against the interest of this country, and against the interest of the producing classes the world over. Whether that act caused gold to rise over silver about 50 per cent. as it has, since that date, or whether that rise was in obedience to forces beyond legislative control, in either case the act was the guilty cause of the rise of money in this country, i. e., the fall of prices.


That act closed the mint to silver, when it was coming for coinage into standard dollars at a rate never before equaled in the history of our mint.

Our monetary condition at that time was a loud call for every one of them, we having decreed coin resumption. That closure compelled all our money to follow the fortunes of gold, forbade it remaining upon the silver standard, adding enormously to the burden of debt, and doing it in the most cruel manner, for it struck down the profits of all the leading industries. When we remonstrate against that legislation and demand its repeal, all they have to say is, "Well that is the way it is; our money is on a single gold standard and silver has been discarded." That is, they simply appeal to the existing fact and situation as established by that legislation. We reply that we arraign that legislation and all the maladjustments that it has caused.

In very truth you affirm that that is the way it is, but we affirm so it ought not to be, and so it shall not continue to be if we can help it. Had the mint remained open to silver all this time under the old law of a double standard, our money could never have acquired any greater purchasing power than goes with 412˝ grains of standard silver, and prices made in that money could never have so fallen.

Prejudice is sought to be created against the restoration of silver by the pretense that silver producers want to get the government to buy their silver at a price beyond its real value, and that we are all under a bribe to help the "silver kings" out. Only because this foolishness gains credit by iteration from respectable quarters does it deserve notice. All these slanderers profess a willingness to restore silver and so raise its price to $1.29 an ounce, provided Europe will join us. Of course, such profession of willingness is for the most part hypocrisy. [Applause.]

But why should they join us at all in such a restoration, if great benefit to silver miners is a valid objection. Besides, it is not true that by free coinage the miner gets anything more than the value his bullion will then have all over the world. By free coinage the government does not buy anything, nor the miner sell anything. His metal is coined on his own account, and delivered back to him, weight for weight, or he takes a certificate redeemable in the exact weight of metal he deposited.

In order to make their case these gentlemen are obliged to stultify themselves by contradictory argument, for example, that a silver dollar will be 100 cents, and will be only 70 cents at the same instant of time.

For the purpose of denouncing the miner's greed, they say his bullion will be worth 70 cents, but the dollar he gets for it will be worth


100 cents. Then, for the purpose of disparaging the silver dollar and alarming the pensioner, they make haste to say that both the bullion and the coin will be worth but 70 cents. This is only one of the many self stultifications they perpetrate. As to the economic effect upon the country at large and the money supplied under free coinage, some of them predict an awful drought, and others an equally awful flood, and still others prophesy (and this is the favorite position), in order that no feature of awfulness shall be wanting, a concurrent drought, and flood. It does not seem to have occurred to them that the drought might drink up the flood, and the flood drown out the drought, and they may be disappointed in the awfulness. [Laughter and applause.]

The foremost of these prophets of evil from a repeal of the act of 1873 commit themselves to concurrent incompatibilities. They say we will have a diminished money volume, and at the same time a degraded or cheapened money. Fewer dollars, lower prices, and dollars of less value! A dollar, i. e., increased in purchasing power or command over goods, (lower prices), and yet a cheaper, a degraded dollar! Such fast and loose assertions, such paltering in a double sense is a betrayal of crude thinking and recklessness of speech. In so far as it is not sheer hypocrisy, it arises from a fundamental misconception as to the nature of value. The bottom fallacy, the queen bee in the teeming hive of popular error comes of the notion that value is intrinsic and independent of conditions, legal or other. This is thought to be especially so of gold, the one thing which more than anything else under the sun has had special privileges conferred upon it by legislation, in that it has been by law made the valuing instrument in commerce.

But the expression "intrinsic value" is not a correct expression. There is incoherence in these words. Value is in its nature extrinsic and lies in estimation. It is therefore necessarily varying; according, not to inherent qualities, but to surrounding conditions. Value is a swapping relation. It exists only in commerce. It arises only in trade. It is the estimate agreed upon by two men as to the exchanging rate of two different things. What is sometimes intended by the word "intrinsic," as applied to value of a coin is the value which the material of it would have if deprived of the money uses which the law gives it.

But that discussion is foreign to the question here; for, whatever increase in the value of bullion free coinage confers, one thing is absolutely sure, viz., unlimited coinage being established, at once and forever the parity between the coin and the bullion that goes to its making is fixed. That difference falls out of discussion therefore. Our silver


dollar, all over the world, will be of the same value as the metal in it will then be. Mark, I do not say of the same value as the metal now is, for a new condition of commanding influences will have arisen.

What the value of the silver dollar may be as expressed in gold is another question. Competent students affirm that free coinage here will restore the commercial ratio of 16 to 1. When those who predict the contrary betray such gross ignorance of the nature of value and the forces causing value change, I cannot attach the least weight to their predictions. Still, I cannot be convinced but that a commercial parity between the two coins is a subordinate matter in the establishment of a monetary system. Bimetallism is the standard of the cheaper and the guaranty of greater stability to money which that option involves. By stability I mean as to goods. By stability and constancy in the value of money is meant stability in the general price range. Any other meaning sought to be imposed upon the words "constancy and stability of value of money" is incompetent, vain and void. Industrial health, commercial prosperity, equity in time contracts, the just reward of productive labor, and the economic well being of society are all involved in that kind of stability; any other stability is mere moonshine.

The measure we advocate does not propose to change the weight of standard coins. We ask no revision of the dictionary, no change in the long established meaning of that great word "dollar" -- that word by which all the economic relations of men are defined and regulated, in which all duties and rights are expressed. We only ask that the excess of value put into the effective meaning of that measuring instrument by the unfortunate act of 1873 shall be taken out of it and restored to goods again. We ask that a short step toward a restoration of the price range prevailing by the money standard prior to that act be made. Free coinage now cannot give back to the Occident the masses of silver sunken in the Orient in non-monetary uses. It will only give us a normal and gradual increase in the supply of money, thereby increasing prices. I cannot too often repeat that the exchanging relation of money with goods should be the paramount concern in high statesmanship regarding monetary legislation.

Legislation to enhance or keep up the value of money is legislation to put down prices. The purchasing power in products, in houses, and lands is more properly an object of legislative solicitude than the value of money. To increase the latter at the expense of the former is the worst form of class legislation. It fosters unjust distribution of the common wealth by stealthily enlarging the instrument by which that distribution is affected. It is legislation in the interest of those who refuse to employ their capital in production. It is industrial


paralysis. It is a means whereby cunning reaps where another sows.

I insist, therefore, Mr.Speaker, that if the theory and practice of a commodity money and automatic supply is to be adhered to, there must be no restriction upon coinage. The integrity of that theory is destroyed if you deny free mintage of the money metals. Let us have the benefit of that theory in its full integrity, or let us frankly abandon it and commit the money volume to a scientific regulation and control. As before remarked, I am in grave doubt about free coinage giving us a sufficient increase in the money volume to meet the requirements of business and maintain prices.

But I shall hope that this legislation will be supplemented by an issue of legal tender paper money in volume sufficient to meet the requirements of the legitimate business interests, thereby putting the paper issue under the intelligent control of Congress in place of the vicious method of private corporations, whose issues are but a spurious money anyway, and have been fitly characterized as panic breeders. That money is good money which will pay my debt. Bank paper will not do that, only by the courtesy of the creditor.

I have been arguing this question upon the generally accepted commodity theory of money, and natural regulation of volume, and find therein full warrant for this legislation. But this theory of money is maintained upon the express grounds that a metallic definition is the best guaranty of stability in the value of money. Let us, therefore, inquire into the behavior of metallic money in regard to constancy. Mr. Jevons, a high authority, tells us that from 1809 to 1849 money rose in value 145 per cent., i. e., about twice and one half.

This is the forty years during which the landed property in Great Britain became concentrated in the hands of one fifth of the number owning land in 1809. This enormous and cruel increase in the value of metallic money was occasioned mainly by the closure of Mexican silver mines on account of revolutionary troubles. It was a calamity therefore inherent in this constitution of money.

The gold discoveries of California and Australia restored again substantially the old price range, i. e., money fell, or became "depreciated" about one half. This depreciation gave to the western world, for a period of twenty five years, notwithstanding the waste of great wars, an industrial and commercial advance greater than it had experienced in any two hundred and fifty years of its history. These great changes were not the direct result of legislation, but were inherent in the automatic system. In 1873 another change set in, in the direction of appreciation of money or fall of prices; this time as the direct result of legislation. The same unequal distribution of wealth has been in operation, which is inherent in a protracted appreciation of money.


This last change is not at all inherent in a metallic money constitution, but is due to an abandonment of the automatic mode of supply. By the test of constancy the natural supply theory has not been a great success anyway, but it should not be held responsible for the evils of the last nineteen years. They are and ought to be chargeable to the vicious legislation of 1873.

We are content to abide by the test of constancy in this argument for silver. But the discussion on the other side is a revelation of but kindergarten intelligence in economics.

These gentlemen cannot be made to understand that the conceded fall of the general price range of one third is a rise of 50 per cent. in the value of gold, while silver has remained stable as an instrument of appraisement. These incompetents test the stability of silver by gold, and of gold by itself.

The true test is the test of the general purchasing power. If the money I tender in payment of a debt will in the large and general way buy as much of goods as the money I borrowed would buy at the time of the loan that is honest payment. A money, by behaving that way over considerable periods (casting out of the account the price changes occasioned by special and temporary conditions), will by that fact vindicate the wisdom of its constitution. The lender has no right to any unearned increment in the purchasing power of the dollar. None of the advantages due to invention, skill, and increased efficiency of labor belong to the measuring unit as such. The stipulated interest is all the advantage the lender is entitled to. No portion of the profits of capital is his. He refuses to employ his capital in production and stipulates for a return of dollars with interest.

As already intimated, the application of this test has regard to periods of time of sufficient length for the elimination of temporary perturbations in prices. I venture to claim for this test the right to be the guide in determining the equities of time contracts, and it is only in time contracts that ethical questions arise regarding money. By this criterion, again, we come to the same justification of the soundness of free coinage as by all other legitimate methods of reasoning.

This protest against the "degradation of the currency," the outcry against "depreciation," against "cheap money," and insistence upon an "honest dollar" and the "best money" we throw back in the teeth of our opponents.

We protest against any longer or further "debasement" of our lands, mines, shops, and houses. We will no longer be fooled with "cheap" products. We want "best" bushels, best barrels, best bales, in exactly the same sense in which you call for best money. Not any


bigger acres, any larger bushels, barrels, or bales. We are content with established definitions. We complain only of the market relation of all these units of property to money. We propose to restore prices by reforming the pricing instrument.

We will not change in any respect our products, but only the other term (money) in the equation which value is. We propose no reforming of standard money by diminution of weight of coins or changing in any particular their physical properties.

We only propose to break the gold monopoly and restore silver to legal equality. Refusal to restore the double standard upon pretense that it will cheapen money and raise prices is a confession that the act of 1873 is the guilty cause of this destruction of the commercial value of our products. I say commercial value, value as expressed in money the only mode known to civilized society.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I have but few words to add to this already too long discussion, for I cannot close without reference to the general situation. Our people are very much in earnest in this money reform or restoration. They are not dishonest, nor are they fools. They cannot be any longer deceived by this "honesty" racket. What they have long borne as a hardship they have now come to understand as a gigantic wrong. Only by a study of this uprising among the people who are the chief victims of this spoliation can be gotten any adequate notion of the intensity of their convictions, the high moral quality of their motives, and the resoluteness of their purpose. They have been studying the subject, and the breadth of their reading, the extent of their economic intelligence, and the cogency of their reasoning puts to shame the shallowness of so called great "financiers" and the prigs of the counting house.

I urge upon you of the majority and you of the minority a careful study of the merits of our claim, and warn you of the danger of trifling with these demands or belittling and subordinating the subject to tariff reform or retrenchment. The evils of this country arising from any policy on those subjects lying within the range of the extremist views are but small in comparison to the spoliation of industry and the heartbreak our people still suffer from a single standard money. To you Republicans, I appeal to the high moral and patriotic impulse of which your party was born, now, alas! grown obese and degenerate by too long enjoyment of the spoils of office; and I appeal to you Democrats, who, in spite of your amazing blunders and the false positions into which you have so often been betrayed are yet claiming that by tradition and instinct you are in sympathetic touch with the struggling masses, do not, because (to you) some of our notions seem crude -- do not deny us this one


measure of relief and redress, whose soundness and justice is unimpeachable.

Our people are doing some independent thinking and are casting off the trammels of party, and the future of political control is with them. I implore you, therefore, to make haste to do them this simple act of justice, less a worse thing come upon you.

From the floor of this House an appeal has gone out to the old soldiers asking them to petition against this bill lest it should injure the pensioner. Had this zeal for the old soldier been manifested at an earlier date the veterans of the Union army would have had more money and the bond holding and banking classes would have had less.

We have had a personal experience of the tender regard these "honest money" people have had for us; they cannot teach our memory to forget that many of us enlisted at a time when gold and silver was the only legal tender, and that we received legal tender paper money, while these "honest money" fellows were engaged in the patriotic pastime of running the price of gold and silver up to a point where it took two and a half of our dollars to buy one gold or silver dollar. It will not do for these gentlemen to say that the soldiers' pay was increased to compensate him for the difference in the value of the dollars; they know that the increased pay was not sufficient to compensate us for the difference; they know that the decision of the Supreme Court was "that the obligation of a contract to pay money is an obligation to pay that that the law recognizes as money when the payment is due." They know that the act of Congress pledging the faith of this nation to the payment of its public debt in coin was an infamous betrayal of the best interests of the people; that it added to the burdens of the public debt; that the old soldiers, their wives and families, are being taxed today to pay this unjust tribute to a favored class.

The soldiers of the Union army were not fighting for money, but to preserve the union of the States, to perpetuate a democratic republic, where the wishes of the people might be crystallized into law, a union where the principles taught by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln might lead us on to the perfection of a government in which the chief concern would be the welfare of all, and to which the brave men that wore the blue, and the no less brave men that wore the gray, could forever after render a loyal support. [Loud applause.]

This affected solicitude for our welfare might find expression in deeds; "for words are flowers, but deeds are fruits." It might long ere this have found expression in pension legislation that would not give a large pension to the officers or their widows with one hand, while with the other it has given a small pittance to the private


soldier or his widow. The rule of the pension office that compels an applicant for a pension to prove that he was a sound man at the time of enlistment is a strange manifestation of justice to a man who was certified as a sound man by physicians acting in their official capacity and under a solemn oath. The rule that compels the applicant to furnish the evidence of two private comrades or of one commissioned officer is at variance with the idea of equality before the law, and ought to have been abolished by these statesmen who now express so much alarm lest the passage of a just law might injure the poor pensioner or his widow.

This duplicity does not deceive the old soldier, and I venture to say that the Grand Army posts will take no official notice of it. The path by which these men have marched on to wealth and power is marked with the mortgaged homes and wrecked fortunes of the class to whose supposed cupidity they now appeal; the insane and the orphan asylums of the different States are filled with these victims; and women and children in rags, whose request for shelter and food they have no time to hear or heed, are the fruits of their villainy and the victims of their greed. These wrongs will stand against them the day when the Great Judge will call men to judgment and ask of them an accounting for that "They have reaped where they have not sown and gathered where they have not strewn." I venture that in all our recollections of the late war none of us were ever called to mourn over the new-made grave of a dead millionaire. The soldier loves them most that knows them least.

Mr. Speaker, the people I represent are not anarchists, they are not opposed to the accumulation of wealth, but they are opposed to its unjust distribution, they believe that the accumulation of wealth is the first step in social improvement, and that the next thing in importance is its proper distribution among the several members of society. This distribution, if left free to follow natural laws, would be found to be in accordance with the skill, industry and economy of those who toil.

The recent concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is causing alarm in the minds of all thoughtful men. That wealth in this country has become a great political power, no fair minded man will deny. Our people rely on their inherit sovereignty as the true basis of just government, and they are not willing that power and dominion should have any other foundation. They believe that when wealth usurps the place of man in government, it becomes man's oppressor. They believe that man should be above every system, and that in man all political power must center or calamity will follow.

The old idea that the favored few ought to govern and the modern


idea of a government of the people are mutually atagonistic There can be no compromise between these two opposing forces. The people are organizing for a great political contest, a contest the result of which will prove that the integrity, honor, courage and patriotism of our people can be relied on in any emergency. This contest will not end until corporations, combinations and monopolies bow in submission to just law. I will close by using language different, though similar to that used by my eloquent young colleague. I say, "In that day" the people will be sovereign; "long live the sovereign." [Loud applause.]


The House being in Committee of the Whole and having under consideration the bill (H. K. 6007) to place wool on the free list and to reduce the duties on woolen goods --

Mr. Watson said:

Mr. Chairman: My only regret, I think, about this tariff debate is that no master of satire has been here to describe it. I think that Bill Nye and Mark Twain have lost the opportunity of their lives. The attraction has been so great that we have almost run from the galleries by this protracted fight over a mythical issue the gentlemen who daily take their afternoon naps in the gallery; and the peanut eaters have forsaken us in a body. [Laughter.]

One of the amusing things about it, Mr. Chairman, is this: The Republicans say they are in favor of protection as a principle, yet through reciprocity they are trying to escape it as a practice [laughter]; while the Democrats say that "free trade" as a governmental principle is thoroughly right, but they do not dare to adopt it as a rule of action. They stop at tariff for revenue with incidental protection.

I was amused, Mr. Chairman, at the chosen champions who were put forth by both parties during the debate. They selected, it seemed to me, as the spokesman who most thoroughly voiced the sentiments of his party, a young man who was required to be handsome and brilliant. To fight very old battle young warriors were wanted. The old ones were tired.

On the side of the Republicans they chose Mr. Dolliver, from the State of Iowa, young, handsome and brilliant.

Mr. Hopkins, of Illinois. Better not let that be heard up in the galleries. [Laughter.]

Mr. Watson. Why, that is just the very place it ought to be heard. That is the very place where it was first appreciated. [Laughter.] And in all that brilliant display of rhetoric made by him it was curious to note that the gentleman from Iowa made no defense of the protection


system as a principle and made no defense of protection as a thing to be persevered in by the Government indefinitely, and his entire speech might be labeled "Dolliver's extract, or a new way of treating an old complaint." [Laughter.]

On the other hand was our handsome and brilliant friend from Nebraska [Mr. Bryan], who was put forward as the "darling" of the Democratic side of the House, the prettiest man in all the bunch, and his entire speech, which ranged from Tom Moore's poetry to Joe Miller's jest book, was the sum and substance of the old Democratic position on the tariff that we will practice what is wrong while we know what is right. [Laughter and applause on the Republican side] Now, the third party, carrying out the "pretty man" programme, was not to be left behind.

The third party is small on this floor, but makes up in activity what it lacks in numbers.

Imitating the programme of the other parties on this floor, in using their handsomest members to conduct debate, choose me to represent them in that same capacity to day. [Laughter.] Not because I possessed individual and eccentric lines of beauty not possessed by the other members of the third party; but because in the variety of good looks and general makeup of loveliness, I threw them all into the shade.[Laughter.]

Mr.Chairman, I invoke at the hands of this committee an earnest consideration of the tariff system from the standpoint from which it should be viewed: First as a governmental way of raising revenue, and, second, as a governmental way of protecting a certain class of industries.

Before I go into that, however, I beg the House to permit me to give them one illustration of the practical working of the tariff system. It is recent. It does not belong to ancient history. There is no moss on it. It is fresh in the minds of every Southern gentleman on this floor.

In 1888, Mr.Chairman, we had a high tariff upon jute bagging, an article of prime necessity in the preparing of cotton for the markets of the world. Before I consider the enormity of the injustice done to the farmers of the South in this instance, under the tariff system, I beg leave to call attention to the fact that in marketing his cotton the planter of the. South labors under disadvantages which no other laborer is subjected to; that is, that he bears all the tare, and the tare forms a very large percentage of the value of his product.

When we buy a bottle of brandy I am told a quart is always short just enough to make up for the price of the bottle; that in buying your sack of coffee, in buying your sack of flour, in buying your


was covered ham, or sack of corn, the wrapping is weighed to you as a part of the commodity, and the purchaser pays the tare. In selling cotton it is a notorious fact that the price in this country is set by the price in Liverpool, and every order cabled over here bears this addition: "C. I. F., and 6 per cent."

