Newspaper Page Text
THE
PEOPLE’S PARTY PAPER.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY ViY THE
PEOPLE’S PAPER PUBLISING COMPANY.
117 1-2 Whitehall St.
TROS. E. WATSON, - - President.
<?• C. POST, - - - Vice-President.
♦» N. SANDERS, - - Sec. & Treas.
.Subscription, One Dollar Per Tear, Six
Months 50 cts., Three Months 25.
In Advance.
A J mortising Rates made known on appli
cation at the business office.
-Mdney may be sent by bank draft, Post
Office Money Order, Postal Note or
•Registered Letter. Orders should be
-made payable to
PEOPLE’S PARTY PAPER.
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1892.
HON. JOHN IL GORDON,
■His published a long letter on the po
*fitlcal situation.
Ho admits that the people have
H»oen shamefully robbed in the name
of the Law but he says the Republi
can party did it all.
He takes no blame, whatever to
Democratic party, and of
all, does he take any blame to him
self ?
With his usual modesty he thumps
Wtiinself upon the chest and says:
“The public records prove, that no
»mar* in this whole union has longer,
or more consistently and persistently
•labored for the reforms and the relief
which the people need and ought to
•secure.”
This is »a proud boast. Happy is
4b e statesman who can truthfully say
•so-much for himself.
Before going into the Record,
b Awever, let us give passing notice
4o these Five Assertions of Senator
•Gordon which he, with accustomed
•bfirnility, labels
“MAXIMS.”
Here they are:
SUM MARY M A XIMS.
t. Reform or relief must come, if
<t Comes at all, through a change of
4hoße governmental policies which
#>ave produced the wrongs from which
we seek relief.
2. A change of policies requires a
change of rulers; and our only way
of changing rulers is through ballot
•boxes, by votes.
3. A change of rulers to be effec
Live involves the necessity of electing
4»y votes a President and both houses
of Congress, who are the avowed
and known opponents of the men
who-have inflicted the wrongs upon
the country,
4. There is no hope of electing
sne-h a President and such a Congress
except by the united votes of all the
friends of reform.
5. If we can ascertain with cer
tainty what party is responsible for
the wrongs of which we complain,
wo-shall have located beyond doubt
di ‘ enemies of reform and of relief.
I o ite the men who perpetrated the
wrongs and you locate, those upon
whom it is your duty to make war.
Perhaps you are a little rusty
oh the rules of building “Maxims,”
.Senator.
They are a ticklish sort of furni
ture unless they are built right.
One of the very first precepts in
regard to constructing maximsis that
you should not build them “bottom
u |»wards.” No well regulated family
can utilize a “Maxim” unless it con
forms to that homely but sensible re
quirement, “Right end up, with care. 11
You say that a change of policies
requires a change of Rulers. In other
words you mean that no change of
governmental policy can be. had until
Riders have been changed.
This rs just exactly the. reverse of
true.
No Ruler ever changed a policy
unless the election of such Ruler was
due to the fact that he represented
the changed policy demanded by the
people. Deny it if you can. Popu
lar pressure changes policies. Rulers
are always in favor of letting things
be They never originated Re
forms.
Thomas Jefferson profoundly dis
trusted Hamilton and his school of
.cl ass-favoring aristocrats.
What did he do?
He formulated a policy in opposi
tion and appealed to the people to
sustain him in that policy.
At. first he failed. The Hamilton
crowd put forth Adams and beat Jef
ferson.
But Jefferson kept pressing his
doctrines upon the people. It is
somewhat curious to note that Jeffer
son himself says that the Hamilton
aristocrats denounced him as a “Dein-
__
agogue, an athjfrt and an anarchist.”
Why ?
Because he hated National Banks.
Because he hated Class Privileges.
Because he hated a Standing Army.
Because he hated the Tariff. Because
he was opposed, to a binding of fu
ture generations by Government
Bonds and Funding Systems which,
in effect, mortgaged all the National
wealth to the few for generations to
come.
jSffekson a new party man.
Jeffersqn did not hide these views
till he should get in office. lie had
no faith in the Rulers doing anything
unless the people compelled them for
ward. He could not anticipate what
your views upon the “Maxim” ques
tion would be.
Therefore he went upon the com
mon sense idea that the people were
the sovereigns. His plan was to get
the people right first—he knew that
the Rulers would then fall into line.
In other words he started to building
his house at the basement and not at
the top. The poor old common sense
demagogue had not dreamed of your
np.w way of building the top of the
huu<e first.
He announced his policy; educated
the people up to it; sustained a de
feat rather than hide or wait, and
then (the people having become wed
ed to his policy) the Rulers were
elected pledged to carry out these
policies. That, is our plan exactly.
