Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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