Upon that basis cotton is bought -- C. for cost, I. for insurance, F. for freight, and 6 per cent. for tare. You may wrap your cotton ever so beautifully, yet the 6 per cent is deducted from its weight, and you have to sell the bale with a loss of 30 pounds on a bale of 500 pounds. So, Mr. Chairman, I say that in marketing that commodity our farmers have to labor under a burden which no other producer on the face of the earth labors under. To be accurate about it, and to show the House how serious this matter is to our people, I beg leave to submit these figures:

On an 8,000,000 bale crop, weighing 500 pounds to the bale, you have 4,000,000,000 pounds of cotton. Six per cent. of that is 240,000,000 pounds. Bale it and you have got 480,000 bales of cotton, worth ordinarily $20,000,000. This we lose as tare. It is a dead loss, brings us no return, is dumped into the hands of the men who buy and taken from the men who produce, and to that must be added the losses of a system of sampling, which by itself sometimes makes a large buyer of cotton wealthy at the end of a season.

Now, Mr. Chairman, during the year 1888 you remember that the Mills bill was being discussed, and it was proposed to put a lower duty on jute bagging. There were certain mills in this country producing jute bagging. There was a combination formed at St. Louis. The manufacturers said: "We will make a combine and we will shut down six of our mills. We will discharge the laborers in those factories. We will thus limit the output, and we will run up the price every week upon our commodity, and divide the plunder among ourselves.

Now, mind you, cotton bagging was selling, say, at 8 cents per yard. It went up week by week until it reached 12 cents per yard. The tariff upon the cotton bagging kept us from sending out into the markets of the world and bringing in a supply. The tariff system was erected in order that mills might run. The combination shut them down in order that the purchaser might be outraged. The tariff system was built up, they say, to give laborers work. Yet the mills were shut down that the laborers might not have work. One million dollars was taken from the cotton growers of the South by a arbitrary stroke of the pen raising the price of jute bagging by an arbitrary combination between these manufacturers, who had the advantage of the tariff wall which has been built up to keep out foreign competition.


Gentlemen may say "you could not have bought that jute bagging elsewhere." Mr. Chairman, Calcutta would have sent it to us at the old price. Scotland would have sent it to us at the old price. England would have sent it to us at the old price; but there was the hand of the Government, with its back to the importer, and through its tariff system saying, "You shall not come here and relieve the people from this combine."

In this instance we have an article which is protected; an article which is fostered. Here is your industry that has been built up at the expense of the people in order that labor might have employment. Here are your laborers turned out into the streets, your mills shut down. Here is your consumer with the burden put upon him by the favorites of the Government. Now, let us consider another incident as a contrast. There was a corner made about the same time on cotton in New York. John H. Inman was at the head of it. They had unlimited money. They made a corner upon a very large quantity of cotton. They began to force up the price so as to realize the profit of the "corner" and what was the result?

Why, the cable bore the message to Liverpool to send back cotton to New York, to bring it in through the opportunity which free trade in cotton gave them to bring it in. Thirteen thousand bales had actually arrived in New York harbor, and other vessels were upon the ocean coming with cotton, when the men who had organized that trust saw how completely it could be destroyed, and they backed down from their position, and thus free trade broke the combine. In the one case free trade gave relief from gamblers and speculators, and in the other the farmers of the South were utterly without remedy in the hands of a speculative combine, because the tariff wall kept out those who could have relieved them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Nebraska [Mr. Bryan] in his brilliant speech formulated the Democratic platform in such attractive colors that he was loudly applauded upon the Democratic side. What was that platform? After all the force of his logic, after all the splendor of his rhetoric, after all the driving in the direction of free trade, the gentleman shirked the issue when he got to the actual enunciation of the results of his own logic. His argument is for free trade while his platform is not.

He announced his ideal Democratic platform, not a platform you can or will have, but a platform you might, could or should have, a platform you might have if a man were sitting quietly by his fire at night, with his feet in his slippers, cigar in his mouth, a hot toddy by his side, nothing to disturb him, and ideal Democratic dreams in his head.


Now, what was that platform? It is very pretty; it has all the vague charms of the undefined; it has all the boundless beauty of an unlimited landscape. He says this phrase, "tariff for protection," is the only thing of which he complains. He says in effect: "I do not object to a tariff if its incident is to give protection." "I do not object to protection if it comes by way of a tariff which pretends to be for revenue." "I do not object to it if it does by indirection what the other fellow says it should do directly; but I object to a tariff which says in plain terms what it is meant to do." [Laughter on the Republican side.]

Here are his words:

I am not objecting to a tariff for revenue. If it were possible to arrange a system just as I believe it ought to be arranged, I should collect one part of our revenues for the support of the Federal Government from internal taxes on whisky and tobacco. These are luxuries and may well be taxed. I should collect another part from a tariff levied upon imported articles, with raw materials on the free list -- the lowest duties upon the necessaries of life and the highest duties upon the luxuries of life. And then I should collect another part of the revenues from a graduated income tax upon the wealth of this country.

That is a beautiful proclamation. It is like the old fish trap, with one mouth down the stream and the other up, and it "catches ‘em a comin’ and a gwine." [Great laughter.] Mr. Chairman, if the tariff is right, it is right. Favoritism is a necessary incident to any general tariff system. Whatever tariff you impose, protection is necessarily incident to it, and if protection is wrong, then the incident is wrong. If you are to have a tariff at all protection is part of its nature; necessarily flows from it. If protection is wrong, then the tariff is wrong, and a 50 per cent. tariff is just 5 per cent. less justifiable than a 45 per cent. tariff, and that is all there is of it. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says, "We will levy a tax upon the necessaries of life."

Why should the necessaries of life be taxed at all? Where is there a governmental principle on which it can be defended?

Mr. Chairman, in that Ocala platform, which possibly you have heard of somewhere or another, or dreamed about -- in that Ocala platform we say that taxes ought not to be laid on the necessaries of life at all, and the income tax should be established. An income tax goes to a man squarely, like a government ought to go to its subject, and tells him directly just how much it wants; goes to the strong man and lays the burden upon him in accordance with his strength; goes to the wealthy man and takes no part of his wealth, but a part of the income of that wealth, goes to the planter and takes, not a part of the land, but a part of the income from the land.


But before I go further, I desire to say that the internal revenue system as a method of collecting taxation is all wrong. Why? Because the system necessarily leads to inequality, injustice, to riot, perjury, espionage, domiciliary visits, and to murder; and any system of taxation which necessarily carries these incidents with it ought not to be continued. No tax system should be tolerated which constantly involves the loss of human life.

Now, upon that subject, I will submit very briefly what has been the result of this system of collecting the revenue. In the State of Georgia, Mr. Chairman, the receipts from the internal revenue system for 1891 are $574,000. What do you suppose it costs to collect that comparatively small amount?

It costs $100,000 in round numbers to collect that $574,000 -- over 20 per cent. In the State of Arkansas they collect $97,000 at an expense of $28, 000, nearly 30 per cent. In Alabama they collect $93,000 at an expense of $21,000, over 20 per cent. And so on.

I say further that if such a system carries with it a whole lot of undesirable incidents which can be avoided by a better method, then that better method ought to be adopted. I believe that the taxation of whiskey and tobacco ought to be left to the States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to come to the system of taxation by custom houses. Some time ago my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Livingston) appeared with certain other gentlemen, Dr. McCune, I believe, and L. L. Polk, before a committee of Congress to argue a proposition that we ought to have a system of warehouses built in this country through which and by which a system of Government distributaries could be established, so as to give the people some of the benefits of their own financial system. That proposition was laughed out of court. That proposition was treated as absurd. Gentlemen said that to build warehouses in 3,000 counties would cost $30,000,000.

I am going to concede, as a matter of argument, that it would cost $30,000,000. I will remark, however, by way of preface, that it never was necessary for the successful operation of the sub treasury system that we should build warehouses at all; but, taking the bull by his horns, and every inch of his horns, let us see how that system, that wildly absurd scheme (as its opponents call it), would compare with the scheme which you have actually put into practice to protect the manufacturers (as some say) or to collect taxes, as others say.

Let us compare the two systems. There are in the neighborhood of two hundred custom houses in this country. Let us suppose that each of them cost only $150,000, then you have your $30,000,000 already spent for houses, not including a dollar for land. I am told that the custom house of New York alone cost ten or fifteen or twenty


million dollars, and that the land upon which it is built is worth as much.

Now, I will take the system either way, take it for the collection of taxes or for the protection of industries, and I will show you that your custom-house system is a more wildly expensive system than that proposed by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Livingston) and demanded in our St. Louis platform. Take the State of Georgia for illustration. We have a custom house at Atlanta. In 1891 it collected $9,000, and it did so at a cost of $2,000. At Brunswick, in the same State, they collected $7,000 and it cost $5,000 to collect it. [Laughter.]

At St. Marys, in my State, they did not collect any custom duties at all; but there is $69 put down for tonnage, and the cost for collecting that $69 was $1,400. At Savannah, Ga., $58,000 was collected at a cost of $15,000. The aggregate for the State of Georgia was $75,000 collected at a cost of $25,000 -- say 33˝ per cent.

But this thing gets prettier the more you look at it. I want to show you something more of this matter. In Virginia there was collected' $22,000 at a cost of $30,000.

A Member. What State?

Mr. Watson. Virginia -- the good old State of Virginia-- the land of knightly men and beauteous women. That is what the tariff system did down in Virginia. In West Virginia there was collected $294. How many men got exhausted during that arduous work I do not know; but the cost of collecting that amount was $1,159. That is almost enough to conduct a Congressional funeral. [Laughter.]

Now, take Florida. At Appalachicola there was collected $1,000, and $2,400 was spent in doing it; and they congratulated themselves that they did not spend more. At Fernandina something over $3,000 was collected, and $2,500 was spent in doing it. At St. Augustine there is a man who excites my sympathy. He is the collector there and collected 15 cents for the year 1891, and it cost him $1,800 to do it. That is a literal fact, Mr. Chairman, as stated in the official reports. What on earth that lonely man does for company while he is not collecting that 15 cents the Lord only knows. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I have seen with many a sympathetic throb the expression of hopeless weariness on the faces of some of our employees about this House. [Laughter.] I have seen them sitting at doors out here in the corridors with nothing but time hanging heavily on their hands. Their salaries are comparatively light, -- I mean to receive; they are a little heavier to pay. The work is only heavy by reason of its laborious idleness. All the long day these men sit there and watch those doors. They have no books to study on the subject.


There is no precedent about door keeping; there is no "line of argument" about door keeping; there are no statistics on door keeping; there are no rules of order, no calls for the "regular order," no filibustering on door keeping. It is a square out case of idleness. [Laughter.] And I have sympathized with those men. But my sympathy in that direction is nothing like that which I feel for the man at St. Augustine who spends $1,800 a year of the people's money in collecting 15 cents. [Laughter.]

At St. Marks they collect $24 and they spend $3,500.

Now I am going to strike New England.

Mr. Boutelle. Hit her easy. [Laughter.]

Mr. Watson. Well, if there is any section that ought to be "hit easy" on this question, it is New England. But before going to New England let us take Annapolis, Md. There they spend $952 every year and do not collect a blessed cent. [Laughter.] The books are clean on one side at least, and that is a good deal -- cleaner than lots of our Government books are, no doubt. At Cherrystone, Va., they spend $1,950 a year, and they do not collect a cent. In Southern Oregon they spend $2,085 and collect $4.12.

At Alexandria, Va., down the river here, they spend $1,200 a year and collect $135. At Great Egg Harbor, N. J. -- now I have reached New England -- they spend $831 and collect $17. At Little Egg Harbor -- there is no rivalry there -- of course it does not want to go ahead of its "Great Egg" contemporary -- they spend only $304 in collecting nothing; they do not collect a cent, and at Sagg Harbor they spent $684 and collected nothing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I might take up a great deal of time with a further analysis of that as a tax system. I might go on and show a great many other points where the same condition prevails. In one half of the custom houses the expenses eat up the receipts. What I say is that this tariff system is absolutely out of joint with any fair, economical, way of collecting taxes. If you call it a collection of taxes, no man here can defend it.

When you take the seven millions which it really costs to collect the $200,000,000 of customs duties, and you add to that the cost of the custom houses, and add the cost of the lands, and add to that the cost to the consumer, which is supposed to be on the average (by the most moderate estimates) $4 for every $1 collected at the custom house, and which therefore is $800,000,000, you have a stupendously extravagant method of collecting your taxes. The world never saw its equal.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come further to discuss the principle itself. What is the principle upon which a tariff system is based? I shall be


very brief about that. But there is certainly some principle at war here with some other principle. I am arguing now, not against the system as a tax system, but as if you had come forward boldly and said that you devised this system to build up your manufacturing industries in this country. Allow me to say I do not believe this great question could ever be settled by mere denunciation.

I do not believe a system which has been advocated by statesmen in all countries of the world, from time to time, can be denominated merely as a system of robbery. I do not believe that the statesmen who have advocated this protective principle were all pickpockets. Nor do I believe that a man who attacks this system does it because of his knuckling down to foreign influence, or because he is lacking in love for his own people or for his own government. The system which a statesman like Sully inaugurated, which a statesman like Colbert improved upon, a statesman like Calhoun at one time advocated, and a statesman like Webster favored, must be founded on some strong principle which cannot be destroyed by mere denunciation and abuse.

Mr. Hopkins of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman allow just one word further in the line of the questions put by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Boutelle]?

Mr. Watson. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hopkins of Illinois. Now, I want the gentleman to state if it is a fact that these custom expenses that have been noted by him would exist precisely the same under the Democratic idea of a tariff for revenue only as under the Republican doctrine of protection?

Mr. Watson. They most surely would. You may scale the tariff schedules until you get them down to a merely nominal point, but as long as you adhere to the principle of tariff taxation, either for tax or for protection, those evils are bound to remain; and that is the reason why I take issue with my Democratic friends and say you ought to stand by your logic and go where your logic carries you. You ought not to ride your horse in this magnificent steeple chase across the country, using free trade whips at every gallop you make, and the moment you reach the wall, instead of lifting your steed for the leap, turn him around and walk him back to the stable door. [Applause and laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I say, as a governmental principle there must be two sides to it, and great men, wise men, and honest men have sincerely fought upon both sides. But I contend that no Democrat can base himself on the protective principle as a governmental principle. I contend that no man who claims that he follows the doctrines of Jefferson, instead of the doctrines of Hamilton, can for one moment


stand by the tariff system as a permanent system, even if you reduce it to 5 per cent.

Now why? We of the Jeffersonian school -- and gentlemen, while my party affiliations are different from yours today, I say here what I have said everywhere, that there is no better Democrat upon this floor than I am, but I am a Democrat who believes that the principles of Democracy ought to be reasserted; that the principles of the Jeffersonian school are more value to us than any mere name -- I say no Democrat can defend the principle of protection for this reason: It is the old protective idea which we fought when it laid its hand upon literature, when it laid its hand upon religion, when it laid its hand upon the vocations of men.

We said to the State, "You have got no right to decide what we shall write, or how we shall be rewarded for it, and you shall put no embargo upon our freedom of speech."

We said to the nation, "You shall not choose our business for us. You shall not say that because I am a soldier I shall always be a soldier, or that my children shall be soldiers; that because I am a merchant and belong to that guild that I shall always belong to that guild."

We said that such a doctrine would lead us back to the old caste system of the ancient countries, where those principles have destroyed the greatest nations of antiquity. The interference with the free action of the citizen always resulted in a centralized government, in a monopoly of riches, in the concentration of capital, of privilege and of power, which destroyed those countries,

We say that it has got no place in religion, that the State has got no right to prescribe the religion or forms of worship. That every citizen shall be left without this interference of the protective principle to worship God as he chooses.

And the same way, Mr. Chairman, as to trade. We say it is a natural right to trade; without material restriction, to interchange with a neighbor or a stranger, with a fellow patriot or a foreigner; that it is the natural right of the citizen to perfect his exchanges of his commodity for another man's commodity without any unreasonable favoritism given to one man over another and without unreasonable interference with the natural right of interchange; and thus we say, Mr. Chairman, that the principle of protection, which has destroyed so many nations, which we founded this Government to escape, when applied to trade, is no less full of the old dangers; no less leads to the old dangers, and has already led to the old dangers. The only way to escape its perils is to retrace our steps, unfetter the hands of men unshackle the exchanges of producers, and let every man exchange his commodities with his fellow men upon the terms which his own good judgment dictates.


Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield for a question. Mr. Watson. Certainly.

Mr. Johnson of Ohio. How would you raise your revenue?

Mr. Watson. I will say that I believe that the income tax, which produced $72,000,000 in this country in 1869 would now supply enough revenue to run this Government upon honest, economical principles. It would destroy the tariff tax.

Mr. Chairman, we have an illustration of the working of these principles in France. There is where this modern system first came into full play. The church was under the protective principle; literature was under the protective principle; trade was under the protective principle; everywhere the Crown interfered with the citizen. Everywhere authority usurped that which should have been left to the individual, and, Mr. Chairman, they had in France just the very state of affairs which is coming on very rapidly in this country.

They had an impoverished agriculture; they had a depleted rural population; they had men gathered together in the towns; they had huge and greedy monopolies, and a concentration of wealth and political favor. Before the outbreak of the Revolution which shook the world, the great statesmen, Necker and Turgot, recommended to the King as remedies for their industrial trouble certain reforms. They went to the King and said, "Abolish these monopolies; equalize this taxation; give the people representation; tell them how their money is spent, and give them a chance to have that liberty of action, political and commercial, which alone can make a people great."

That moderate plea, Mr. Chairman, was thrust aside with scorn and contempt, and, as we all know, a bloody revolution settled questions which ought to have been settled by a peaceful removal of the causes of the trouble.

I wish I had time to show how free trade has acted in England; how it has sent it bounding up the highway of progress. Her trade in 1846 was 1670,000,000. Now it is $2,613,000,000. No matter how any man talks, it is nevertheless true. You may point to labor troubles in England, but we can trace them to their land system and their financial system. According to Mr. Gladstone, wages have increased there 50 per cent. since free trade was adopted,

I wish to be understood to-day as saying this tariff system is the very least of three great evils in this country. I believe the transportation question is bigger, the financial question is bigger; but this tariff question is big enough for the most earnest discussion. I would not like, Mr. Chairman, to take up much time in talking about England, for when a Georgia cracker from the country like myself


talks about free trade, he is at once accused of knuckling down in some mysterious way to the power of John Bull. In a majority of cases the accusation comes with the greatest vehemence from a man who dresses in English goods, who parts his hair in the English method, and chops out his whiskers in the middle as an English Lord would do. [Great Laughter.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I say this: I would like to show how protection as a principle has destroyed every nation where it has been long in vogue. How it destroyed Spain, in spite of natural advantages, and industrious population and great seaports. How it was destroying France until the revolution broke loose the shackles which a protective system had bound around her, and how in Great Britain (the historians say), had not the corn laws been abolished, a revolution would have occurred.

They claim that protection stimulates diversities of industries. I admit that to be the fact. The only question is, do you pay too much for your stimulant? We say that you do, and that you take other men's money to pay for your beverage. They say it stimulates competition within the wall until the price is lowered to the foreign level. That is surely true in many cases; but, in the meantime the extra cost falls upon the consumer; it is enormously heavy and unjust; and you do not give him any guaranty that after the level is reached you will pull down the wall or that a combine of the protected will not be formed within the wall which will control the price. They say that it guarantees good wages to the laborer, which otherwise he would not get. I have never seen that plea made good anywhere, but on the contrary the highest paid laborer on the earth is the laborer who works in those factories which are perfectly free and compete with free trade all around the world. I say here today that the lowest wages are paid in the most highly protected industries; the moderate wages are paid where a moderate protection pertains, and the highest wages are paid in the cotton fields of the South, where we give 48 per cent. of the product to the laborer who produces it, and at the; same time have to compete with the 6 cent labor of the Nile Valley, and the 4 cent labor on the Hindoo plains. They say it provides home supplies for home wants and that the grandest nation is the great family.

That is true, but some one member of the family absorbs too much from the other and more numerous branches of the family and makes it top heavy [Laughter.] This very evil is most apparent today. Now, M. Chairman, I hurry forward. I would like to show that as a governmental principle a tariff is felt to be wrong, because as pointed out by the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. Grady] they never


have dared to put protection as an avowed purpose in the law, knowing that it could not run the gauntlet of the courts.