I quote this historical instance to
show how ignorant Jefferson was of
modern, Tammany Hall Democratic'
methods.
GORDON HARD ON JEFFERSON.
If this instance does not complete
ly show that, as a “Maxim” maker
you are rather out of practice, it does
show that Jefferson was as much of a
fraud as the. Aristocrats thought he
was.
indicting the criminals.
In your sth “Maxim” you say;
“Locate the men who perpetrated
the wrongs and you locate those upon
whom it is your duty to make war.
All right, Senator. Let’s get down
to business and locate these men—
then you must help us to knock ’em
blind.'
national banks.
You first mention National Banks
and your w ords of condemnation are
strong.
This is encouraging. The copy of
your letter which I am thus good hu
nioredly ripping up was printed in
that well known Journal, the Augus
ta Chronicle. Last year I spoke near
Augusta; denounced the system of
National Banks; and upon the next
day the Chronicle was pretty full of
denunciations hurled at me because I
was “demagogue” enough to criticise
National Banks.
Some change seems to have come
over the dreams of various people
and the indications arc that even the
Augusta Chronkde is about to get
sleep driven away from its heavy eye
lids.
But to the Record! The National
Bank System was created by law in
1862. Charters granted under it
were to run for 20 years. But the
Government expressly reserved the
right to amend or repeal the law.
.Both Democrats and Republicans
united in passing the act.
You became a member of the Sen
ate in 1873.
You remained in the Senate till
vou made that resignation in 1880.
What effort did you make to re
peal this law which you so strongly
denounce?
What effort did your party make
in that direction?
It was within your power to have
made a gallant assault upon the Law
and to have •l your Democratic
friends to a yea and nay vote which
would have shown the world whose
champion you were.
Did you do so ?
If not, why not? ' '■ *'
RECH ARTE RING.
In 1882 the Banks were recharter
ed, Democratic Senators like Ran
som, Call, Hampton, Jonas, Morgan
of Alabama, and Gorman of Mary
land, voted for it— in the Senate.
In the House, such a Third Party
hater as Oates of Alabama, voted
with the Banks. This act of 1882
expressly provided that Congress
might at any time repeal the charter.
Since 1882 if any attempt has been
made by Demscrats to repeal the
Law I can not find it. At the open
ing of this session I introduced a Bill
for the purpose. A Democratic com
mittee on Banking refuses to report it.
In the light of this proof do you
still have the partisan blindness to
claim that Democrats are not partly
to blame for this National Banking
System which has plundered our peo
ple to the tune of $20,000,00 annually
for twenty years ?
Woe unto the man who challenges
a Record without knowing what is in
it!
SILVER.
Your next Indictment of the Re
publican party is for the Demonitiza
tion of Silver. That party is guilty
and swift should be its political dam
nation for that crime.
But the Democrats were, as usual,
accomplices. In each and every in
stance the Record discloses the start
ling fact that the Money Power was
manipulating both old parties.
Silver was demonetized by two
acts of Congress—one passed in 1873
and flie other in 1874. •
I challenge you to show to the peo
ple of Georgia that the Democrats
made any fight against either Law.
I challenge you to show that any
Democratic leader denounced . the
outrage, at the time and led his party
into a struggle against it.
You took your seat in the Senate
Dec. 1873. You were there when
the Law of 1874 riveted the chains
of John Sherman and. the money
kings upon our people.
Why was your eloquent voice si
lent ?
Why was there no rallying note
sounded upon “Rhoderick’s bugle
horn ?”
It is a fair question, upon a subject
of high national import.
Answer me, Senator! So far as
the Record shows, both Democrats
and Republicans harmonized in strik
ing down Free Silver.
SQUANDERING THE SURPLUS.
You next speak of “the monstrous
imposition upon the toilers” resulting
from squandering the surplus.
What was the surplus ?
It was cruel, excessive taxation
which brought into the Treasury
more money tha» the govertii L'it
needed.
i ‘
Who did the Surplus belong to?
Ail the Tax-Payers. All the Peo
ple.
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, mechan
ics, etc., who had paid that ‘money
into the Treasury.
Not a cent ?
This Democratic policy was car
ried out under Cleveland. Mr. Mills,
of Texas, led the Democratic forces
in the House.
That Surplus could have been di
vided among the States; could have
been devoted to the schools; could
have been distributed among the peo
ple 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, unconstitu
tional 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 prem
iums 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 undemo
cratic.
To do this was not class legisla
tion ; was not giving special privi
lege ; was not giving bounties on
wealth at the expense of Labor.
Oh no! it was “broad-minded
statesmanship” of the Tammany Hall,
silver-plated, silk undershirt sort.