It is wrong because unconstitutional, wrong because class legislation, wrong because violative of the natural liberty and rights of the citizen, wrong because it takes private property for public purposes, even admitting that it is taken for public purposes, and gives the citizen no direct compensation, which the Constitution says he must have. Nowhere in law, nowhere in ethics, have you got a right to take a dollar directly out of my pocket, appropriate it to public purposes, and say that I must take my reward as a mere incident to being a citizen of that community.

I say, further, Mr. Chairman, it is wrong as a matter of taxation, because it taxes the necessaries of life, because it is ruinously expensive to the citizen, and because it is grossly unequal in its operation. In Sweden and Holland they have virtual free trade. Those people have manufactures, agriculture, religion and education, and, Mr. Chairman, I find that in Sweden the people have in full operation the land loan plank of the sub treasury system, which is howled at as such a wild ebullition of crankism. They have general prosperity. They have nearly a million children at the public schools free of charge to the individual; they have a flourishing trade, both domestic and foreign; they have a liberal amount of money in circulation compared to their wants; they have a production per capita that is creditable to any people; they have a standing army that is greater than ours; they have a navy which is greater than ours.

Since their virtual free trade went into operation in 1860 they have steadily climbed up higher towards prosperity, and have more than quintupled their foreign trade and their domestic production. Emigration is light; property well distributed. That is true of Sweden, and the same is true of Holland. They have in Holland a million children at the free schools; and in both Sweden and Holland they have what a gentleman upon the other side of the aisle [Mr. Layton] called "socialism" yesterday, government ownership of railways.

The only debt which Sweden as a nationality owes today is represented by her railway system, and Sweden is a limited monarchy, where one would not suppose that socialism could have crept in. Holland has very little coal or iron, yet her manufactures nourish under nominal duties. She competes successfully with high tariff countries. She manufactures cottons, woolens, linen, glass, crystal, earthenware, and many other commodities, and does so without protection. Her crops and her manufactures steadily increase, and her labor is well rewarded.

They have a flourishing foreign trade. Their labor is satisfied.


Nobody ever heard of Pinkerton detectives shooting down men, women and children in Holland.

Nobody ever heard of that being done in Sweden; nobody ever heard of any great amount of emigration from those countries. In the land is divided up among a great number of people; property is distributed among a great number of people; money is accessible to any good security at low rates. All the citizens enjoy the equal advantages, and in a common prosperity they bless the flag that waves over each nationality. [Applause.]

Gentlemen upon both sides have adopted a high plane, a patriotic standpoint, in arguing this question. Let us carry that sentiment, Mr. Chairman, to its legitimate results. If this system is destroying the prosperity of a single section of the country, you gentlemen on the other side surely will not be attached to it in the future. If this system destroys the prosperity of the great body of agricultural producers -- [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Simpson. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman's time be extended to conclude his remarks.

The Chairman. Is there objection to the request that the time of the gentleman from Georgia be extended?

Mr. Burrows. Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Watson. I want only five minutes more.

Mr. Burrows. I have no objection to an extension for five minutes.

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I say that agriculture as compared with commerce and manufactures ought to have the fairest treatment of any of the three sisters on whose white arms are borne up the prosperity of this country. Agriculture cannot bring in to her aid the principle of division of labor which yon all know so greatly reduces the cost of producing commodities. So if you are to equalize the laws and give us a fair chance, you should bear in mind that philosophical principle, the division of labor, which always fights on the side of commerce and on the side of manufactures, never can fight on the side of the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, I do take pride in this country as a country. I love my home better than any other man's home, but it is because I love it that I love the county in which it is placed and the State in which the county is fixed, and the system of government in which my State is a partner.

And, Mr. Chairman, I think the manliest position to take, as a matter of national pride, is that the American producer, whether on the farm or in the shop, can knock the hind sights off the producer anywhere else on the face of the earth. [Applause.] Let us say we are not afraid of this "pauper labor."


Sir, a pauper never was a strong competitor in any branch of labor. The impoverished laborer, whether he be a slave or a beggar, never was worth his victuals and clothes in any industry. Every teacher of economics will tell you so. I have no fears of American pluck and American intelligence in any contest with any other people.

In the name of our common country -- all its sections, all its classes, all its colors -- I ask for free trade and a fair system of taxation, so that in the days that are to come the alienated affections of our people everywhere will come back to the Government as the wanderers ought to come back home; and from every hearth and household in all this land will go up the cry, "Long live the Republic!" Let it rise today and tomorrow, this year and next year, ever deeper in its fervor, and all down the years that are to come. "Long live the Republic, united in its sections, harmonized in its classes, working for the welfare of all, and supported by the love of all." [Loud applause.]


May 12, 1892.

The Senate having under consideration the message of the President of the United States, in response to a Senate resolution of April 23,1893 relative to a proposed International conference on the subject of silver coinage --

Mr. Peffer said:

Mr. President -- To every generation of men is given one part or phase of some great problem to solve. Our immediate predecessors had to deal with the black man's bondage in this country. With the abolition of slavery came still graver matters. We are charged with securing industrial freedom, so that men may not only own and control their muscles, but that they shall get what they earn and themselves enjoy the profits.

The thralldom of labor results from an imperfect distribution of wealth which labor produces. Industrial liberty will follow a system of exchanging whereby the products of labor shall have the quickest, safest, cheapest, and most general diffusion among the people who need them.

Commerce is the greatest of all civilizing agencies, and is itself distribution. It is but the interchanging and exchanging of articles produced by tillage and by mechanism. The original source of all I production is the earth. For the carrying on of commerce distributing agencies are essential; and of these two classes of vehicles are necessary -- one class, including machines and contrivances to transport articles of property, as drays, carts, wagons, cars, and ships; the


other class including devices and tokens to convey values of property, as dollars, dimes and cents.

Hence we have four great factors in the problem before us, namely: (1) Land, (2) labor, (3) transportation, (4) money. Elements and forces involved in these four factors cover the whole field of human exertion. All things involved in the study of any science, art, or system relating to human activity and pertaining to human peogress, cluster about these fundamental ideas; and they are so closely related to one another and are so essentially connected that to discuss the last opens a way to a consideration of all the rest.

It is for these reasons, Mr. President, that the farmers and wage earners have determined to make common cause and put the whole matter at issue before the country on the single factor -- money. A proper consideration of this will bring to view all our grievances; a reasonable adjustment of what is involved in it will bring to us everything that we demand. Fortunately, the situation is much simplified through favor of those who oppose us. They have tendered us the use of a key by which we shall solve our problem -- a key made of silver.

The matter involved in the pending discussion may properly be considered in two aspects: First, in its relation to political parties; and, second, in its relation to the public interests. In either view the matter assumes supreme importance.

Never before in our history have the people taken so much interest in the general subject of money as they have done within the few years last past, and never was that interest so generally manifest as it is at this time. This is true more especially with respect to the use of silver as one of our money metals and it comes because under the operation of laws enacted in recent years and under the late practice of our Government the coinage of silver has been discouraged.

The people had been taught that our monetary standard was bimetallic, consisting of gold and silver coined freely on equal terms at our mints. The two metals had always been together in our laws and the people had not been able to see why one of them should be discarded. If either had to be demonetized the average man was unable to understand why the choice should fall upon the cheaper metal and the one which we produce in greater abundance. The matter assumed special importance by reason of a widespread and general business depression, affecting agriculture, manufactures, merchandising, and all departments of industry more or less.

This condition of things the people attributed largely to what they regarded as a scarcity of money, and they could not understand why at such a time one of our metals should be dropped out of use and to


that extent reduce our stock of money. They began to consult their law makers and petition Congress on the subject. They asked that silver be restored to its old place by the side of gold.

The Constitution, in prohibiting the States from coining money, contains a provision that no State shall make anything except gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment for debts. All of our public men when referring to our standard of money invariably used the words "gold and silver." Thomas H. Benton in his Thirty Years in Congress refers to this matter repeatedly, using the words "gold and silver" as if they meant one and the same thing, using them in the singular number. And that was the rule before 1873.

Among the mistakes which have been committed by leaders of the great political parties during the last thirty years, none has been so menacing to party integrity and so full of danger to present political methods as their recent ignoring the popular demand for the free and unlimited coinage of silver on an equality with gold. The demand was practically unanimous. It came up from the rural classes in all parts of the country, and from merchants, mechanics, and wage Workers in towns and cities of the West and South. Both of the great parties in national, State, district, and county conventions have declared in favor of silver and gold, equally and alike, as the standard and base of our money. That has been the doctrine of Democrats from the time of the party's births to the present, and in this they but followed the teachings of their great leader and the author of our monetary system. As far back as 1836 Democrats, as a party, declared that "Gold and silver is the only safe and constitutional currency." In 1880, in their national platform, they declared in favor of "Honest money, consisting of gold and silver, and paper convertible into coin on demand." This declaration was repeated in their national platform in 1884. Democrats in twenty three of the States which held State conventions in 1890 declared, in one form or another, in favor of free coinage of silver.


It is proper that I should speak of that measure and the manner of its enactment with the respect and consideration due to the acts of so distinguished a body as the American Congress. But it was so directly in opposition to the public expectation, so utterly at variance with the people's demands, and so clearly contemptuous of the popular Will, that no careful observer can fail to understand that some interest not in sympathy with that of the public had more influence with their representatives in Congress than the wishes and openly expressed declarations of the people themselves.


Complaining of such treatment, the voters were told by one class of speakers and writers that the silver bullion law was one step toward free coinage; that, after all, it was not so bad but that it might have been worse; that it was the result of a compromise, and it opened the way for free coinage in the near future.

Another class of speakers and writers told the people that Democrats would control the next House, and then, with the aid of the Senate, which was committed to that policy, a free coinage bill would surely be passed and presented to the President. The people listened to these predictions and elected a Democratic House, with a majority large beyond precedent, and everybody expected a free coinage bill to pass without trouble. The only part of the procedure about which there was any doubt was the course that the President should see fit to pursue in relation to it. Strange to say, however, with a majority of over a hundred Democratic members in the house, the bill was crowded aside and did not reach a vote. In this body, where less than two years ago, a majority of seventeen Senators voted "aye" on the passage of a free coinage bill, we have thus far been unable to get a bill of that character before the Senate for discussion, though two such bills have been introduced, one by the late Senator Plumb, and the other by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Stewart], Both have been reported adversely, and are now on the calendar only by courtesy.

This treatment of the subject, in view of the condition of the public mind in regard to it, is looked upon by the people as a betrayal on the part of Congress of a grave public trust which had been reposed in its members.

It is impossible, Mr. President, to escape the conclusion that the people are judging wisely. I should feel myself unworthy the further confidence and respect of the good people who sent me here were I not to call attention to these things, and in their name to protest against them.

I submit, in all candor, whether it be possible for a man to keep faith with his conscience and longer follow the lead of men who tell him plainly they have no respect for the demands of the people and do not expect to keep pledges made to them. The defeat of the free coinage bill in 1890 drove 80,000 Kansas voters from their party allegiance, and, like the ten tribes of Israel, they are in rebellion to this day. In at least a dozen other States voters are in open revolt against existing party leadership. Mason and Dixon's line will soon be changed half around and made to run north and south.

It is hard to understand why it is that men who were present in 1856, when the Republican party was born, who stood sponsors at its baptism in 1861, and who followed its fortunes through all those


dreadful years of war, are now unable to see the danger signals on the outposts, unable to detect the presence and influence of a power a hundredfold stronger and more dangerous than that wielded by the slaveholders. It seems incredible that men who set out as champions of free labor and free homes, under the leadership of a gallant mountaineer at the head of a brave young party, now that they have grown old, are not amazed to see the machinery of that great organization made an instrument in the hands of daring speculators to despoil labor and fasten on the people a perpetual bondage of interest bearing debt; that these veterans of a war for popular liberty are now willingly marching under the banner of a relentless despot, a conscienceless tyrant, whose God is gold.

And if these things be difficult to comprehend, what shall be said concerning disciples of Jefferson, Jackson and Benton -- these conscientious sticklers for strict construction of organic law; these venerable defenders of what they choose to believe the money of the Constitution, who now in their old age look complacently on while their ancient enemy -- "a concentrated money power" -- takes possession of their party, and with one wave of the wand paralyzes the people's representatives, Think of Democrat soldiers, scarred veterans of many hard fought political campaigns, surrendering a vital point and then crowding forward to kneel before the conqueror!

But, Mr. President, the people are not conquered. The Great Father will raise up leaders for us. The money power must be dethroned that the Republic may live.


It is said that free coinage will increase the currency but little. Assuming that to be true, shall we not have that little? Do we not need it? Is this clamor of the multitude but the vaporing of mad men? Who would be injured? Who objects? Who excuses? Who denies?

And it is said, too, by one school of economists, that the only source of relief lies in reforming our tariff laws; yet the most zealous statesmen of that school propose to put wool on the free list and leave high taxes on woolen goods. When they gave us a complete tariff bill in 1888 they left the average rate on dutiable goods at 42˝ per cent. And now, with four years for reflection, they offer us free wool and cotton, with taxed cloth and clothing; free hides, with taxed leather and shoes.

If our tariff-reform friends will move on Europe as the protectionists are moving on South America, so that farmers could discover some consistency as well as merit in reciprocity, and if they would


put cheap wool and cheap yarn and cheap cloth and clothing of all kinds on the free list, with lumber, coal, salt, binding twine, cotton ties and bagging, common glass and earthenware, hollow ironware, builders' tools, heavy hardware used in building, and ores of all kinds, and put high taxes on all sorts of luxuries, including precious stones and jewelry, high priced manufactured goods of all kinds, including fine cloths, laces, and embroidery, and diamonds, sporting goods, pictures, and statuary, the plain common people would be able to recognize something tangible in the matter of tariff-reform.

But, and I say it with great respect and deliberation, after having studied the subject carefully and long, it is my opinion that if we were to repeal all our tariff laws and close the custom-houses, raising our revenues by direct taxation on the property of the people, the saving would not equal in dollars and cents as much as we shall gain by restoring the bimetallic monetary standard and coining silver as freely as we now coin gold.

But let us see whether free coinage, even of the quantity of bullion now purchased, would not increase the currency circulation. The average price of bullion during the past twelve months has been less than $1 an ounce. Let us take $1 as the average in the future, as long as the law continues in force. At $1 per ounce, 54,000,000 ounces of bullion would cost us $54,000,000 in paper, and that is the total amount of money that could be issued upon it.

Under free coinage 54,000,000 ounces of bullion would put nearly $70,000,000 of silver money in circulation, as any one may estimate for himself. The difference between fifty-four million and seventy million gives $ 16,000,000 in favor of free coinage. Free coinage is simply coining bullion for its owner without charging him anything for it. That much money, be it more or less, goes directly into circulation among the people. Under free coinage we would get $1.29˝ out of every ounce of silver, and at that rate 54,000,000 ounces would coin $69,790,000.

Free coinage would give us $23,350,000 a year more money than we could get out of 54,000,000 ounces at 86 cents an ounce, the average price during the last sixty days.

The Treasury had purchased 89,044,075 ounces of fine (pure) silver, under the late law from its taking effect to the 1st day of April, 1892, at an average of 96 cents an ounce. That cost the government $85,482,312, and that amount of money went into circulation on silver account. With free coinage we would have put out $115,127,154 -- a gain of $29,644,842.


Another reason why we should have free coinage, and one which


I regard as of importance great beyond estimate, is that it will be a turning point in the financial methods of the world; a pivot on which shall be made to turn the most important interests of men. Among economists of all schools and, so far as my knowledge extends, of all ages, there is an agreement of opinion that money is a vitalizing agency in trade, a necessary instrument of commerce, a potent factor in civilization. Adam Smith, more than a hundred years ago, compared the circulation of money among the people to the movement of property on the public highway. The United States Monetary Commission in 1876 spoke of money as the great instrument of association, the very fiber of social organism, the vitalizing force of industry, the protoplasm of civilization, and as essential to its existence as oxygen is to animal life. "Without money," said the Commission, "civilization could not have had a beginning. With a diminishing supply it must languish, and unless relieved finally Perish."

Mr. Del Mar, in his excellent work on money, speaks of this great power as "unheard, unfelt, almost unseen. It has the power to so distribute the burdens, gratifications, and opportunities of life that each individual shall enjoy that share of them to which his merits entitle him, or to dispense them with so partial a hand as to violate every principle of justice and perpetuate a system of social slavery to the end of time." Sir Archibald Alison speaks of money as "this mighty agent in human affairs." It is conceded on all hands to be one of the vitalizing forces in civilization; and that fact, as I believe, makes it necessary that we should have a complete change in our system of finance; that the interests of civilization require it, and I believe that the free coinage of silver being restored in the United States will be the turning point upon which this great revolution will be effected. It is the pivotal point.

There is widespread unrest among the people in all parts of the country. Mutterings of discontent reach our ears from the large cities in the Old World, and it is no better among ourselves. Our census reports show a deplorable condition of affairs. One third of our farmers are tilling lands owned by other men. Nearly or quite one half the farm lands which are occupied by legal owners are mortgaged for one half their values. Of families living in cities 75 per cent. occupy rented houses. Wealth is accumulating at unprecedented rates in the manufacturing States, and at the trade centers and the money centres, while agriculture languishes; large numbers of men are idle, and the burdens of the poor are yearly growing more numerous and more burdensome. The sale of a mortgaged home by order of a court for borrowed money was so rare fifty years


ago, and was regarded as such conclusive evidence of poor management on the part of the owner, that it had the effect of disgracing him among his neighbors, and the sin of the father was visited on the children.

When the Great War began, half our territory was virgin soil. Now homes are so greatly in demand that even women risk their lives to secure a little land when an Indian reservation is opened for white settlement.

And the vast region between the Mississippi River and the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and between Texas and British America, is mortgaged by railroad debts, county debts, township, school district and individual debts to an aggregate amount quite equal, if it does not exceed, the cash value of all the land with the improvements thereon, and the rates of interest equal twice as much as the average rate of increase in the permanent wealth of the people, exclusive of the rise in value of new lands.

Information collected by our consular agents abroad, and published October and November, 1889, show the financial condition of the people in other countries is worse than that of our own people, as we should expect it to be, without specific information.

We levied taxes upon our manufacturers during the war and gave them compensatory duties on foreign goods to save them against the burden of the levy; then we authorized them to import foreign labor. We gave millions of acres of good lands to railroad corporations and compelled settlers to pay $400 to $500 of 10 per cent. money for a quarter section of land which could have been obtained for 10 cents an acre under the homestead law. Farmers have to sell their crops in market five hundred or a thousand miles distant where there is no competition; where packing houses and grain elevators, with millions of dollars invested in immense buildings on high priced lands, control prices in their own interests. Cattle, grain, and cotton, all marketable farm products, are sold in the great market towns long before they are mature on the farm, and a system of insurance and "option" and "future" dealing draws from the farmers money enough to keep in luxury and affluence an army of most useless and desperately wicked middle men.

Men of wealth buy up immense areas of low priced land and open "bonanza" farms, raising wheat in competition with the small farmers in other parts of the country; syndicates of cattle men combine to lease lands on Indian reservations at a nominal rental and put cattle on the market in competition with the small farmers who do their own work and pay a crop rental or pay high taxes and interest on their little farms. Mechanics are massed in large bodies working


under management of one man or a company composed of a few men. Railroad corporations control systems including 2,000 to 5,000 miles of way, employing an army of men and having control of an immeasurable commerce. Banks and brokers control the money and business interests of the people. In all the great cities lines between the rich and the poor are visible in the difference between the appearances of the places where the two classes live. Voters are looked after in "blocks of five," and professional assassins are employed to protect the property of corporations against the very men who made the property.

That these conditions are good and healthy none but the money changers pretend to believe. That they have resulted from mistakes, errors and crimes in our financial methods and in our financial legislation, the people are fast coming to believe. That these methods ought to be changed, large numbers of the people have determined, and they have unanimously agreed that the first move to make in that direction is to restore silver to its old and proper place by the side of gold in our coinage laws. The money power, recognizing the force of this proposition, has combined its multitudinous agencies to defeat this first movement.

The men who "move the money that controls the affairs of the world" are wise men. They have their hands on the business and the property of the country. They have pipe lines to every community drawing away the earnings of the people. Not a farmer in all the land that does not in one way or another, either directly by interest or indirectly by taxes, pay tribute to this "mighty power." The same is true of the toiler in every department of work, from the poor needlewoman in her cheerless apartment, to the skilled mechanic who has an account in the savings bank. Briefly, the money power is supreme here as elsewhere; and the people are now studying the question whether, as a necessary means of ending this dangerous rule, we must not have, first, free and unlimited coinage of silver. Every prop removed from the structure weakens its support to that extent.

I am not authorized to speak for anyone except myself in what I am now about to say. It is my deliberate opinion that if the voters of the country who favor free silver coinage and who regard it as a vital matter would unite in a campaign to secure that result they would surely be successful. They could easily secure a House of Representatives whose members would have the courage of their convictions; they could easily secure a Senate whose members would not forget the honorable record of this body on the silver question when it was first presented in 1890, and they could secure the election of a


President who would not threaten a veto in advance of Congressional action.

Voters believing that way could unite on a platform declaring that the money of the people should consist of gold and silver coin and Government paper interchangeable with coin, demanding coinage of both gold and silver on exactly equal terms, and that the rest of an abundant circulating medium required in the business affairs of the people shall be supplied by Government paper receivable and payable as full legal-tender money in payment of all debts of whatsoever nature, public and private, and denouncing all discrimination in favor of or against one particular sort or kind of money. That platform is broad enough to fight a battle on. It is strong enough to build a party on. If success cannot be obtained on the single issue of silver coinage in connection with Government paper money to supply the need of a plentiful currency, other needed reforms are hopelessly lost.

Mr. President, standing as we do in the evening of the most fruitful century of human progress, looking backward over achievements grand in their scope, astounding in their numbers, and bewildering in their effects -- discovery, invention, development in all departments of effort, change and improvement everywhere; and looking forward toward the dawn of a higher and broader civilization, with fresh discoveries of genius, and nobler reaches of mind, when we shall have happier conditions, with larger liberty, purer pleasures, and the enjoyment of more abundant leisure, strange it is that we are just beginning to study one of the most subtle and cunning agencies of human activity, operating in men's affairs as the alchemy of spring sets the forces of nature at work to bring forth verdure and flowers and move vegetation on towards the harvest time; a necessity that has grown with the centuries, a stimulus to action, an aid to toil, a minister of comfort, a companion of ease; or, it may be, an engine of wrong, oppression, fraud and plunder; a power for good or for evil incomparably great.

How strange that this should be true. That while we have changed our methods in all departments of industry and are now searching for new and better ways along every avenue of growth, we hold with an almost desperate grip to a money system that descended to us from the barbarism of the past. The time is at hand when we need improvement in our methods of providing and distributing this most convenient repository of values. The things which are bound up in the one word "money" are an innumerable host that no man can number, involving endless development of mind and thought and energy, perpetual progress and growth. Like the rod of Moses, money brings forth water from nature's rock. As healthy blood


imparts vigor and strength to the human body, so money in active circulation quickens the pulses of trade, encourages the toiling poor, gives employment to willing hands, and brings prosperity and peace to the people.


of South Dakota, in the Senate of the United States, Tuesday, May 13, 1892.

The Senate having under consideration a message from the President in reference to an agreement between this and foreign countries on the subject of bimetallism --

Mr. Kyle said:

Mr. President: The people have an account to settle with the advocates of a gold basis, and they will not rest until their rights are restored. They have been robbed of their silver currency through no fault of their own, or of the majority of their representatives in Congress, but through the subtle cunning of the money power. This is the class who have never lost an opportunity to profit by the misfortunes of war. Not patriotic enough to defend their country at the front, they were content to "stay by the stuff" and mature plans by which to control our finances. They well knew that war meant debt; that debt meant bonds, and that through the manipulation of such securities there has always been a rich harvest for the broker and bondholder. The reconstruction days of the South were not half so important to them as the reconstruction of the finances. In funding and refunding the debt of the United States there are many mysterious proceedings which may never be satisfactorily explained.

But our so called financiers were then fixing the policy which has proved ruinous during the past quarter of a century. Instead of paying off our war debt, as popular wisdom would have dictated, a policy chiefly beneficial to the bondholder seems to have been adopted. At the beginning of the war our national debt was but $64,769,703. In 1866 the debt was 52,773,236,173 In other words, the war had cost us something over two and a half billions of dollars. Let us see how this was manipulated in the interest of the bondholder. The late Senator Beck, on January 12, 1874, in a speech on this floor, revealed some very startling facts as to the sale of our 5 and 6 per cent. bonds. These were purchasable with greenbacks, which were very much depreciated. I have collated a table showing the total profit to the bondholder in principal and interest from 1862 down to 1874, the time at which the speech was delivered:


Year. Bonds sold. Gold value. Profit to holder. Interest received. Total profit.
5-20s sold:          
1862 $ 60,982,450 $ 44,030,640 $ 16,951,801 $ 11,187,188 $ 28,180,089
1863 160,987,650 101,890,854 59,093,696 85,468,017 94,655,713
1864 381,292,250 139,697,636 191,594,613 114,956,768 806,551,381
1865 279,746,150 208,213,090 71,532,060 38,627,307 110,159,367
1866 124,914,400 88,591,773 36,832,627 17,434,556 58,757,183
1867 421,469,550 303,806,503 118,254,047 48,671,494 167,916,741
1868 425,443,800 312,626,326 112,617,497 40,542,288 153,159,765
6 per cents sold 195,139,560 128,957,410 72,182,140 26,115,724 98,298,804
Total profit         1,012,537,203

This shows a total profit to the bondholder in the purchase of United States securities of over one thousand millions of dollars. I will digress for a moment to give the following facts about the war debt, taken from the Statistical Abstract of 1890:

We owed in 1866 $2,783,000,000
We have paid on the principal $1,080,000,000
We have paid as interest 2,462,000,000
We have paid as premiums on bonds 36,000,000
Total amount paid $8,578,000,000

Add to this the profit to bondholders of $1,012,537,203, and we have a total of $4,590,537,203. We have paid nearly five thousand millions toward the debt, and still $1,545,996,591.61 remain to be paid. It will take more of wheat or cotton to extinguish the debt than would have been required at the close of the war.

Had the debt been contracted to be paid in wheat it would have taken in 1866 bushels 1,007,000,000
We have paid on the principal do 1,188,000,000
We have paid as interest do 2,225,000,000
We have paid as premiums on bonds do 50,400,000
Total amount paid do 3,463,400,000
We yet owe do 2,166,250,000
Total do 6,619,650,000
Deducting amount due in 1866 do 1,007,000,000
Amount consumed by interest and payment on principal do 4,612,650,000
Had debt been contracted to be paid in cotton it would have taken in 1867 pounds 7,092,000,000
We have paid on the principal do 10,800,000,000
As interest do 24,620,000,000
As premiums on bonds do 360,000,000
Total paid do 85,780,000,000
We yet owe do 16,930,000,000
Total do 62,710,000,000
Deduct amount due in 1867 do 7,092,000,000
Amount consumed by interest and payment on principal do 45,618,000,000


England's policy, Mr. President, is self-protection. Self first, with a disposition to crowd to the wall every nation which competes with her in commerce. Her policy is retaliatory towards the United States. At the same time she wrests every penny possible from her colonial and tributary subjects. Though she swells her millions by coining cheap bullion into rupees and purchases therewith the Indian wheat and cotton, yet the Indian farmer is none the richer. On the other hand, when the Hindoo is forced to pay his $75,000,000 tribute to England in the way of rents and interest on bonds and stocks he must buy gold with his silver rated at European bullion value. England may be able to dictate such disastrous bargains with a tributary nation, but why she should be able to make us a tool to accomplish her ends I cannot see. She says to us, "Demonetize your silver in order that I may be able to purchase cheap bullion, and by this give the Asiatic nations the European wheat and cotton markets."

Now, Mr. President, England objects to free-coinage of silver in America because she knows as well as we that silver would at once go to par, and that means to her 48 cents in the rupee, instead of 32 cents. The price of wheat in the European market being $1.00, for instance, it would seem at first thought that the odds were all in favor of the American exporter, seeing that the Indian exporter must pay twice the freight and present a poorer quality of wheat. But as India wants the silver, and the Indian shipper can take the gold dollar and make a second trade in cheap silver bullion before returning to India, it is plain to be seen that he has an advantage over the American shipper. And whereas the Indian shipper may have paid under the present arrangement rupees ($1.44) for wheat, come to England and sold it for 100 cents in gold, and with the gold bought enough silver bullion to make 4 rupees (or $1.92), thereby clearing one rupee on each bushel, he must with Asiatic exchange at par pay the Indian producer less for his products, in which event the field will be left clear for the American exporter.

Now here is the syllogism as applied to the exportation of our agricultural products:

1. Our prices for cotton and wheat are regulated largely by the European market.

2. East India and the United States are competitors for that market.

3. Considering quality of grain and price of freight, other things being equal, the market is ours.

4. If Asiatic bills of exchange, however, fall below par, the East Indian has the advantage of us.

5. Demonetization of silver in the United States has furnished cheap silver bullion and hence lowered Asiatic exchange.


6. Free coinage of silver would bring it to a par with gold, and also raise Asiatic exchange to par.

7. Therefore, free coinage of silver restores to our farmers the European market, with no unjust competition from Asiatic silver nations.

The objections raised to the free coinage of silver, Mr. President, seem puerile, and only such as the creditor class of citizens have always raised. The threatened deluge of foreign silver has frightened many an advocate of the white metal. But the European ratio between the two metals being 15˝ to 1, and in India 15 to 1, while in the United States it is 16 to 1 -- in other words, an ounce of silver in America being worth only $1.29, while in Europe $1.33 and in India $1.37 -- it is hardly probable that the current would turn this way. But suppose for a moment that the junk dealer of France would come across with his shipload of old silver, expecting that every 70 cents' worth of it could be turned at the mint into a dollar. He can get for his bullion either silver coin or paper. He can get no gold unless we choose to give it to him, and he is left to one of two alternatives, either to take his silver back or invest it in American industries, in which case he becomes a promoter of our welfare. But such statements of the press are all bugaboo, and affect only the ignorant and the timid.

If Europe had twice the silver she has there could be no such danger; but she has not the silver and cannot get it, except from silver-producing America. Before many generations have gone by there will not be gold enough to supply the arts, and resort must be had to silver. There is not, Mr. President, gold enough in the world to meet the demands of commerce, which has been growing during the present century out of all proportion to the metal basis at present adopted by England, Germany, France and the United States.

The United Kingdom has one hundred and seven millions of silver, or $2.81 per capita; France has seven hundred millions of silver, or $17 per capita; Germany has about two hundred and twenty millions of silver, or $4.44 per capita. This is all in use as subsidiary coin. India, China and other Asiatic nations are the grave of silver. They receive all they can get, but do not give up a dollar. Russia, Austria and Italy have dispensed with silver. And when we have gone over the world there is not an ounce which can be spared for the purpose of flooding the United States with a debased coin. It is needed by this and all nations to broaden the metallic base of the mountain of paper current in our business transactions.

It was predicted by financiers during the discussion fourteen years ago that gold would leave the country. I believe statistics show that


gold came into the country. It was a scare with no basis in reason, nor has there yet been a valid reason advanced why gold should have left. If so, it has evidently proven fallacious. According to the testimony of gold men we are now coining about all the silver offered or that we can use, and yet we are not troubled about gold fleeing the country. It stands to reason that gold will not leave us without cause, and never under any circumstances unless the American gets the best end of the bargain. It may go to Europe, because, on account of the extraordinary prices of American products, it is more profitable to purchase abroad than at home. In case of a possible famine in the United States, silver as well as gold must go to purchase needed supplies. But with a balance of trade in our favor constantly increasing, and possessing the vast quantity of products which Europe is compelled to buy, we need not fear but that every ship which goes laden with America products will return with European gold.

The net excess of gold bullion exports over imports for 1891 was $66,706,984, a large portion of which was paid as interest on English mining, land and railroad securities. But this, according to the views of gold men, is a contribution to American development, and is bound to occur under the present law as well as under free coinage. So that the sum total of complaint and argument against free coinage is not that silver will flood us, or that gold will leave us, but the "inconvenience" which might arise to a class of security holders who have built large hopes upon an appreciated gold market. But has there not been time since the silver discussion began to adjust business for the change? How much warning was given when farm property was to be depreciated in value by the demonetization of silver? The argument used by gold men in 1873, that time would adjust the "inconveniences" for the debtor, can now be turned with very good propriety, seeing that bondholders are well able to endure the slight depreciation in gold securities.

The present condition of agriculture, Mr. President, is closely connected with an ample and flexible volume of currency. It is not claimed that free coinage of silver will largely increase the volume of currency. But with our rapidly increasing population we shall need $500,000,000 during the next ten years in order to insure us an additional $10 per capita. It is claimed, however, that free coinage of silver, by bringing the metal to a par with gold, will unlock the currency now hoarded for purposes of speculation and promote free circulation. But we are asked to consult New York as to whether the country needs a larger or more flexible volume.

They scorn the people's complaints as long as the supply is ample


enough for their needs. It matters not that the people from the Alleghany Mountains, west through the fertile valleys of Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri, rise up regardless of party lines and demand more money. They are guilty of not asking permission of the sages of finance who are supposed to keep their fingers on the public pulse and to know within a 10 cent piece how much is for their good. I should rather remark, who keep their fingers on the Treasury purse strings and carefully watch how much a suffering people will endure. The great mass of our population, industrious, frugal, honest; the framer, the mechanic, the laborer, the merchant, the wealth producers of the nation, ask for a greater volume of money.

But modern lexicons are apparently not comprehensive enough to supply modern journalists with material by which to characterize these common people, who even modestly assert their right to think upon finance. The people are a common herd apparently, whose duty it is to perform the daily labor by which the nation grows without a murmur of dissent or a question as to whether there, representatives adopt a wise policy or not. It is the pride of our free government that the people rule; but it seems today, Mr. President, to be a question in Congress as to who are the people, whether New York or the Mississippi Valley; whether New England or the vast South; whether a few corporations or the masses. To whom is our ear turned when bills are considered touching the disbursement of the taxes which the people pay into the Treasury? To the interest of a few privileged classes or to the vast multitude of the poor? Whether it be gambling in futures, or free coinage of silver, or any popular demand, gilt edged petitions from boards of trade, chambers of commerce all over the country are poured in upon us.

But for every one of these come the crumpled petitions representing a thousand farmers, written with the soiled, stiffened hand wearied with his daily task. Whose interests should be consulted? To whom should we listen? To the agriculturists not more, I would say, than to other classes; but the demand is for justice and fair play. The people demand a volume of currency sufficient to transact the business of the country, and that it shall increase in volume proportionately with the increase of business and the increase of population.

But we are met by the banker who tells us at one time that there is an abundance of money and at another that the volume of currency has but little to do with business prosperity. Even the Secretary of the Treasury has sent out a carefully prepared report to show that we have a larger circulation than at any previous period for thirty years; that the per capita circulation is now $24. It is not my purpose to go into the discussion of this matter at length. It may be


time enough for that when secretaries and politicians agree. Secretary Windom's report for 1889 as to the volume of money in circulation placed side by side with that of Secretary Foster, for the years from 1878 to 1889, show the following differences:

Year. Windom. Foster. Difference.
1878 $ 805,793,808 $729,132,634 $75,661,178
1879 862,579,754 818,631,793 43,947,961
1880 1,122,033,630 978,392,228 48,650,457
1881 1,147,892,485 1,114,238,119 23,654,316
1882 1,188,752,363 1,174,290,419 14,411,944
1883 1,236,650,032 1,203,305,696 33,344,066
1884 1,261,569,924 1,243,925,969 17,648,955
1885 1,286,680,871 1,292,568,615 5,987,544
1886 1,264,889,561 1,252,700,525 12,149,036
1887 1,353,485,690 1,317,539,143 35,946,447
1888 1,384,340,280 1,372,180,870 12,159,410
1889 1,405,018,000 1,280,361,649 24,656,351

Again, Mr. Foster's statement as to the volume of currency in circulation on July 1, 1890, was $1,429,251,270. Six months afterwards, when there should have been more money, in response to a resolution of the Senate, Mr. Nettleton, Assistant Secretary, gave the volume as $1,037,912,728, a difference of $391,338,542.

In making the estimates from 1865 to the present time, very few officials have taken account of the heavy reserves held in banks, nor the large amount of currency hoarded, lost, mutilated or destroyed, which, according to good authorities, very materially decreases the amount of per capita for any given year.

From the Philosophy of Price, I present a statement of the volume of currency, with such deductions made:

Year. Population. Circulation. Per capita.
1854 26,090,860 $444,689,000 $17.04
1855 23,894,024 426,952,000 15.51
1856 17,796,730 435,748,000 15.68
1857 28,890,865 454,799,1510 15.79
1858 29,766,846 395,308,000 13.27
1859 30,610,096 468,306,000 15.23
1860 31,443,321 482,102,000 15.33
1861 31,443,321 497,358,453 15.78
1862 24,000,000 544,786,208 42.89
1863 24,500,000 1,043,610,415 42.58
1864 25,000,000 968,059,995 33.74
1865 26,000,000 1,639,127,386 79.77
1866 35,819,281 1,868,409,216 52.01
1867 36,269,502 1,350,949,218 87.51
1868 37,016,949 794,756,112 21.47
1869 37,779,800 730,705,638 19.34
1870 38,558,371 691,028,377 18.70
1871 39,750,073 670,344,147 16.89


Year. Population. Circulation. Per Capita.
1872 40,978,607 661,641,363 16.14
1873 42,245,110 652,896,762 15.45
1874 43,550,756 632,032,773 14.51
1875 44,896,705 630,427,609 14.04
1870 46,284,344 620,316,970 13.40
1877 47,714,829 686,328,074 12.23
1878 48,955,806 549,540,087 11.23
1879 50,155,783 534,424,248 10.65
1880 51,660,456 528,524,267 10.23
1881 53,210,269 610,632,433 11.48
1888 64,806,577 657,404,084 11.97
1883 56,550,714 648,205,895 11.48
1884 58,144,235 591,476,978 10.17
1885 59,888,562 533,405,001 8.99
1886 61,685,218 470,574,361 7.63
1887 63,535,774 423,452,221 6.667
1888 65,000,000 398,719,212 6.10
1890 65,000,000 306,999,982 4.72

The effect of contracting the currency since the war is a picture of darkness and desolation. I will not trace the course of the juggernaut car in its twenty-five years of destructive progress; the wrecked homes, the broken hearts, and business stagnation are within the memory of all present. Here is a picture of the business failures and devastation wrought during a quarter of a century:

Year. Number. Liabilities.
1864 495 $8,579,000
1865 520 17,625,000
1866 632 47,333,000
1867 2,780 96,666,000
1868 2,608 63,694,000
1869 2,799 75,054,000
1870 3,561 88,242,000
1871 2,915 85,252,000
1872 4,069 121,036,000
1873 6,183 228,499,000
1874 5,830 155,239,000
1875 7,740 201,000,000
1876 9,092 191,117,000
1877 8,872 190,669,000
1878 10,478 234,483,132
1879 5,658 98,149,053
1880 4,735 65,752,000
1881 5,682 81,155,932
1882 6,738 102,000,000
1883 9,184 172,874,172
1884 10,968 226,343,427
1885 11,211 267,340,264
1886 12,292 229,288,238
1887 12,042 325,121,888
1888 13,348 247,659,956
Total 149,061 $3,633,102,082

The above table will not agree with Bradstreet, because he does not include failures for less than $10,000. I have included all in the


table given, and have added a per cent. for failures compromised or settled. This constitutes the sequel to the financial policy of this Government for the past twenty five years. Do we not want a change?