Gifts of countless millions to the
Plutocrats! Gifts of abuse and ridi
cule to the Laborers !
Yes Democrats did it and the Rec
ord is there to condemn them in the
eyes of posterity forever.
Elsewhere in this paper will be
found the yea and nay vote by which
it was done.
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 inter
ests 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 i»to the Treasu
ry 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 ! \
income tax.
But let us proceed with the “locat
ing.” You alluded to the Income
Tax and you ask who repealed it!
Senator, you never asked a more
unfortunate question.
You certainly were going it blind
when you fell into such a pit.
On Jan. 26, 1871, that law was re
pealed. It was a shame to do so. The
vote in the Senate was very close—
-26 to 25. One vote would have sav
ed the people from the outrage of ex
empting the Plutocrats from Taxa
tion.
How many Democrats voted with
the millionaires to relieve them from
Taxation ?
Seven. Among them, was Bayard
—Cleveland’s Secretary of State.
One Democratic vote would have
saved the day and here were Seven
Democratic Senators fighting on the
wrong side!
But the worst yet remains.
25 votes were cast against the mil
lionaires.
How many of these were Demo
cratic !
Only two!
The balance were Republicans.
Only nine Democrats voted and out
of the nine only two stood by the
rigfits of the people.
Oh, Senator, Records are awkward
things. In this case the proof knocks
your letter into a cocked hat.
When the law repealing the In
come Tax reached the House it pass
ed without a yea and nay vote. There
were not enough Democrats opposed
to it to demand the yeas and nays.
How does the “locating” suit you,
Senator?
Does it not show that both old par
ties have a Record which must bring
the Hush of shame to the student who
examines it?
Do you wonder that we who are
discovering these things for the first
time should be utterly disgusted with
the baseness shown in the old party
records and should exclaim :
“A plague on both your houses!”
■A' TARIFF
Your allusion to the thieving Tar
iff passes for nothing when we re
member that no Democratic platform
goes further than to demand “Re
form.” The Democrats had full
swing in the House under Cleveland.
They formulated their ideal Tariff
Reform measure—the Mills bill. It
would have benefited the people
greatly but ’it left a huge system of
taxing all for the benefit of the few
and the average of the duty was
about 42 per cent.
This Congress is overwhelmingly
Democratic, yet the committee on
ways and means refuses to report a
bill to repeal the McKinley law which
all Democratic speakers and writers
have for two years denounced as a
summming up of the Republican vil
lany. ~
WHY WONT THEY DO IT?
Because such a bill would split the
Democratic party into warring fac
tions—one for Free Trade and the
other for High Tariffs. \
In spite of this cowardice your pa
pers have the cheek to say the Peo
plejs Party dodges the Tariff.
We “dodged’'' it by saying Reve
nues should be raised by Income
Taxes—thus abolishing the Custom
Taxes altogether.
Further on in your letter the fol
lowing occurs :
SQUANDERING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
. WHO DID IT?
A sixth cause of discontent is the
stupendous national land grants and
the subsidies which have enriched gi
gantic corporations and encouraged
extravagance and corruption in high
places in Washington. The sole re
sponsibility for this policy also is upon
a Republican House, Senate and Pres
ident.”
1 hope, every reader of this paper
will read these words carefully.
Then let him wonder how Senator
Gordon could have charged the Re
publicans with the sole responsibility
for a Bounty System which the great
Democrat, Stephen A. Douglass, in
augurated before the war.
From that day to this both old par
ties have lavishly granted public lands
and subsides to these “gigantic cor
porations” and no man knows it bet
ter than John B. Gordon.
When Senator Gordon so strongly
condeins this favoriteism to “gigantic
corporations” which has. encouraged
“corruption in high places at Wash
ington,” we would naturally suppose
that he had long entertained those
views and had practiced what he so
eloquently preaches. . ———
Let us turn to the Record. Sena
tor Gordon took his seat in the Sen
ate Dec. 2, 1873. The very first bill
he introduced on that very first day
was one to.obtain a Bounty for a “gi
gantic corporation.”
His bill sought to have the Gov
ernment endorse for the Interest on
the Bonds of the Great Western Canal
Co. for 40 years at the modest sum of
SBO,OOO pei* mile.
By a subsequent bill for the same
company he sought to have the Gov
ernment give this “gigantic corpora
tion” $7,000,000 to improve the riv
ess as they went along and to issue
Currency (like the National Bank
notes to the company on the deposit
of its Bonds) at the rate of SBO,OOO
per mile.
Good Lord! That was John B.
Gordon’s first bill in the United States
Senate ! ••— _
We did not go out of the way to
hunt up these things.