I present another picture of depreciation in agricultural products as the result of contraction:

Calendar year. Total production. Total area of crops. Total value of crops.
1887 1,329,729,400 65,686,444 $1,384,037,300
1888 1,450,789,000 66,715,926 1,110,500,688
1889 1,491,612,100 69,457,763 1,101,884,188
1871 1,629,027,600 69,254,016 997,423,018
1872 1,528,776,100 65,061,951 911,845,441
1873 1,664,331,600 68,280,197 874,594,459
1874 1,538,892,891 74,112,137 919,217,273
1875 1,454,180,200 80,051,389 1,016,630,570
1876 2,032,235,300 86,863,178 1,030,277,099
1877 1,963,422,100 93,920,619 885,008,844
1878 3,178,934,646 93,150,288 1,031,671 078
1879 2,302,254,950 100,956,360 918,975,920
1880 2,437,482,300 102,260,950 1,234,127,719
1881 2,718,193,501 120,926,286 1,861,497,704
1882 2,066,029,570 123,388,070 1,470,957,300
1883 2,699,394,469 120,668,629 1,469,693,893
1884 2,629,319,088 130,638,566 1,280,786,937
1885 2,992,880,000 1156,292,766 1,184,811,620
1886 3,015,439,000 135,876,030 1,148,146,759
1887 2,660,457,000 141,869,656 1,162,161,910

Especial attention is called to the above table of recapitulation. It shows that in 1867, 65,636,000 acres in cultivation produced 1,329,729,000 bushels of all kinds of grain, which sold for $1,284,000,000; while in 1887, twenty years subsequent, $141,821,000 acres produced 2,660,457,000 bushels, which sold for only $1,204,289,000. That is the product for 1867, from less than one half as many acres and half the amount, brought the farmer $79,711,000 more. It is impossible to charge this wholesale destruction of values to overproduction. It was a want of ability to purchase, caused by a shrinking volume of currency, and nothing else. In 1867 we had $52 per capita of population, in 1887 we had less than $7.

The opinion of these statesmen and economists is, that if a currency of $2,000,000,000 (for 30,000,000 of people) be reduced to less than $1,000,000,000 for a population of 60,000,000 so that we have but one quarter as much money as formerly, disaster is bound to overtake all lines of business except that of the money lender.

The hundreds of thousands of debt assumed by farmers before contraction had to be paid under the specie program. Thousands


of brave men sank under the load of mortgage in despair. From a leading journal I note the following:

At the close of the war of the rebellion we had $2,000,000,000, of debt paying medium, and but few debts. Under the contraction policy, inaugurated in 1866, about $1,300,000,000 was destroyed. So debts created on a basis of $2,000,000,000 had to be paid when the volume was reduced to $700,000,000. This was a wholesale robbery of labor, and it was brought about strictly according to law. What shall we think of such lawmakers?

The situation today, Mr. President, is anomalous. We occupy the favored spot on earth in wealth of resources. Everything that is needed for the supply of man is ours. We are just in our infancy, and in that formative period of development when labor should be most richly rewarded. We have grown from a handful of people to sixty-three millions. Our wealth of eight thousand millions in 1850 and thirty thousand millions in 1870 has now reached the almost incomprehensible figure of sixty three thousand millions. And yet we look upon the sad picture of a depressed industry, with two million laborers tramping as beggars, while women and children in rags are perishing for the necessities of life. There are reasons for these things. The poor are not all victims of ignorance, shiftlessness and vice. They are rather victims of an economic condition.

One more example taken from S. S. King's compilation from the census report of 1890: Ten Southern States, taken with five of the best States of the Mississippi Valley, show the following facts:

Square miles of area 776,480
Population In 1880 19,906,897
Assessed valuation $3,905,100,503

Now compare these figures with the single State of New York:

Square miles of area 49,170
Population 5,082,871
Assessed valuation 13,051,940,0011

Now, here are the deductions:

The fifteen States here have sixteen times the territory and better soil; they have four times the population with which to produce wealth; they have one and a half times the capital in assessed valuation; and yet the fifteen States gained in wealth, during ten years, only $1,117,188,213, while New York alone gained $1,123,385,932, or six millions more than the fifteen States.

I present also the report of the Comptroller of the Currency upon the distribution of loanable funds, together with some comments by Mr. N. A. Dunning, in the National Economist. On page 234 of this report is the following table:


Table showing, by States and Territories, the population of each on June 1, 1891, and the aggregate capital of national and State banks, loan and trust companies, and savings and private banks in the United States on June 30, 1891, and the average of these per capita of population.

    All banks.
States and Territories. Population June 1, 1891. Capital, etc. Average per capita.
Maine 663,000 $81,253,068 $122.55
New Hampshire 370,000 96,225,832 253.89
Vermont 333,000 40,981,911 123.07
Massachusetts 2,209,000 742,651,214 323.02
Rhode Island 352,000 127,126,389 361.15
Connecticut 764,000 199,959,331 261.72
New York 6,110,000 1,663,604,173 272.27
New Jersey 1,484,000 119,766,779 80.70
Pennsylvania 5,382,000 646,267,053 101.50
Delaware 170,000 14,886,050 87.56
Maryland 1,048,000 101,096,200 96.46
District of Columbia 230,000 20,146,171 85.37
Virginia 1,670,000 42,131,055 25.23
West Virginia 773,000 14,113,894 18.26
North Carolina 1,638,000 10,602,746 6.47
South Carolina 1,165,000 14,556,233 12.49
Georgia 1,867,000 22,682,049 12.14
Florida 405,000 8,485,786 20.95
Alabama 1,538,000 14,900,568 9.69
Mississippi 1,309,000 11,754,338 8.98
Louisiana 1,137,000 85,138,019 30.90
Texas 2,304,000 65,070,737 28.24
Arkansas 1,161,000 7,607,971 6.55
Kentucky 1,870,000 86,078,682 46.03
Tennessee 1,773,000 42,603,237 24.03
Ohio 3,720,000 220,297,991 59.22
Indiana 2,213,000 71,753,885 32.42
Illinois 3,899,000 271,513,188 69.61
Michigan 2,139,000 124,332,290 58.12
Wisconsin 1,728,000 91,828,490 53.14
Iowa 1,935,000 111,921,511 57.87
Minnesota 1,360,000 102,482,170 75.35
Missouri 2,734,000 164,047,645 60.00
Kansas 1,448,000 53,896,582 37.22
Nebraska 1,148,000 69,388,620 60.39
Colorado 440,000 40,480,478 92.00
Nevada 44,000 1,176,791 26.75
California 1,244,000 271,189,235 218.00
Oregon 833,000 17,878,204 53.69
Arizona 61,000 1,272,356 20.86
North Dakota 193,000 8,985,303 46.56
South Dakota 341,000 11,669,101 34.22
Idaho 93,000 2,588,278 27.83
Montana 145,000 20,277,490 139.85
New Mexico 157,000 4,415,963 28.12
Indian Territory 181,300 282,954 1.56
Oklahoma 115,000 480,347 4.18
Utah 214,000 15,358,062 71.77
Washington 875,000 27,869,317 74.29
Wyoming 66,030 6,873,750 81.42
Total 64,156,300 $5,840,483,191 $91.03


A glance at the tables submitted will show that the Eastern States are enjoying the benefits of a per capita of loan able funds ranging from $80.70 in New Jersey to $361.72 in Rhode Island, while the Southern States have only $656 in Arkansas to $30.90 in Louisiana. This inequality becomes more marked as the statistics of loans and Currency are considered, which will be brought out further on. To such an extent has this inequitable condition of congestion in the East and depletion in the South and West obtained as to attract the Attention of many who have heretofore doubted its existence, and may lead to a thorough awakening of public interest in the matter.

It will be noticed that out of the gross amount of loan able funds Aggregating $5,840,438,191, the eleven Eastern States control $3,737, 812,013, or nearly 64 per cent., while the eleven Southern States have only $197,041,996, or a little over 3 per cent., and the remaining twenty seven States and Territories have $1,905,584,182, or about 33 per cent.

The eleven Eastern States, with an area of 117,062,640 acres of land, hold 3,737,812,191 in loan able funds, while the eleven Southern States, with 479,995,758 acres, has but $197,041,996. Reduced to an Average gives the eleven Eastern States $31.93 and the eleven Southern States less than 4 cents per acre. These figures will be met with the statement that the East needs more money than the South, which tinder present conditions, is no doubt true, and because it is, furnishes one of the best reasons for a change.

That the financial system as now practiced tends to intensify this Situation to the detriment of other sections is apparent to all who will give it even a partial examination. To eliminate the necessity for the West and South going to the East for money to carry on or encourage production, is one of the greatest questions before the American people.

These instances can be multiplied ad libitum. A depressed agriculture has rapidly driven the population from the rural districts to the cities. According to Census Bulletin 52, in 1880 but 22.57 Per cent of the population lived in cities of 8,000 and more. In 1890 this had increase to 29.12 per cent., a gain of 655 per cent. whereas the increase the previous decade had been but 1.64 per cent. The question is can these vast agricultural regions of the South and West afford the constant drain both of population and money tribute to the great commercial and manufacturing centers? By what law is this draining process carried on? It is enough to say that it is carried on in violation of the most fundamental laws of economics as applied to a well-governed and prosperous nation. It is a one sided game. It is all contribution and no return except in this, that when we have once impoverished ourselves, the wealth once centralized, is loaned back to us at exorbitant rates of interest, a rate which in all our Western States no farming interests can afford, I care not how prosperous.

We are confronted with earnest appeals of statesmen and party leaders to refrain from independent political action. We are pointed


to history to witness the folly of such a course; that it means political suicide to those who embark, with no possible hope of successful reform. But at the same moment when the money question, dear to the people's hearts, is brought to the consideration of Congress, its enemies in one party stigmatize it as a maniacal craze. While its supposed friends in the other, upon the ground of expediency, quietly lays it to rest. We are told plainly by the action of the House within the last month that we can expect no relief from Congress, and that both parties will nominate as chief executive a man who is unfriendly to silver. We can get, they say, no relief from a third party. Now, between the two, may I ask where the people are to come in?

With all due respect to the sagely advice of such leaders, let me say that the people are not placed in such a dilemma; and that if relief be not granted, such a combination will be formed as will relegate one or the other of the old parties to the position of third in the race.

These people do not determine upon independent action unless compelled to do so. There is no glory in meeting the malicious and revengeful attacks of the partisan press consequent upon such action. And there is not a citizen of the great South and West today who would not unite in the chorus of gratitude were he informed that relief from his burdens had been granted by either of the existing parties.

There is no desire for class legislation so called, but only for justice and fair play. Can it be that the people's representatives, separated long years from their constituents, have forgotten their needs? The people are long suffering. They are not unreasonable. Let us not turn a deaf ear to their petitions, but by just and humane laws usher in a day of prosperity for the laboring man that shall make this Republic conspicuous among the nations of the world.


Exploded as an explanation for the low price of cotton. Speech of Author in Congress, February 17, 1892.

Mr. Chairman, in 1889 we made 6,935,000 bales of cotton. That cotton brought 10ź cents a pound.

In 1890 we made, not a half million bales more, as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Funston) said but less than 400,000 more; we made only 7,313,000 bales. It brought us 10 cents a pound. In the year 1891 we made 8,665,000 bales of cotton, bringing us 7 cents per pound. Gentlemen will see that in the past, comparing year with year, there are numbers of years in the catalogue when the increase of the cotton crop over the preceding year was a great deal larger, and when the price, instead of going up, either held its place or went higher.


In 1882 we made only 5,000,000 bales of cotton. In 1883 we made nearly 7,000,000 bales. Yet the price in 1883 was greater than it was in 1882. Going further, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this. The increase of any crop is to be estimated according to the labor employed and upon the area of the land. I can show to Farmer Funston, or farmer anybody else, that the increase of our crops per capita and the increase per acre have not been so great as to justify any material decrease in price. Here is the account:

In 1871, when cotton brought 20 cents per pound, we made 148 pounds of cotton to the acre. In 1872, when cotton was worth 18 cents per pound, we made 182 pounds to the acre. In 1879 and 1880, when cotton was worth 12 cents per pound, we made 206ź pounds per acre. In 1881, when cotton brought 10.64 cents per pound, we made only 145 pounds to the acre. In 1882 and 1883 we made 200 pounds to the acre. In 1890 when cotton dropped down to 7 cents per pound, how much does Farmer Funston think we made? We made 204 pounds per acre. So the crop was not a relative increase. Now, let us consider the question from another standpoint. Let us consider it from the standpoint of acreage, and note the result. Again it will be seen that the relative size of the crop cannot be the sole reason for its low price.

In 1888 the acreage was 19,000,000 and the crop produced was 7,000,000 bales. Therefore, there was one bale of cotton to every 2˝ acres. In the acreage was 20,179,000 acres, while the product was 3,655,000 bales. In other words, there was one bale of cotton made on every 2.4 acres; a fraction of difference, but only a fraction.

Now, consider it, Mr. Chairman, from the standpoint of population, which is the only other criterion. In 1888 the bales of cotton were 5,757,000 and the population was 50,000,000. Therefore, there was one bale of cotton to every 8.7 persons. In 1890 there was one bale of cotton to every 8.5 persons, and in 1891 nearly the same. Therefore, the net result is this. The fluctuation in the area planted is less than 5 per cent.; the fluctuation in the per capita product is less than 6 per cent., while the fluctuation in the price is more than 30 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, that shows the existence of some general cause. What is it? I will not take time to show that the same thing is true bout wheat. I will not take time to show that the same thing is true bout corn. I might infringe upon somebody's patent right if I were to undertake to speak of corn. [Laughter.] But, Mr. Speaker, I will say this: At the close of the war our national debt was, say, two billions and a quarter. We have paid on the principal over a billion dollars; we have paid on the interest over two billion dollars; and yet it would take a greater quantity of corn, it would take a greater


quantity of wheat, it would take a greater quantity of cotton to pay the remainder of the public debt now than it would have taken to have paid the whole debt in 1866.

Mr. Funston. Will you allow me a question? In your State you have the finest coal, the finest rock, the finest iron ore in the world. Now, if your people had the energy and pluck to go to work to dig out that mineral wealth and to start manufacturing establishments, could you not make money as readily as the State of New York?

Mr. Davis. Allow me a single suggestion. One third of the State of Kansas is underlaid with a layer of rock salt 150 feet thick. Why do we not dig it out and realize wealth from that source? Because we have got no money to invest. According to the last census we have $243,000,000 of indebtness resting on our State.

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, the State of Georgia, as compared with any other State where protection, monopoly, and classism thrive, has fewer paupers. As compared with any other State where protected industries are in full blast we have fewer criminals, fewer people who are on the vagrant list. I can make this comparison, Mr. Chairman, even with States like New York, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, where wealth has accumulated in the hands of a few people while the many go without it. The prosperity of a people lies not so much in the amount of wealth as in the distribution of it. You might develop every vein of coal and iron and marble in Georgia, and add enormously to the aggregate wealth of the State, but if our laws of distribution are allowed to remain just as they are the profits will concentrate themselves in the hands of a few who enjoy the special privileges of the Government, while the great mass of the people reap no benefit whatever from the very wealth their labor produced.

Now let this comparison, which I have made in regard to the State of New York, be made with reference to Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, and the result is the same.

The one State of Pennsylvania gained $12,000,000 more from 1880 to 1890 than was gained by the twelve agricultural States of Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida.

The farmer buys in a market of protection, while he sells in one of free trade. The prices he makes are controlled by competition. The prices made to him are controlled by monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, I say that agricultural values have declined from 25 to 50 per cent. within the past ten years, and agricultural products have declined in the same manner; and we say that it is due to some


general causes, and that those general causes ought to address themselves to the careful and patriotic consideration of this body.

I wish to say to my friends on the right that I am not making any partisan talk, because I am going to do just what I believe to be right. I am going to read from the official report of the Vice Presidential candidate on the Hancock and English ticket. Mr. William H. English, in making his report to the First National Bank of Indianapolis, said this:

I congratulate you on the operations of this bank for the fourteen years during which I have had the honor to be its president. We commenced with a capital stock of $500,000. During the fourteen years that we have run it we have returned voluntarily to the stockholders $500,000. During that time we have paid as dividends $1,496,000, partly in gold. I now turn the bank over to you with its capital stock unimpaired, and on hand there are $327,000 of undivided earnings, besides $36,000 premium on our bonds, besides a large sum to our credit for lost and destroyed bills.

Making a total profit on an investment of half a million dollars, of $2,383,000, besides the regular interest that was paid on the bonds.

Is not that what Squeers would call richness? Is it not what we would call a fat thing? Is not that one explanation of why the agricultural States are so depressed that they come here before this national council and beg that these grievances may be redressed? -- Not by giving them anything; not by making them a donation. No. They ask no gifts. The railroads have asked donations and got them in lavish magnificence; the banks have asked special favors and got them almost without limit; the manufacturers have asked protection at the expense of the people for one hundred years, and got it in constantly increasing quantities.

The farmers have asked for nothing but fairness and justice, and at every crisis in the life of the Republic they have fought your battles, fed your hurrying millions, and borne patiently the ox's share of your burdens.

Mr. Chairman, I say this in conclusion. This class legislation has been the bane of our country. Unless it is checked the free institutions which we all love are doomed to perish. Gentlemen talk a great deal here about the defense of our country; about building forts; building ironclads, and equipping armies and fleets, but the strongest defense this country can ever have is the strong arm of its citizens who love it; the best maintenance of the law will be found in the hearts of the people who think that those laws are just; the best guaranty that our Government is to stand the test of time is the belief of its citizens that it is a Government which recognizes no special classes, no favored sections, but does the right thing, whether to the red man, the black man, or the white. [Prolonged applause.]



Mr. Watson denounces the scheme in Congress, April 17, 1892.

Mr. Holman. I yield fifteen minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Watson].

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit to the committee that if we decline to strike out from this appropriation bill the battle ship for which it provides, we lay ourselves open to the charge of having departed from the pledges we deliberately made to the people at the opening of this session. By adopting the Holman resolution the country was led to understand that this Congress was pledged to retrenchment and reform, and that none of the public moneys would be expended except those that are necessary to carry on the different departments of the Government. I submit to this committee, with the greatest respect, that if we meant anything by that resolution, now is the time for us to demonstrate it.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fellows] spoke about the interior States. He alluded to the State of Georgia, which is a seacoast State. Coming from that State, I desire to say to him that we see no necessity whatever for increasing our navy, and in the name of those people, oppressed by taxation, by favoritism in the law, by an industrial condition which does not give to the laborers the proper reward of toil, we are opposed to the committing of this Congress to any $350,000,000 scheme to build up an American Navy on a competitive basis with European navies.

The gentleman says that war will surely come; that we will need this navy. Let us stop and ask ourselves what wars have come upon us since we achieved our independence? I submit to this committee and to this country that it is not so much the guns you have, it is not so much the forts you have, it is not so much the ironclads you have, as it is the people that you have, which makes you a dangerous antagonist in war. Sixty millions of people, Anglo Saxons, who never met an enemy except to crush him; Anglo Saxons, who have been the vanguard of civilization and of successful war in modern times have nothing to fear from any other nation on the face of the earth. By his line of argument the gentlemen from New York [Mr. Fellows] would prove that if China had more cruisers, larger cruisers, more guns, and greater guns than Great Britain, then China would be a more dangerous antagonist than Great Britain! A more untenable position cannot be taken.


Mr. Chairman, I submit to the committee that we have nothing to fear from any European nation whatsoever.

Let us take France. What have we to fear from France? She has a quarrel of more than a hundred years with Germany, and the word that leaps to her people's lips as they think about their latest war is "revenge." They think of fighting Germany, not us.

What have we to fear from Germany? Why, sir, that great people knows that any foreign war engaged in by them would lay Germany open to attack on the French frontier, and that the Republic would struggle to regain the lost provinces which the Empire had to surrender.

Now, let us go to England itself. All this talk means England. Let see whether we have to fear England. Why, sir, it is well known to every gentleman upon this floor that England today is a huge nationality oppressed by its own weight. Spread over every portion of the map, with its colonies in every different zone of the earth, with its dependencies that scarcely preserve the semblance of dependencies, with a chronic quarrel on the Afghan frontier with Russia, with myriads of wild tribes in India ready to strike for independence, with Ireland like a thorn in her side, and ready at any time to smite her upon the flank, England dares not have any fight across the seas, where a thousand miles of ocean barrier make our securest defense from her assault.

Gentlemen speak about coast defenses, about armored vessels, but when from the hand of the Almighty was poured out that thousand miles of ocean, there was erected for us free of cost, to be maintained for ever, the securest bulwark from European attack. It is well known that these monster war ships cannot even come across the Atlantic or the Pacific without the greatest difficulty. They can hardly carry the coal necessary for the trip -- much less a supply for subsequent operations. They can scarcely be managed upon the great deep. It will be remembered by this committee that at a peaceful review in the harbor of Portsmouth, in Great Britain, when there was nothing to be done except to make a display, that those great ironclads, the Thundered, the Terrible, the Invincible, etc., fell foul of one another, and the English navy came near to disaster on a peaceful parade.

My friend from West Virginia [Mr. Pendleton] said this is no time to economize. If there was a speck of war in the horizon I would agree with him, because the national welfare, the national honor must be maintained; but I beg leave to submit to this committee that every war we have yet had since our independence was a war of aggression. Within five days after our declaration of war in 1812


Great Britain withdrew her orders in council, the cause of war. The impressments of seamen, which was the only other surviving cause of war, we are warranted in believing could have been removed by the same peaceful methods. We all know that our grievances in that war were not the direct result of English aggression upon us, but originated in a furious contest raging between Bonaparte and Great Britain. They were not aimed at us primarily.

The war with Mexico was also a war of aggression. Mr. Chairman, that great captain, Gen. Grant, never gave his country a better lesson in statesmanship than when he demonstrated that by conservatism and prudence and firmness so delicate a question as that of the Alabama claims, involving a claim against the greatest nation on earth, could be settled by peaceful and honorable arbitration and the $15,000,000 award secured to the national coffers. I believe the time is approaching when wars -- those barbarous settlements of disputes by an appeal to arms -- will just as much be a relic of the past, things that we leave behind us in our advance to higher and better development, as are now the old rude ways of trial by combat and dueling or any other method of personal strife.

Now, the gentleman says there is no need of economy. Upon that subject I desire to say, briefly, that if he thinks there is no need of economy at this time he is strangely unobservant of those things that every man in this House should observe.

Just casually this morning I took extracts from several papers. I beg leave to call the attention of this House to them. The state of affairs they show is appalling and is worthy of consideration here. Sir, the real truth is that the enemies we have to dread in the future are, not Great Britain, not France, not Germany, not Italy, not Mexico, but our own people. What do I mean by that? I mean bad laws here at home; I mean class legislation at home; I mean overgrown and insolent corporations here at home; I mean the greed of monopolies here at home. I say Mr. Chairman, if there ever was a time when that fact ought to impress itself upon this House, now is the time. It should certainly deter us from committing ourselves to the plan of spending $350,000,000 upon our Navy.

Only two days ago we were reminded by the resolutions introduced by the gentleman from Mississippi. (Mr. Allen) that thousands of people in the State of Mississippi are houseless and homeless, destitute, and suffering for food -- holding out their hands and asking this National Assembly to give them relief. A most distressing state of things! I find that the same is true in the State of Alabama, the State of the gentleman (Mr. Herbert) who ably advocates this bill. I find that it is true in Arkansas; and I find it is true in Louisiana.


And all around the domestic horizon there is trouble, Mr. Chairman. There is pestilence; there is flood; there are cyclones; there is poverty; there is industrial depression. There is suffering from unjust laws, and petitions that those laws be repealed and better ones made.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fellows] who made such an eloquent speech on the floor, to an editorial in yesterday's St. Louis Republic. It is not the statement of a demagugue, not an agitator speaking in the line of his calling. It is the editor of one of the most powerful journals of the Southwest. What does he say? I am glad to see that I have got my friend's attention. What does the editor say?

Think of it -- an increase of 153 per cent. in the number of homeless farmers in Kansas in only ten years of Republican tariff taxes against return cargoes in exchange for farm surplus!

Think of it -- over a third of the farmers in the two great Republican States of Kansas and Ohio homeless under the Republican taxation and finance of thirty years.

And remember that these figures of homeless farmers do no include those who have mortgages on their homes. there is a private mortgage debt of between two and three thousand millions of dollars on homes and farms in this country, and the bulk of it is on the producers of the Mississippi Valley.

If such statements, coming from such sources, do not arouse attention and create an irresistible demand for severe economy in spending the taxes of these people, then indeed are we drifting to dangers blindly, recklessly, hopelessly.

Now, I come ot Georgia, my own State. The gentleman alluded to says we want "protection." So we do, but we do not want protection from England. We can protect ourselves from England. We do not want protection from France; France is not hurting us. But we want protection from outrageous legislation that is taxing our people to death; which is putting labor under the heels of monopoly, and making corporations greather than the citizen.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. Watson. I should like about five minutes more.

Mr. Boutelle. I have no objection to the extension of the gentleman's time, but it should be understood that it is to be a concession outside of the regular limit fixed for debate.

Mr. Dockery. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia be allowed five minutes more, not to come out of the time allowed on either side.

There was no objection, and so it was ordered.

Mr. Watson. Mr. Chairman, I call attention to an article from the


New York World of April 13, inspired by a certain investigation set on foot by the Atlanta Journal, one of the most honest and straightforward opponents that I have and which my party has; a paper which fights us right "straight from the shoulder," but does it in that manly way which makes one glad that he has an honorable opponent to encounter. The Atlanta Journal, I say, has exposed a terrible state of affairs among the laborers in the city of Atlanta; a city that has had "booms" in real estate; a city that is great as a railroad center; a city that is rich in banking capital, and in the splendid enterprise of its people; but a city where the corporation has oppressed the individual, and the laborer as he works does not get an adequate reward for his labor. I read:

ATLANTA, GA., April 11.

TheEvening Journal says that "pestilence and famine exist in the Exposition Mills factory district as terrible as that in the Czar's domain. The living are starving by degrees, the dead are unburied. Many of the sufferers will be relieved by death before to-morrow dawns."

And at the conclusion of the article is this quotation from Dr. Hawthorne, an eminent Baptist divine, whose name is known all through the South and honored wherever known. Dr. Hawthorne says:

I have been in the slums of New York --

I hope the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fellows] will note that and other large cities, but I can truthfully say that I never saw misery or suffering equal to this.

It was attempted to be shown there that the statements of the Atlanta Journal were untrue. This factory tried to clear its skirts by the usual method of exonerating statements, justifying its conduct towards its employees and denying that unusual suffering prevailed among its employees.

In the Atlanta Journal, which reached me this morning I see a statement in reply to the factory officials from the working men themselves, signed with their names and startling in its contents. They state that those mills, a tariff protected industry, are paying to their laborers the magnificent sum of 36 cents a day for their labor, and that the average wage fund in the factory district is 9 cents a head, divided among the members of the family, out of which they must supply themselves with food, clothing and medicine. No wonder the cry of distress is heard.

Now, with these facts, I ask, gentlemen, whether it is strange that there should be pestilence and famine. One workman, W. N. Cochran, said that because he made an exposure of these facts end told the truth about the destitution which prevailed, in order that


investigation and relief might be had, he was turned out of his employment at the factory, and would have to seek work in some other city. What a commentary upon our wretched system -- one laborer cast adrift because he dared to say that other laborers were hungry, sick, destitute.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to say to this House that what we want is not the building up of a $350,000,000 navy, but what we want is relief, what we want is retrenchment, what we want is fair dealing under the law.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Fellows] spoke of defacing records. Such motions as these made by the gentleman from Indiana on this bill deface no record. They preserve a record -- the old Jeffersonian record of economy and of hostility to great naval and army establishments. Such a record deserves to be preserved and handed down, sacred and inviolate, to future times. [Applause.]


1. A third party is absolutely necessary in the South because, under resent conditions, neither of the old parties can afford our people any relief. The Republican party is composed of a few whites and the negroes. They hate the name of Democrat. Under the present organization of their party, no aid can come from them because they are absolutely controlled from the North under a platform and under leadership which repudiates our demands for reform.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, is composed of the whites and a few negros. They hate the name Republican. Under the present organization no aid can come from them because they are likewise controlled from the North under a platform and a leadership which repudiates our demands for reform. Hence, a Southern farmer who has studied the situation and seen how absurd it is to wait longer upon the Democratic party, whose entire platform if enacted into law affords him no adequate relief, must do one of two thing he must consent to see himself and his children enslaved, or he must help organize a party which distinctly recognizes his grievance, and promises in its national platform to redress it. This the people's party has done. Neither of the old parties has done it, or will do it.

2. The Southern people were always supporters of the Jeffersonian theory of government. They always believe in preserving the rights of the individual citizen and the maintenance of civil equality. They always dreaded the Hamiltonian idea of a moneyed aristocracy with national banks, unbridled corporations and the class rule of the few. Hence their intense surprise and dissatisfaction when a study of the


Democratic machine revealed the absolute control of it by the money power. Even now there are men in the South who have been trusting their leaders blindly and who are almost incredulous when they are told that the chairman of the national executive committee of the Democratic party is a millionaire stock gambler, a railroad king, a Wall street magnate -- belonging body and soul to the corporations. They are surprised when told that national bankers who have grown fat on special privileges (like Roswell Flower) hold high place in the councils of the party, at the same time that they hold the same views upon questions of finance as John Sherman. They are likewise surprised to see by the Record that Democrats as well as Republicans are responsible for the vicious class legislation which has brought us so near to ruin. Furthermore, they see that an unprincipled gang of boodlers, known as Tammany Hall, dictate national politics in the interest of New York capitalists, that Democratic State politicians submit to this dictation and share the plunders, and from these three causes, to say nothing of others, it is easier to go back to the sources of true Democratic power (the people) and reorganize them upon the old Jeffersonian ideas than to risk an old party organization which has repudiated the principles of Democracy and prostituted its powers.

3. It offers the only solution of the color question. Under our generous treatment of the negro in the South he is becoming rapidly educated. He can fully appreciate an argument addressed to his interest as a farmer and as a laborer. I have found them quick to understand the reform measures we advocate. As a body they are laborers, not capitalists. What is more natural than that they should feel a deep personal interest in this movement. They do feel it. They will as a rule vote with us on it, leaving their party for the very same reasons that we leave ours. Thus the two races will dwell side by side in political harmony instead of political discord. There are those who profess to see great danger of negro supremacy. I do not share in this alarm. I cannot see how the colored people can be more dangerous to us when they agree with us and vote with us than when they differ from us and vote against us. We assume a singularly absurd attitude when we say that white people shall never have good laws just because the colored people are going to help us get them.

4. Because it is the death of sectionalism. As a young man I used to be very gloomy when I considered the forlorn situation of the South, virtually kept in a state of perpetual penance on account of secession. Looking through the gauzy film of partisan politics I could see that the political machine, North and South existed by reason of substantially the same facts -- sectional hatred. It seemed that there would never be an end to it. The third party cut the


Canadian knot. As soon as it was demonstrated that the blue and the gray could really do the fraternal and generous thing, could mutually disregard sectional appeals, could mutually abandon old party affiliations, could mutually subordinate old prejudices and jealousies and rivalries, could strike Ingalls out of the Senate on one hand and Hampton on the other, could throw out of a job the wily politicians of both the North and the South by crying "halt" to the force bill. As soon as these things were demonstrated, then every statesman of the South could have taken heart, for the door of our political Bastille flew open and our future lay in our own hands. That future will be just as great, just as glorious, just as happy as our efforts shall be earnest, continuous, fraternal, courageous and patriotic.

These are four of the chief reasons why the South should swing loose from the decaying body of a corrupted party, and take up her march on the only highway which promises her domestic prosperity and national importance. THOMAS E. WATSON.


In England and Wales one hundred persons own 4,000,000 acres. In England in 1887 one thirteenth of the people owned two thirds of the national wealth.

Seventy persons own one half of Scotland; 1,700 n nine tenths, and twelve persons own 4,346,000 acres.

In Ireland less than eight hundred persons own one half the land; 402 members of the House of Lords own 14,240,012 acres, which rent for $57,865,639. The total number of tenant farmers in England, Scotland and Wales is 1,069,127, and of these Ireland furnishes 574,222 and England 314,814.

England's war debt is $3,600,000,000, and the English bondholders fatten on an interest of $312,004,360 annually drawn from the industrial population of that country.

In London relief was given to 88,164 paupers in one week. It takes 14,000 policemen to guard London's population.

In the United States seventy persons are worth $2,700,000,000, and less than fifty of these can control the currency and commerce of the country at a day's notice. One hundred are worth $3,000,000,000, and 25,000 own half the total wealth.

The census shows that the railroads of the country own 281,000,000 acres of land, and foreign and domestic syndicates own 84,000,000 acres, making a total of 365,000,000. The total number of farmers in the United States is 4,225,955, and of these 1,024,701 are renters; of this number 702,224 are compelled to share their crops equally with


their landlords, while the greatest share asked of the British farmer is one-fourth.

In New York city 10,000 of the 2,000,000 inhabitants own nearly the whole city, and only 13,000 own any real estate.

In Chicago -- population 1,200,000 -- less than two and one fourth per cent. own all the real estate.

The total number of mortgages in this country, according to Census Superintendent Porter, is 9,000,000, or one to every seventh inhabitant.

Total number of millionaires, 30,000. Total number of people out of work, over a million. Tramps number nearly 500,000. Ex-Union soldiers in poor houses, 60,000; bondholders, none.

It is estimated that 10,000 children die annually in this country from lack of food. In 1880 there were 57,000 homeless children in the United States.

In New York 40,000 working women are so poorly paid that they must accept charity, sell their bodies or starve. In one precinct twenty seven murdered babies were picked up, six in vaults.

New York has 1,000 millionaires. -- Cleveland Citizen.


The country is told from the floor of the United States Senate that "the great steel industries of the country will be paralyzed" if the enormous appropriations demanded for an offensive navy are not voted. This argument for extravagance and fraud on the taxpayers ought to open the eyes of the country to the dangers of the policy that has been inaugurated. We have already provided for as strong a defensive navy as the country can need under any circumstances. The country is perfectly secure from invasion. No nation on earth would be rash enough to force a quarrel on us. Yet we are to go on building an offensive navy to prevent "the great steel industries" from being "paralyzed"

For the sake of these great corporations the people are paying millions every year in prohibitive tariff taxes, yet we hear now from one of their friends in the Senate that they so crippled that we must vote them millions in subsidies on the pretext that we need the greatest and strongest offensive navy in the world. And unless we do this the Mississippi River is to have nothing for its improvement. On the other hand, we may have millions for the Mississippi by voting millions to the Carnegies.

If the Democratic House consents to such jobbery, the Democratic party can only escape defeat on its national ticket by repudiating the action of the House. But in any event the House would be lost if these appropriations were made, running the total up to that of the


Reed Congress. Loaded down as the River and Harbor bill is with jobs, it would be grand larceny to pass it in connection with the enormous sums demanded for "the great steel industries."

The House must make a stand. The Western Democrats in it need not be afraid to postpone the claims of river improvement if by doing so they can stop this robbery. The Democratic party must keep its pledges. The precedents of the Reed Congress must be repudiated and condemned, or it will be useless for Western Democrats in this Congress to expect to remain in public life. -- St. Louis Republic, (Democratic.)

[Senator Gorman (Democrat) made the speech above mentioned, May, 1892.]


The Rev. David James Burrell urges his people to join the crusade begun by Dr. Parkhurst -- Dr. De Costa's plea for Divekeepers -- Landlords and Politicians are, he says, the greatest sinners -- Christ forgave the bad woman -- Dr. Atterbury favors closing the Columbian Fair on Sunday and announces a mass meeting at Cooper Union to indorse Dr. Parkhurst's efforts to reform the city Ministers who see in this work the first practical efforts for better things for New York in the future.

Emphatic endorsement of the reform movement as inaugurated by the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst; graphic pictures of the result if the rum traffic were not immediately checked in. New York City; strong pleas for better laws and better men to enforce them; fervent prayers that the crusade against vice might not wane, and a mild denunciation of one Kipling for his false statements concerning the metropolis of America -- these were the features of an eloquent sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. David James Burrell yesterday morning in the Marble Collegiate Church, at the corner of 29th street and Fifth avenue,

The preacher took the ground that all forms of vice and iniquity, particularly gambling and the various kinds of licentiousness, rested finally on the rum traffic. He urged his people to drop all differences of political opinion and to join in helping Dr. Parkhurst in his work. They should demand better laws, he said, and better men to enforce them. He thought that nothing but concerted effort could stop the deterioration going on among the people. The most dangerous of all monopolies was that held by twenty men who control, by chattel mortgages, 5,000 out of the 8,000 saloons in New York City, for, "as goes the city, so goes the State, and as the State, the nation. Shall twenty liquor dealers be allowed to control the United States?"


The remedy for this was concerted work by all good men at the polls. The remedy for the social disease which is eating out the life of the people was better laws and their enforcement. "The law is like an old lion with teeth drawn, claws trimmed short and muscles cut." Poor as the law is now, it is administered by men who are indifferent, to say the least. And here Dr. Burrell made an allusion to the District Attorney. The preacher said he was himself "not a prohibitionist, but, like John B. Gough, an ‘annihilationist.’"


"Today the victim of the social order is hounded, and the capitalist, the landlord and their fellow operators go free. The movement is mainly a class movement, aimed at the poor, and ignoring the fact that the concealed capitalist is the chief of the sinners.

"Our Lord said that those upon whom the tower in Siloam fell were not sinners above all men. They seem to have been a crowd of poor, disreputable people that the social order had produced, and at the time were standing around or leaning against the walls. Who, then, were the sinners above all men? I venture to suggest that the sinners above all men were the elegant Scribes and Pharisees; the men who were loudest in their complaints about public corruption; the men who dealt with results, ignoring causes; the men who enjoyed every advantage of wealth, education and position, and had it in their power to institute a real reformation. A sample batch of these ‘sinners above all men’ one day came dragging a poor, frightened, entrapped woman into the temple, wanting the Lord to say that she ought to be stoned. He read their rascality on their faces, and punished them, and, as the result, they went out one by one, ashamed.


"The fate of our city is today hanging in the balance. Much depends upon our moral judgments and upon the view we take of the character of men. The sinners above all men in New York are not exclusively below 28th street. The sinners above all men, the capitalist of the brothel and the saloon, sit in churches, political wigwams, Republican and Democratic, and no reformer dares to assail them. These men manufacture the sin as they manufacture houses and furniture. They make sin possible and inevitable, and force it upon the poverty-stricken class, upon the weak and ignorant, who know not how to earn their daily bread. But towers are still falling, and some day a mighty one may descend upon those who are sinners above all, and who fail to recognize that reform must begin in the person of the reformer.


"As already indicated, crime must be dealt with, and at times severely, but, in this connection, we must recognize that in inflicting penalties we should seek reformation, and also remember that, but for the turning of a screw in the social machine, many of those now happy and prosperous might have been numbered with the transgressors long ago."


The Rev. Mr. Peters Attacks the District Attorney Sharply.

A resounding slap in the face was administered to the criminal prosecution department of the Tammany local government last night by the Rev. Madison C. Peters in the pulpit of the Bloomingdale Church, on the Boulevard, at West 68th street. It came as a prelude to the preacher's sermon and was entitled "Recorder Smyth's Just Scoring of the District Attorney." In spite of the storm, the pretty church held a large congregation.

"I feel it my duty before preaching a sermon to-night to say something of the manner in which the criminal prosecution of our city is carried on," said Mr. Peters. "The District Attorney is getting no case thoroughly ready for trial, and yet he pleads for more judges and more courts. With 6,000 indictments, thirty two of them for murder, now in the pigeon holes of his office, there is no wonder crime walks defiantly among us. As a minister of the Gospel, I plead for those accused and oppressed, who have to wait from a month to a year in a felon's cell before their cases are made ready for trial, and are then dismissed by the District Attorney under the pretense that he has been unable to construct any case to present to the court and the jury.

"What redress has the poor man, who, after languishing in jail for all this time, is discharged under circumstances like these? If an accused person gets bail the chances are that he will get off without a trial. A criminal in the Tombs said the other day that if he only could get bail and his freedom he would fix things so his case would never come to trial. I plead as a humanitarian for those men who languish in the Tombs all summer, while the District Attorney and his assistants are drawing their fat salaries and spending their time on vacations.

"It should not take six months for the District Attorney to decide that he has no case against an accused. We need and demand in this city a more speedy and effectual administration of criminal law. If innocent, let the accused be discharged and the case dismissed at once. If guilty, punish him immediately after the crime is committed, and crime would walk more slowly among us." -- New York Recorder, March 22,1892.



Central Labor Union asks him to stamp out immorality in restaurants, factories and shops. Shocking charges freely made of gross depravity on the part of women employed in such places. Sin a condition of their wage. Delegates claim to know of places where women who have taken the situations of discharged male waiters are retained only on condition that they submit to the men in authority over them. Central Labor Union appoints a committee to lay the matter before Dr. Parkhurst.