Senator Gordon invited the people
to “locate” the men who had been
doing all this devilment and in my
humble way I am doing my best to
accommodate him.
Let us proceed.
The darkest page in the Record re
lates to the land grants and subsidies
to the Pacific railroads.
The Government gave those roads
one hundred and thirty million acres
which belonged to all the people.
It also endorsed the Bonds of the
first Pacific railways $60,000,000, and
guaranteed the interest.
This was in 1862. The Govern
ment had to pay the interest from
the start.
Nearly twenty years passed away;
the sums the government paid grew
enormous, and the roads were not
paying back the money or making
any effort to do so.
The Government was squandering
the people’s taxes every year to meet
the interest pn those bonds.
The Capitalists interested in build
ing the roads had become million
aires. One of them (Stanford) is in
the United States Senate now.
Jay Gould got control of the ma
jority of the stock and coined his mil
lions, hand over list.
Senator Thurman of Ohio thought
it was high time the roads were being
brought to a settlement. He intro
duced a bill to compel the companies
to pay 5 per cent of their net earn
ings every year till the debt was paid.
This looks moderate. It was far bet
ter treatment than the people were
getting from their creditors. Surely
a man whose heart was aflame with
zeal to stop the reign of special privi
lege had a good opportunity here to
show some of it.
Tell us, Senator Gordon, now did
YOU VOTE ?
You voted every time with Gould’s
attorneys, Blaine and Stanley Math
ews ! YOU VOTED EVERY TIME FOR
THE RAILROADS AND AGAINST THE
TAX-PAYERS !
Explain it if you can. Here
was the best chance you ever had to
show that you were at heart the friend
of the people ; to show that you were
opposed to the policy “which had en
riched gigantic corporations; ” to
show that you did not favor the poli
cy which “encouraged extravagance
and corruption in high places at
Washington.”
How did you improve the chance ?
You give the people Taffy—unlim-*
ited gush and Taffy. To the “gigan
tic corporations” you gave —your
vote !
Inthat Congress (1878) Democrats
had a majority in both Houses.
With the balance pf your letter,
there is no need to bother. The
Force Bill was killed by the Western
Republican Senators who dared not
disobey the Alliance Resolutions of
Ocala.
When a South hater like Ingalls
was pitched out of the United States
Senate, every child knew that the-
West was giving the noblest proof
that she pleaded for friendship with
the South.
Nothing but the unprincipled false
hoods of paid politicians and bribed
newspapers (both North and South)
can ever again keep the Western
and Southern farmers and laborers
from seeing that their interests are
the same.
Now a word to you, Senator!
You served your country nobly in
war; nobly have you been rewarded
for it. Time after time you have
been elevated to the highest offices
where your devotion to the people
had the loftiest scope.
What have you ever done for the
battered and broken soldiers who
have so spendidly kept you in clover
since the war.
Thousands of privates in the ranks
did their duty just as nobly as you
did. To-day they are crushed by in
famous laws which we now know the
Democratic party helped* to pass.
We now know that the controlling
influences of the Democratic party
have for the mass of our working
people nothing but scorn and con
tempt ; nothing lint the desire to use
their votes while they fatten on their
toil.
Yon challenged us to go to the Rec
ords !
I took up the gauntlet and I went
to the Record.
You asserted that the Democrats
were not responsible for the legisla
tion which you, yourself, denounced
as infamous.
I have shown* that your statement
is not the correct one.
I have shown that in each instance
the law you denounced could not
have passed without Democratic aid.
Further than that I have shown
that the Democrats have had all the
“chance” they should ask; that they
have never so much as tried to re
lieve the people; that you, yourself,
are guilty of having neglected the
suffering people who had honored
you, and that you, yourself, cast one
of tlie worst votes that ever was cast
for the millionaire corporations
against the people.
Now in spite of this, you ask us to
sit down tamely and give you more
time.
Not so, by the Splendor of God!
You have had your time. The
people have been mocked, deluded,
defrauded,plundered, and outraged by
old party schemes and tricks'as long
as they intend to be!
We are going as Jefferson did to
•the source of Democratic power—the
people!
We are going to recognize them to
fight the Hamilton class-rule'(which
has taken charge of both the old par
ties) just as Jefferson did—just as
Jackson did.
We are as true to our color and
our country as ever you were, but we
do not intend that our children-shall be
the ragged serfs of corporations, mil
lionaires, and a heartless aristocracy
of money kings just because of Force
Bills threats.- *
No man ever begged for negro
votes as you did during the Colquitt,
campaign of 1880.
L was all right then—they were
vot ng your way.
It is all wrong now—they are vot
ing our way.
[continued on sth page.J