A most unlooked for sensation arose in Clarendon Hall yesterday afternoon when the Central Labor Union, in session there, resolved to seek the aid of the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst in bringing about a moral reform in the ranks of labor in restaurants, factories, shops and all other places where young women are employed. Some of the delegates, who claim to have reason to know, said that that eminent preacher would find more immorality and vice among the young women so employed than he did when he went out to secure evidence against women who laid no claim to respectability. It was, they said, from the ranks of the laboring classes that such women as Dr. Parkhurst has sent to prison get all their recruits, and it was all the fault of the system which, by his help, they hope to wipe out.


When reports of committees were called for, during the regular order of business, Delegate Conley of the Waiter's Union began to tell what progress had been made by his organization in their fight with restaurants where men had been discharged and young girls put in their places. He did not blame the young women who worked in such places for accepting any situations that were open to them, but he did believe that it was conducive to immorality and vice to have young girls in such positions. He thought that the hiring of female help in that capacity was a violation of the Barmaid law and the union intended to test the question.

Delegate Sweeney of the same organization, in a most excited manner, said that he had positive evidence that in some places where young women were employed as waitresses they were obliged to submit to the vile advances of the superintendents in order to hold their places.

"It's a shame and ontrage," said he, "but an undeniable truth that can be substantiated by irrevocable evidence that these young women


could not hold their places if they were not immorally subservient to the desires of some of the men who hold positions over them."


Delegate Harrison of the Pressmen's Union said that he knew one such restaurant where the girls were all depraved, and must be so to keep their places. He told of young men who went to this place in order to make assignations with the waitresses.

"If," said he, "Dr. Parkhurst would make a tour of these places he would unearth bigger scandals than he did when he went on a slumming trip over the West side."

George Barney, the delegate from the tin and sheet iron workers, jumped to his feet and, addressing the chair, moved that the Central Labor Union adopt a resolution in the form of a request to Dr. Parkhurst, asking him to investigate and proceed in the matter.

Delegate Robert Blissert, of the Clothing Cutters' Union, said he did not think it was the province of the central body to ridicule the work of Dr. Parkhurst.

"I never was more serious in my life," replied Mr. Barney.

"Then I am heartily in favor of this movement" said Delegate Blissert "for I know there are similar abuses existing in the factories and workshops of this city which would throw Dr. Parkhurst's exposures in the shade, and the sooner these wrongs are righted the better will be our social system.

"Let us not alone ask Dr. Parkhurst to do this, but let us send some men to help him. Let a committee go from this body and assist him the crusade, for there are thousands of poor working girls in this city who are on the verge of destruction.


"If Dr. Parkhurst will go to Father Huntington he will point out some of the evils that exist, and no doubt go hand in hand with him into the fray. [Applause.] Let us, too, take the bull by the horns, for we will have a double purpose in view."

Delegate Archibald said de did not believe in shoving all the responsibility upon Dr. Parkhurst. "If there is any truth in these charges of immorality," he said, "the Central Labor Union would have better opportunities for pointing out the evils. I believe that if we were to look into this matter ourselves and give it to the public through the press it would have just as much weight. The press would be just as anxious to get it from us as from anybody. I admire the moral courage that Dr. Parkhurst showed in his methods of proving to the municipal authorities that such things as he first alleged


did exist, and if he can help the Central Labor Union I'm sure he will do it."

The resolution was finally passed by a unanimous vote, and Delegates Harrison, Blissert, Sweeney, Barney and Archibald were appointed a committee to call upon Dr. Parkhurst and lay the matter before him. They were also instructed to attend the mass meeting to be held on Wednesday night to map out a new crusade against vice in this city. -- New York Recorder, May 22, 1892.


A railroad man who has made a study of every expense connected with transportation, and taking a 5,000 mile system as the basis, finds that it costs under private ownership of railroads $131.23 to run a train of twenty cars one hundred miles. He finds also the cost under government ownership would be $58.56. A train of twenty cars to forty miles from the coal fields at Rockvale would cost then for round trip forty five dollars, or eleven and one fourth cents per ton, allowing twenty tons to the car. Our figures of thirteen cents were not far out of the way. The government ownership of railroads is imperative. Every coal miner ought to vote for it. After the roads it's only a step to own the mines. These figures are based on four per cent. bonds to buy the roads, and provides a sinking fund to liquidate the debt in fifty years out of railroad earnings.


His Private Train the Most Sumptuous in the World -- The German Papers Draw Unpleasant Contrasts between the Emperor's Extravagances and the Starvation and Wretchedness of the Poor.

LONDON, May 21. -- The Germans continue to grumble over the luxurious and expensive habits of their young Emperor. This week the radical newspapers have had their reporters in Potsdam to describe the latest evidences of the Emperor's extravagance -- his new special train and his blockhouse now approaching completion. The special train is said to be the most wildly extravagant whim even that modern sovereign has indulged in. It surpasses in extravagance the famous train of Queen Victoria, and cost about twice as much. It has twelve vestibule carriages. The reception room is hung with the rarest imported tapestries and carpeted with the richest Oriental rugs Marble groups and easels bearing paintings by the best modern artists fills the walls and corners. The library is hung with Gobelin tapestry from the Charlottenberg palace, the dining-room is furnished in old


oak, and the private parlor is upholstered in white satin; there are three bedrooms, each with a bath and dressing room attached. There are besides a kitchen and servants' quarters. The cost of the train was about 3,000,000 marks, but the treasures of art with which the living rooms have been crowded raise this sum to 4,000,000 or 4,500,000 marks.

"A pleasant picture," says the Social-Democrat Vorwaerts, "is the starving Silesian miners and the miserable unemployed of Berlin;" and a South German daily says: "The Anarchists cannot wish better material for their agitation."


Farmer A, out in Michigan, in 1866 borrows $1,000 of Banker B, and agrees to pay 10 per cent. interest for the use of it. This amounts to $100 annually. In order to obtain this $100 at that time Fanner A had to sell either 50 bushels of wheat, 165 bushels of oats, 125 bushels of corn, 230 pounds of butter, 650 pounds of pork, or 170 pounds of wool. In 1S90 the loan is renewed at 7 per cent. The interest is now only $70 annually. In order to get this amount Farmer A sells either 120 bushels of wheat, 400 bushels of oats, 350 bushels of corn, 540 pounds of butter, 1,400 pounds of pork, or 280 pounds of wool. Let every farmer make a careful study of this example. A perfect solution of it will disclose the difficulty with which the people are struggling. It is a fair statement of the "power of money to oppress." -- National Watchman.

After all the rumpus and stir about the pension resolution introduced at the St. Louis conference, it turns out that the principle involved was a part of the national Democratic platform of 1868. The convention was held that year in New York. Seymour and Blair were the nominees. No. 5 of the platforms reads as follows: "One currency for the government and the people, the laborer and the officeholder, pensioner and soldier, the producer and the bondholder." Now, while the soldier resolution is no part of the St. Louis platform, the principle involved, according to the above, has the sanction of the national Democracy. To show the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Democracy, they kept faith with the bloated bondholders, and left the soldiers in the lurch. -- National Watchman.


"The question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives, chosen by their unbiased suffrages, or whether the power of money of a great corporation's


is to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions It must now be determined whether the bank i to have its candidates for all officers in the country, from the highest to the lowest, or whether candidates on both sides of political questions shall be brought forward as heretofore and supported by the usual means." -- Message of December 3, 1833.

This was considered sound Democracy at that time. What is it now?

Congressman Watson has shown conclusively in several letters to "is paper, the People's Party Paper, Atlanta, Ga., that cloture is already in the rules of the House; was put there purposely after an extended debate. That all Speaker Crisp has to do in order to take up free coinage again is to enforce one of the rules which now should govern his actions. In demanding a petition signed by a majority of Democrats before enforcing this rule he is simply dodging to get around a plain duty. Instead of Speaker Crisp being a friend of free coinage, this action discloses him to be its worst enemy. The fact is, he could pass the free coinage bill at any time he might choose, but is held back by the absolute control of Wall street. No matter what previous opinions have been, his election as Speaker has turned out to be unfortunate for the cause of the common people, and is ample justification for the course taken by the People's party Representatives in Congress. -- National Watchman, 13 C Street, N. E., Washington, D. C.


On February 29, 1892, in the United States Senate, the following language was used by Senator Voorhees in a speech on the silver question:

"The Government commits a great wrong in paying those who offer their lives in its behalf in depreciated currency, whether in payment of their wages in the field, their bounties or their pensions. I held during the war for the Union that the contract for their wages ought to be kept good with the soldiers in the field and that the difference between the greenback and gold at that time ought to be made up to them by the payment of a gold equivalent in greenbacks."

Senator Voorhees is a great orthodox national Democrat. He is "not a long-haired man;" is not a "short haired woman;" is not an atheist; is not a dynamiter. He did not make the foregoing remarks in a riotous convention of desperate characters, bent on jarring Charley Moses' nerves. The speech was read from manuscript in the


decorous and somewhat drowsy atmosphere of that national museum of curious fossils known as the United States Senate.

Will the Augusta Chronicle please give a little of its esteemed attention to this great Democratic statesman who has gone astray?

He seems to need it. He seems to believe that the National Democracy meant what it said in 1868, when the fifth plank of the national platform demanded that the soldier and the pensioner be paid in as good money as the bondholder.

Boys, deal gently with our friends, the enemy. They are having rough times and "worse acomin'." -- T. E. W., in People's Party Paper, Atlanta, Ga.


Is laboriously drawing its salary and doing nothing.

Democrats are in the saddle and yet won't ride. They have 148 majority and don't know what to do with it.

Day after day drones drousily by, and when night comes we find the wagon is about where it was in the morning.

The reporters in the press gallery laugh at us. The loafers in the public galleries laugh at us. The little pages on the floor laugh at us. The newspapers everywhere laugh at us.

Great relief measures appeal for consideration.

They do not get it.

The alarming distress of our people demands consideration. It does not get it.

Laws to equalize taxation, increase the currency, check centralization and crush monopoly have been offered by the nine People's Party members.

In the decorous depths of elegant committee rooms these bills Bleep, and no man can bring them forth.

We have offered a bill to tax the incomes of the millionaires, a bill to abolish national banks, a bill to establish land loans and sub treasuries, a bill to prevent the payment in advance of interest on bonds, a bill to send out among the people the $100,000,000 gold reserve, which for twenty years has lain idle in the Treasury, belonging to the people, who were starving for want of sufficient currency.

These and like measures we introduced at the opening of the session. We have entreated the Democratic committees to report these bills either favorably or unfavorably. Our entreaties pass for nothing. We have no way to force action. We are powerless. The Democrats are responsible, because they have the power and refuse to exercise it.

Idleness is the order of the day. Party success is the sole thought. The Democrats fear to take action on any of the great issues. They apprehend injury to the party if they adopt aggressive policies.


The Democratic leaders are obeying the orders issued by Tammany, "Do nothing."

Hill's orders, given at the Albany banquet, have been literally obeyed. Springer's prophecy at the New York banquet has been verified.

Great has been the outcry of the Democrats. Little wool has resulted. Busily have they kicked and spurred and lashed their wooden riding horses. But while the noise and commotion was deafening the wooden riding horse has not advanced, and it was not intended that he should advance. He was not built that way.

T. E. W.


Section 40 of chapter 4 of the Revised Statutes of the United States reads thus:

"The Secretary of the Senate and Sergeant at Arms of the House, respectively, shall deduct from the monthly payments of each member or delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such member or delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."

Thus is the law written.

How many Senators and Representatives obey it?

Very few.

Senator David B. Hill, that fragrant pet of the New York slums, walked up to the window and drew some $1,500 when he had not been in his scat a week. He had not been sick. No member of his family had been sick. He had been in New York manipulating Tammany schemes. He has not been in the Senate one day out of thirty since Congress opened. Yet he pockets the money, violates the law and leaves the tax payer to grin and bear it.

Other distinguished Senators are almost as bad.

In the House 100 men are absent. All this week Mr. Blount has been trying to pass the Consular appropriation bill. Progress is well nigh impossible, for lack of a quorum. We came to a standstill Thursday and had to issue warrants for the absentees.

Think of it!

Isn't it a burning shame?

Some of the absent members are sick and some of them have sick families; but most of them are at home looking after private business. Some were at the races, while others are making speeches to convince the people that they who violate the law are better men to have here framing laws than those who stay and do their duty.


If they can convince the people of this, then persuasive eloquence achieves a signal triumph over common sense.

Is it not about time that Congressmen should be held accountable for drawing money in violation of law? T. E. W.


Does it seem strange that those who make our laws are the only privileged lawbreakers?

Does it not seem strange that they are the only citizens who can put money into their pockets in plain violation of the letter of the law?

Upon the statute book is the provision that Congressmen shall not draw pay when absent from the post of duty. For each day that they are away the law provides that the sergeant at arms shall deduct from their salaries unless the absence is caused by sickness of the member or of his family.

This is a good law. It stands upon the statute books today.

Yet nobody obeys it. Congressmen willfully and constantly violate it.. The sergeant at arms willfully and constantly violates it.

How can the taxpayer get protection from the laws when the lawmakers themselves defy, despise and contemptuously trample on those laws?

What a sad commentary upon public morals it is when we see eminent statesmen in silk hats walking up to the window and complacently pocketing money they have not earned and which the statute says they shall not have.

Every one of our Congressmen draws full pay. One is absent looking after his bank. Another is looking after his factory, his railroad or his farm. Another is at home stumping his district for reelection. They draw pay for every day of such absence.

The law says they shall not do it.

They reply in effect, "Damn the law."

How long will the taxpayers stand it? T. E. W.


By virtue of your office you are the most powerful man in Congress. Your committee on rules dictates what legislation shall have right of way.

You say you will not enforce the cloture rule because you promised the caucus not to do it.

Very well, let us waive that point. Let us concede that secret pledges to the party outweigh public pledges to the people. Still there is a way for you to pass the silver bill if you really wish to do it.


Have your committee on rules to report a simple resolution fixing a day for the consideration of the Bland bill, and providing that it shall be considered from day to day until disposed of.

This is a short, common sense way to do your duty. The responsibility will then be on the House to pass the bill. Your skirts will be clear.

Ten members of the People's Party stand ready to help you on the floor. We voted against the arbitrary power given to your committee because we do not believe that is the way to organize the House. But the power was given, and the rule is now the law of the House.

We will help you enforce it. We will help you in every possible way to pass the silver bill through the house.

What do you say, Mr. Speaker? -- T. E. W., from People's Party Paper, Atlanta, Ga.


In my last article on the silver bill I laid before our people the proofs that Mr. Crisp is thus far responsible for the non passage of that measure.

The rule of the house giving his committee at any time the power to bring any bill to a vote; his promise to Mr. Bland that the power given by the rule would be used; the giving up of the contest by Mr. Bland upon the faith of that promise; the action taken by Mr. Crisp and Mr. Bland afterwards to carry out the agreement; then the sudden change of front on Mr. Crisp's part and his refusal to bring in the resolution as provided for by the rules because of his caucus pledges -- all these points were given.

I defy Mr. Crisp or any of his friends to meet them.

Now I go a step further. I allege that it has been the distinct purpose upon the part of Tammany, Hill, Springer and the Gold Bug Democrats not to pass a Free Silver Bill at all this session and that a common understanding has been had among them all along.

On December 31, 1891, David B. Hill in his Albany speech said "Pass no Free Coinage Bill."

On January 8, 1892, Hon. Mr. Wm. Springer, leader of the House,said at the New York Banquet:

"Congress will pass no Free Coinage Bill."

Frantic efforts were made in free silver sections to deny these statements and explain them away, but those who carefully observed and reflected began to suspect that a secret understanding prevailed among the Democrats.

On January 11, 1892, the Washington Post published interviews with Senator Carlisle and other leading Democrats, the drift of which led


to the conclusion that the Free Silver Bill would not pass, but that an International Conference upon the subject would be had.

These proofs show beyond all dispute that Hill, Springer, Carlisle and others were holding a well defined policy favorable to Wall street and ruinous to the people. Hill's forces in the House were tireless in their work against Free Coinage. Hill's confidential lieutenants led the fight. These men are the main supports of Mr. Crisp. They made him Speaker.

His election was a Tammany triumph; so claimed and so conceded.

Now, keeping this chain of evidence well in hand, let every citizen ask himself why it is that Mr. Crisp refused to redeem his promise to Mr. Bland; why it is that the New York World was so confident that Mr. Crisp would change his attitude; why it is that week after week goes by without the Silver Bill being brought to a vote when it is within the power of the Speaker to do so any day?

To these questions there can be but one reply.

A conspiracy exists among Democratic leaders to nullify their platform pledges and to deceive the masses of the people. -- T. E. W. in People's Party Paper, Atlanta, Ga.


Crisp is Accused of Duplicity -- Said to Have Abandoned the Silver Men at /he Crisis -- Mr. Bland Makes a Public Statement -- The Speaker Earnestly Defends His Course in Requiring a Majority Petition before Consenting to a Rule -- Champions of the Measure Concede its Defeat in the House, and the Current of Speculation is Now Turned Toward the Senate.

The Bland Silver Bill is as dead as a door nail for this session. It is killed, not by reason of Republican votes, but by an almost universal revolt on the part of the Democrats against the adoption of a cloture rule.

At 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon Mr. Bland and his lieutenant, Mr. Pierce, threw up the sponge. The day had been one of intense excitement and earnest work on both sides, with the anti silver men full of hope and confidence and the advocates of free coinage struggling against odds. The first stumbling block for the silver men came when Speaker Crisp stated that he would not vote in the Committee on Rules in favor of bringing in a rule to shut off debate on the Bland Silver Bill unless he received assurances from a majority of the Democratic party that they would support the rule. This statement was made by Mr. Crisp to Representative Pendleton, of West


Virginia, shortly after noon, and Mr. Pendleton immediately communicated it to some of his party associates on the floor, and the news spread with lightning-like rapidity.

Both sides on the measure were loath to believe the report when it was first started, but they soon received assurances that it was true. The anti silver men were jubilant, and freely made claims that the bill was dead.

"This kills the bill," said Mr. Harter, of Ohio, one of the most active anti silver Democrats. "The silver men cannot get a majority of the Democrats to sign any petition to the Committee on Rules for a cloture." Indeed, this seemed to be the opinion on all sides, irrespective of inclination on the question.

A formal request was made to the Committee on Rules by Mr. Bland, that the committee bring in a special order setting an early day for another vote on the silver bill, with a cloture provision. Speaker Crisp told Mr. Bland frankly that he had decided not to favor the request for the cloture unless he was assured by a majority of Democratic members that they would give him their earnest support in attempting to adopt it. This was a startling piece of information to Mr. Bland. He had a long talk with the Speaker on the subject, but did not succeed in making Mr. Crisp change his mind.

When the Speaker was asked concerning the matter, he said: "It is true I have taken the position that unless assurances are given me that a majority of the Democratic members will vote for a cloture rule, I will vote in the Committee on Rules against its adoption. I think I am right in assuming this position. I stated in caucus that I would not make changes in the rules or bring in any new form of procedure unless I received the support of my party, and it is this position that I am assuming now."


All this was but the beginning of the end. The Virginia delegation met and decided, with one exception, not to sign the petition for the cloture rule. The news spread rapidly and made the disintegration of the silver forces more apparent than ever. Mr. Bynum, of Indiana, who had voted with the silver men against tabling the Bland bill, began to fight earnestly and vigorously against the cloture rule. He saw the members of his delegation and found four others ready to join with him in active opposition. The other six Democrats in the delegation while not so determined, were reluctant to sign Eight of the ten Ohio Democrats also declined to affix their names, while there were similar responses from all sections. Mr. Compton, like Mr. Bynum, not only refused to sign, but said that if any cloture rule was


brought in he would fight it on the floor and vote against it. Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas, and Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, made the same declaration, Defeat was now certain for the rule.

Three o'clock came, however, with the anti-silver men still working, but absolutely confident of success. The silver forces were demoralized. Mr. Williams had in his pocket the names of thirty five men who voted for silver last Thursday who would not sign the petition for the cloture rule. Mr. Rayner, whose fervid eloquence in debate has been supplemented by untiring efforts among members on the floor; Gen. Tracey, whose nervous energy seems inexhaustible, and Mr. Harter, Mr. Cockran, Mr. McKinney, and the other active opponents of silver were for the "first time relaxing their endeavors to secure victory. As the crisis of the day approached no one paid the slightest attention to the District of Columbia measures that Chairman Hemphill was engineering through the House. It was the life or death struggle of silver that engrossed the thought of every member.

An hour later and Mr. Bland and Mr. Pierce desisted from their unavailing efforts to secure the 106 names necessary to induce the Committee on Rules to consider a cloture rule. "I have just had a consultation with Mr. Bland," said Mr. Pierce to The Post reporter, "and we have decided to quit."

"How many names did you have on your petition?"

Mr. Pierce produced the sheet of paper which he handed to the reporter. It contained about thirty names. "If the fact that two thirds of the Democratic members voted in favor of free silver is not sufficient to show the Committee on Rules where a majority of our party stand, it is utterly impossible to satisfy it on that point," he continued. "I undertook on the spur of the moment to circulate a petition, and in thirty minutes secured thirty names. We have now abandoned our efforts, and the bill takes its place on the calendar, where, under the present rules -- unless the Committee on Rules intervenes with a special order -- it will never be reached, as it can be successfully filibustered against."

"What have been the causes of your defeat?

"The interests that are back of Grover Cleveland, and I want the country to know it. Cleveland is responsible for killing silver legislation. The national banks and the moneyed institutions of the country have also been fighting us, and they, too, have helped to bring about this result."


Mr. Bland yesterday afternoon made the following authorized statement with reference to the silver bill:


When the rule was first reported setting apart three days for the consideration of the silver bill I insisted that the rule should be a continuing order to be considered from day to day until disposed of, knowing that three days could be filibustered out and no action had upon the bill. When I made this suggestion to Speaker Crisp he rather tartly replied that I ought to trust the Committee on Rules in that matter; that if the three days were filibustered out without disposing of the bill the Committee on Rules would report a rule preventing all filibustering motions and compelling a vote upon the bill.

The debate on the bill ran until 5 o'clock of the third day. I moved the previous question. Several votes were taken upon the bill and motions pertaining to it, when the opponents of the bill commenced filibustering by moving to take a recess, moving adjournments and calling the roll. It is well understood that motions of this kind can be made without limit, and no bill can possibly pass as long as these motions are kept up. These motions and filibustering tactics were kept up until after 12 o'clock on the last day for the consideration of the bill.

The friends of the bill were determined to continue in session so as to prevent a lapse of the legislative day. Mr. Pierce, of Tennessee, and other members of the House (myself included), went to the Speaker, Mr. Crisp, and asked his advice about the matter; whether he thought that filibustering had proceeded long enough to satisfy the House and the country that the Committee on Rules would be warranted in reporting a rule by which all filibustering motions would be prevented and bring the House to a direct vote upon the bill. He assured myself, Mr. Pierce of Tennessee, Mr. Stone of Kentucky, and a number of others that he thought filibustering had gone on long enough to demonstrate the fact, and that the Committee on Rules would report a rule to bring the bill to a vote.

I may add that I moved that the House adjourn on Thursday night at the instance of the Speaker and with his emphatic statement that he would report a rule cutting off filibustering motions and bring the bill to a vote.

The new day being Friday, I went into the Speaker's room and met Judge Crisp. He then advised the introduction of a rule to be voted on today (Monday) preventing all filibustering motions and compelling a vote on the bill. He sat down and wrote out the rule himself. I introduced it at his request and suggestion, and had it referred to his committee with the distinct understanding that the rule would be reported today. I never heard anything about his wanting a petition of a majority of the Democrats until this morning, when we ought to have been voting upon the order itself. Then the Speaker said that he would not report the rule unless a majority of the Democrats petitioned for it. He said nothing about a petition on Thursday night before the House adjourned. Had he intimated then that he wanted a petition we would have gone to work and got the members of the party voting for the bill, which was a majority of them, to have signed a petition, no doubt, but no intimation of that sort was given by the Speaker. We considered that the roll call of the House, showing, as it did, a large majority of the Democratic party in favor of the bill, was a sufficient warrant for him to act according to the wishes of the Democratic party shown upon the record! About the time of the meeting of the House this morning I went into his


committee-room and for the first time learned that he had changed his mind.

A telegram appeared in the New York World this morning stating that the correspondent of the World had information from the highest authority that Speaker Crisp would exact a petition before acting upon this rule. That was the first intimation that I had had of anything of that character. The Speaker had given a number of the free coinage members of the Democratic party to understand that he proposed to have a vote either today or tomorrow upon this rule. We had telegraphed for absentees. We had made every exertion to have our men in the House and to have them present. When we found the attitude of the Speaker had changed it created confusion and consternation among the free coinage advocates. They felt they had been deceived and disappointed by the action of the Speaker. He had given them no chance to get a petition.

Of course they regarded it that he had made pledges and promises as indicated in the New York World dispatches to our opponents pledges and promises that he did not advise the friends of free coinage he had made. The consequence is that at a critical moment they saw the Speaker had deserted them, and many members, especially those who were personally the followers of Mr. Crisp, are now refusing to sign any petition. While petitions are being circulated it is very uncertain whether, under the circumstances, a majority can be got for that purpose.

The fact that the Speaker himself has changed his attitude toward the measure and has deceived the friends of the bill by his action has caused a great many free coinage people to weaken in their position, and I see at this time but very little hope of getting a majority of the members on a petition asking that the rule be reported. Of course the Speaker has great weight and power, and since he has shown a disposition to let the bill lie on the table, members who have confidence in him will go with him, and this leaves us with the bill, having not only the anti free coinage men, its opponents, but also the Speaker opposed to it and those who personally follow him.

What may be the outcome of it I cannot say. We can count a sufficient number of members who have been voting against consideration of the bill who state emphatically that they will vote for the bill, if it ever comes up, on its passage to give it from ten to twenty majority.


Speaker Crisp was shown Mr. Bland's statement last evening, and said he was surprised that Mr. Bland should have so far forgotten himself and the true situation as to endeavor to mislead the public by such a statement. In justifying his position Mr. Crisp said that when the rules were being considered he had in caucus pledged to his party that no rule should be reported prohibiting filibustering or cutting off dilatory motions except at the request and desire of a majority of the Democratic members of the House.

A majority of the Democrats requested that a time be fixed for the consideration of the free coinage bill, but making no reference therein to any change of the rule. In response to this request the committee


permitted three days. The Speaker said that, as well as he recollected, Mr. Bland did want to incorporate some limitation of the right of the House to filibuster, or wanted a continuing order, but the committee determined that until the necessity for such a rule was demonstrated they would not report it. The bill was taken up and debated for three days, and finally saved from the table by the casting vote of the Speaker. Mr. Crisp said that this tie vote was a great surprise to all parties, because when the original order was made it was generally understood that the majority in favor of free coinage was thirty to forty. A majority of the Democrats voted against tabling the bill, and thereby demonstrated that they favored its passage.

Speaker Crisp said that he assumed that these gentlemen so voting were in favor of a rule which would bring the House to a direct vote on the bill and prevent filibustering, and so believing, he said to Mr. Bland that he had no doubt the committee would report a rule. He also said to Mr. Bland that in his judgment there had been sufficient filibustering to demonstrate the impossibility of the passage of the bill without a rule to bring the House to a direct vote. The Speaker also drew the resolution introduced by Mr. Bland, still believing that those gentlemen who voted against tabling the bill were in favor of forcing a direct vote upon the measure. But after that time friends of the silver bill, as decided friends as Mr. Bland, said the Speaker, had come to him and said they did not desire their vote against tabling the bill to be construed into a request that a rule prohibiting filibustering should be reported; that while they favored the free coinage of silver and wanted to vote for it, they opposed any rule in a Democratic House which would cut off the right to filibuster. The Speaker said that upon this statement he made some inquiry among other friends of the bill and found quite a number who did not desire the committee to report any rule to bring the House to a direct vote. Whereupon he thought, in pursuance of his statement in the caucus and in pursuance of the idea upon which he has acted, that he was the servant and no the master of the House, that it was his duty to consult the wishes of a majority of his party in the House.

The Speaker then said to Mr. Bland and other friends that he did not feel that, in justice to himself or the party, he could favor a rule or report a rule which would force a vote upon the silver bill, unless a majority of the Democrats in the House expressed a desire that he should do so. To this the Speaker said Mr. Bland replied that he would not get up any petition, seeming to think that whether a majority wanted it or not, the committee on rules should report such a rule.


Mr. Pierce and others, the Speaker said, had expressed approval of the course of the Speaker, and had said they would get up a petition showing the wishes of the Democrats in the premises. The Speaker has not seen Mr. Bland since, and does not know what the status of the petition is, but he thinks if no direct vote is had upon the silver bill it will be because the vote on the motion indicates to the majority of the Democrats that the bill cannot pass, and therefore they will not request the Committee on Rules to bring in a report cutting off filibustering.

Speaker Crisp defined the situation to be simply this: If a majority of the Democrats in the House desire the Committee on Rules to make a report which will enable the House to come to a direct vote on the silver bill, and if they signify that desire," the committee will make a report. If they do not so signify, the committee will understand that the majority do not desire it, and the responsibility will rest with the majority of the Democrats of the House, and not the Committee on Rules.

As to Mr. Bland's references to the Speaker's opposition to silver or his duplicity, the Speaker said he had nothing to say except to recall that by his casting vote he had himself prevented the bill from being tabled, and to state that, as a Representative from Georgia, he favored and will vote for the free coinage of silver. To show that he was in favor of the free coinage of silver, the Speaker recalled the fact that he had appointed a committee which favored this measure, and had appointed Mr. Bland as the head of that committee, notwithstanding Mr. Bland had been a very active opponent of Mr. Crisp in the Speakership contest. Although in favor of free coinage, the Speaker stated that as Speaker of the House he would endeavor to execute the will of the majority of the Democrats therein respecting reports from the Committee on Rules, and no criticism by Mr. Bland, or effort by Mr. Bland to shift the responsibility, would deter him from pursuing this course. -- Washington Post.


In 1860 the cost of running the government was $2.03 per capita. At that time the laws were administered as promptly and carefully as now. The different functions of government were made to serve the people as completely and beneficially as at the present time. Yet, contrary to all rules of business or precedent while the population has only doubled the expense, per capita has quadrupled. With a population of 31,000,000 in 1860, the total expenditures were $63,000,000, or $2.03 per capita; while in 1891, with a population of 63, 000,000, an appropriation aggregating $500,000,000 was deemed


necessary, or a per capita of $7.93. In the everyday transactions of life wholesale rates are less than retail. In everything else save government affairs, expense per capita decrease with increase of numbers, and a large business is usually conducted at a much less expense in proportion than a smaller business. This fact leads up to large business transactions, extensive manufacturers, and a concentration of effort. With the government, however, it is different. The greater number of people, the more per capita is the expense. At this rate, the next doubling of population will bring a per capita tax exceeding $15. Remedy: Put the people's party in power and these figures will be lessened. -- National Watchman.


The books are entitled, "Receiver's Book, Resident Personal Taxes, 1891," and a careful investigation of them shows that the following persons, members of Tammany Hall, one and all, who are reputed to be wealthy, did not pay any personal taxes to the city last year:

Hugh J. Grant Charles A. Stadler
W. Bourke Cockran John McQaude
Richard Croker Charles Welde
Thomas F. Gilroy Andrew J. White
William H. Clark Henry D. Purroy
John J. Scannell A. B. Tappen
Bernard F. Martin Edgar L. Ridgewa
Timothy D. Sullivan Patrick Divvery
Daniel E. Sickles Gunning S. Bedford
Charles F. McLean John J. Gorman
Thomas Shields J. Sergeant Cram
Bernard O'Rourke Edward P. Hagen
John Reilly Thomas S. Brennan
M. J. b. Messemer Simon M. Ehrlich
Ferdinand Levy Vernon M. Davis
John B. Shea Frank J. Fitzgerald
George W. Plunkitt Edward Keeney
William P. Rinckhoff Patrick Keenan
Peter Seery James P. Keating
Daniel F. McMahon James J. Martin
John B. Sexton Rastus S. Ransom
James J. Phelan William J. McKenna
Joel O. Stevens E. P. Parker

President Barker says the taxable property is carried forward from year to year, and ,if this is so these gentlemen did not pay any


personal tax in 1890, or in any previous year, and will not pay any this year. He will not explain how it is that they are left off the tax list, and if they have sworn that they are poor and have no personal property that is worth taxing, he alone knows it and will not tell. It is not charged that anything wrong has been done in the Tax Commissioner's office, but the fact is merely stated that in some way or other these prominent Tammanyites have been declared exempt from taxes.

The only prominent Tammany man who has been assessed anything for personal taxes is De Lancey Nicoll. He is down for $3,000 valuation and $57 tax.

The Deputy Tax Commissioners, whose duty it is to visit all houses and other places in the districts to which they are assigned and make a report of all the property subject to taxation and what the property would sell for are: Frank J. Bell, John J. McDonough, William Kellock, Twiss Bermingham, James C. Strahan, Frederick C. Wagner, James W. Connolly, David Murray, Henry G. Autenrieth, Henry Bracken, James Deignan, Germain Hauschel, Anthony McOwen, Henry A. Perry and John Martine.

McDonough and Bell get $3,000 each and the others $2,700 a year. They began work in September, and if, in their travels over the city, they have not found any personal property belonging to many of these Tammany gentlemen, they have not seen what is apparent to everyone else; or, if they have reported taxable personal property belonging to any of them to the Tax Commissioners, and they have not been taxed because their debts and liabilities exceed their assets, the information is guarded with the greatest care by the Tax Commissioners.

All of these Tammany directors are men with very powerful political "pulls," but it is not even alleged that this "pull" has reached in any way the sacred domain in the Tax Commissioners' office. The tax books will be sent to the Board of Aldermen on the first Monday in July next, and perhaps then the ban of secrecy will be raised, and the taxpayers may get a look at the records that are now so carefully guarded.

The total tax levied upon individuals in this city for the year 1891 $248,039,068, which is divided as follows: Resident personal, $233, 184,137, and nonresident personal, $14,854,931. In addition to this tax there is also a large tax upon corporations. The above mentioned members of Tammany, and many others of the same organization, who are reputed to be wealthy and draw large sums of money from the city for salaries and contracts do not contribute a dollar toward the payment of this enormous personal tax. The burden is borne by citizens who are not professional politicians.



It would be a remarkable fact, indeed, if any of these non personal taxpayers were without any personal property, and good citizens who Pay personal taxes will naturally wonder what they have done with all their money. Some of them have made large sums out of the city and much more in private business ventures.

Mayor Grant was Alderman for two years and was paid $2,000 a year. He was Sheriff for three years while the payment was in fees, and it is said he left the office worth $200,000. He has received a salary of $10,000 as Mayor for three years. The Mayor is a great lover of horse flesh, and is said to own several valuable horses.

Corporation Counsel William H. Clark gets $12,500 a year. He acted as counsel Mayor Grant while the latter was sheriff, and was made referee in many important cases through Mr. Grant's efforts. He made about $25,000 during that period, and he has drawn about $24,000 from the city as salary.

W. Bourke Cockran, the chairman of the Resolution Committee of Tammany, has never been an officeholder in this city. He, as the partner of Corporation Counsel Clark, acted as Mayor Grant's counsel while the latter was sheriff, and the business, it is estimated, was worth $40,000 to him. He has an extensive law practice, worth from $75,000 to 100,00per annum.

Richard Croker is chairman of the Finance Committee of Tammany, and it is said that he receives a salary of $15,000 a year for his services. He has held many offices under the city government. He was an engineer in the Fire Department for three years at a salary of $1,000 per year; was a coroner for six years when it was a fee office, and quit with $100,000. As collector of arrears of personal taxes he probably netted $40,000 while he held the office. His salary as Fire Commissioner amounted to $40,000, and he received $12,000 as City Chamberlain for eight months. He received $10,000 for "Flossie" from Mayor Grant, and although he is not in office, the last reports from him gave no indication that he was in want.


Thomas F. Gilroy is chairman of the Tammany Hall Committee on Organization and runs the Twenty third District machine. He has been an office holder for twenty five years. Prince Harry Genet got him his first political job. He has been District Court Clerk, Supreme Court Clerk, Deputy County Clerk and Under Sheriff. As receiver he would up the affairs of the Mitchell Vance Company and made a lot of money in the business. He gets $8,000 a year as


commissioner of Public Works. Since he began working for the city he has received $120,000 as salary.

John J. Scannel, the Tammany leader of the Eleventh Assembly District, has received only about $1,000 from the city. Mayor Grant refused to appoint him Fire Commissioner on account of the scandal that might follow. He is said to be worth several hundred thousand dollars and owns pictures and statuary valued at $50,000.

Bernard F. Martin leads the Seventh Assembly District Tammany heelers. He has held many public offices and fattened on the city treasury. He has been clerk in the Board of Health and Board of Aldermen, Coroner, Alderman, Order of Arrest Clerk, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works and is now Commissioner of Jurors at $5,000 a year. His salary for the various offices that he has held amounts to about $100,000.

Timothy D. Sullivan is one of Justice Divveys lieutenants and is said to own three saloons. He is an Assemblyman at present.

Tommy Shiels, of boodle Alderman notoriety, is said to be worth about $100,000, and owns two saloons on the East Side.

Bernard O'Rourke is said to be about the richest man in the Eighth Assembly District and owns several houses and liquor stores.

Ex-Register John Reilly is the Tammany leader of the Fourteenth District. His salary for the terms he was a member of the Common Council amounted to $20,000. As Register for three years he picked up about $200,000.

Coroners M. J. B. Messemer and Ferdinand Levy have held office for two terms of three years each as Coroner at $5,000 a year each.

George W. Plunkitt, the leader of the Seventeenth District, has been an Assemblyman, Deputy of Street Cleaning Department, and is now a State Senator. For salaries and contracts the city has paid him over $200,000.

Peter Seery has a saloon uptown, and has been an Inspector of Combustibles for the Fire Department for several years at a salary of $3,000.

Daniel McMahon is the leader of the Nineteenth District. McMahon was a District Court Clerk for several years at a salary of $3,000 per year, and was appointed a police justice a year ago at a salary of $8,000 per year.

John B. Sexton has been Under Sheriff for many years at a salary of $5,000 a year, and is one of the men who brought Mayor Grant from his obscurity.

James J. Phelan is said to be a millionaire. He managed Mayor Grant's two campaigns, and is a contractor and large real estate owner.


Joel O. Stevens has been a deputy sheriff for many years, and is reported to be wealthy.

Ex-Senator Charles A. Stadler is said to be worth several hundred thousand dollars, and represents the brewers' interests in Tammany.

John McQuade, the leader of the Twenty second District, is an ex police justice, and is largely interested in public contracts. The city has paid him about $1,000,000 for his work.

Andrew J. White has been a police justice for many years at a salary of $8,000 a year, and is said to be rich.

A. B. Tappin, one of the old Sachems of Tammany, is not a poor man, if reports about his finances are true.

Charles Welde is a police justice, at $8,000 a year, and when his term expires will have drawn from the city $140,000.

Henry D. Purrolas held several public offices, is now a fire commissioner, and not be paid by the city $60,000 as salary.

E. L. Ridgway is said to be Gov. Hill's "best friend," and is a well-to-do merchant.


Patrick Divver is the leader of the second district, was an Alderman for four years, at $2,000 a year, and was appointed a police justice last spring by Mayor Grant at $8,000 a year. He made a barrel of money in the liquor business.

John J. Gorman served a term as police justice at $8,000 a year. He is now sheriff, at $12,000 a year, and is said to be a millionaire commissioner.

Thomas S. Brennan collected $30,000 from the city as commissioner of chantries and corrections, and now holds the position of commissioner of street cleaning at $6,000 a year.

Simon M. Ehrlich is a city judge at a salary of $10,000 a year.

Frank J. Fitzgerald is the leader of the first district. He was elected to Congress in 1888, but resigned to take the office of register. He has been register for five years at a salary of $12,000.

Patrick Keenan is the Tammany leader of the twelfth district. He served as Alderman, and as county clerk collected $150,000 in fees.

Jas. J. Martin has been an office holder for twenty years and is now police commissioner. He has received $60,000 from the city as salary.

Rastus S. Ransom, the present Surrogate, gets $15,000 a year, and had a valuable legal practice before he was elected to this office.

William J. McKenna, as county clerk, gets $I5,000 a year, and E. P. Barker the president of the tax commissioners, receives $5,000 a year. Mr. Barker is a very warm personal friend of Mayor Grant.