Newspaper Page Text
their audience that
these questions, but there
be one-fourth that do not.
' They may be tied town in the field,
the marble quarry, at the loom or at
the factory. The man best serves
his people who starts at the bottom
and brings his audience along with
him. Why? The speed of society
is the speed of the average member,
just as the speed of a fleet is the
speed of the slowest vessel. It takes
the entire force of society to make
laws. It takes the entire force to
make policies, and it is the interest
of every man to ‘quicken the speed
of the slowest ship in the fleet that
the entire force of that entire fleet
may be utilized.
Now as I have said money is
made by man to take the place of
barter and exchanges. Before
money was made, you cairied your
cotton to the store and swapped it
off for goods, but as the world be
came larger, business diversified, and
the necessities of man increased, men
agreed that we should have repre
sentative for money—a representa
tive of value for that horse, for that
cotton; and that representative
should be such as can be carried in
the pocket, shall circulate instead of
of the mule, the horse, or the cotton.
You made the money to take the
place of the commodity in order that
you could trade with your neighbor
on easier terms.
How much money ought there to
be? Enough to make these ex
changes without trouble and without
loss, and the moment you have to
pay premium]! for the use of common
money, then society has not enough
money, and the money becomes an
instrument of oppression. Do not
misunderstand me. I have a right
to borrow your horse and pay you
for its use. That horse is your
stored up labor. I have a right to
hire your land and pay you rent.
That also represents so much of your
stored up labor. 1 have a right to
go and borrow your money and you
have a right to charge me for the
use of it, because money represents
your stored up labor, just as the
horse or the land represents your
stored up labor. In any of these
cases it is your stored up value.
That is legitimate, right and fair.
That hurts nobody. But the moment
you pay a royalty for the use of
money which is to effect your ex
changes, then at that hour the tyran
ny commences, and the finances of
the country come to the point where
the man that has the money has the
advantage over those who have the
produce with which to pay for that
money. Let us illustrate.
After the war we had eighteen
hundred millions of paper money.
That is denied by the Democrats.
I stand ready to prove it. These
eighteen hundred millions were out in
circulation amongjhe people affecting
exchanges of cotton, mules, horses,
store clothing, store supplies, work
ing mines, -running factories, etc.,
etc. What occurred? Why, they
went to work and destroyed most of
that money. Some Democrats deny
this. The Democrats who admit it,
lay it on the Republicans, but lam
going to show you that where one
has a soiled spot on his finger, the
other has a spot to match it. I am
going to show you that the people
suffered from the legislation of
the Democrats and Republicans
alike.
Now let us take a glance at the
way it happened. You know that a
few years ago the bale of cotton was
worth fifty dollars. To-day it is
worth twenty-five. Did you have
to work just as hard to make it?
After you did make it, what? The
debt you contracted then, and which
one bale of cotton would pay, now
takes two. Suppose that I show
you that this does not result from
any natural cause, but was de
liberately planned that you should
be robbed and your labor be swept
into the coffers of men, who reaped
where they have not sowed and be
came your masters? Will you sup
port men who deliberately do that?
Cries of No no, no!
Mr. Watson. In 1886 what was
the circulation? National bank
notes, $280,000,000, in round num
bers. State bank notes, $9,000,000.
Legal tender and other notes, $908,-
000,000. 7.30’5, $830,000,000. Un
der the sanction of law this money
■was burned until about $1,300,000,-
000 of it was gone.
How does that strike you for rob
bery that should make Alexander
blush at his own puny spoliations; the
most stupendous robbery under
forms of law since the morning stars
sang together.
I am going to show you by solid
proofs that these are truths. I read
from the official report of George S.
Boutwell. Have you not heard that
it is untrue about the money being
burned up? They belong 'to the
same class as those who say that they
know the earth never did turn round,
because they laid a little knot on the
top of a stump over night and it was
right there the next morning. (Laugh
ter.) It would take a sledge ham
mer to drive a nail of truth into
their skulls. (Renewed laughter.)
They are hide bound, and you cannot
loosen them up with a curry comb
. brush. 1 am addressing myself to
fair minded men who are anxious to
know the truth. I would not get up
here and abuse a man who is absent.
I would scorn to do it. I think the
times are two critical to waste breath
in mere abuse. I think that the
country is in one of the greatest
crises of its history, and within the
next ten years we will decide whether
we will have [a democratic govern
ment based on Jefferson’s ideas or an
aristocracy based on the power of
the dollar over the man.
PEOPLE’S IWW PAPER. ATLANTA, GEORGIA, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1892
Voices. That is right, as sure as
you are there.
Now, here is the report of George
S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treas
ury. This destruction of your money
was begun in 1867. Official report
to Congress, December, 1862, by the
Secretary of the Treasury shows that
the money taken in at the Treasury
and destroyed and bonds issued in
place of them exceeded thirteen hun
dred millions of dollars. Now what
do you think of these figures from
the Secretary of the Treasury. [Ap
plause and signs of dissent from two
of three.] Now, if there is anything
that makes a Democrat run it is a
little truth, and the more truth you
give them the harder they run.
A voice. Hit ’em again, Tom.
(Laughter.)
Now, mark you, in 1867, I have
shown you that there -were eighteen
hundred millions in circulation.
When you made your debt the mar
ket gave you the idea that you could
pay that debt with so many bales of
cotton, or so many bushels of wheat,
or so much labor. Possibly you
mortgaged your home with the ex
pectation of paying that debt with
so much produce or so much labor.
The prices were fixed with reference
to the money in circulation. You
would bave been all right if they had
left the money as it was. Why?
Because you would have swapped
the mules, the cotton or the labor for
the money, would you not? That is
clear enough even for a Democrat to
see, is it not? Suppose that you
burned up all but $400,000,000 of
that $1,800,000,000, then the people
at large would have to swap the cot
ton, the corn, the wheat, and the
horses and the mules for that. $400,-
000,000 instead of the $1,800,0'00,000.
Don’t you see that you have so much
less chance to get your share when so
much is burned up;? Don’t you see
that the men who had that left had
that much more power over your
labor and your products than before?
Don’t you see that it is harder to get
money to raise the mortgage on what
was left than if the whole amount
had remained in circulation. Then
that was a crime to the extent of sl,-
300,000,000 according to
Boutwell’s report. In whose interest?
In the interest of the bondholders.
They issued bonds in place of it, and
said to the man who had the wealth,
“we will give you in exchange a
thousand dollar bond, and that bond
shall pay no tax, and that bond shall
receive six per cent interest. The
people shall pay interest at the same
time that you are not paying taxes.”
Do you see the scheme to mortgage
the fruits of your labor in behalf of
the man who had the gold? Av ho
was responsible for it!
A voice. How was that money
destroyed ?
Mr. Watson. By act of Congress.
Now, my friend asks about the
proof.
The same voice. No; I only asked
for the vote.
Voices. Go on with your speech,
Mr. Wui son.
Mr. Watson. That is a proper
question. It would be improper for
to make a charge without sustaining
it by proof. When was that thing
begun ? Away back yonder in the
sixties. Secretary McCullough in
his annual report says—this was De
cember 4th, 1865—that the green
backs should be retired. Now, lam
going to show you that Mr. Cleveland
said the same thing. That their de
struction should be commenced with
out delay, and that the gold standard
should be adopted.
To return to the first step in the
work of destruction of the green
backs. On the 6th day of December,
1865, the following resolution was
offered in the house:
Resolved, That the House cordially
concur in the views of the Secretary of
the Treasury in relation to the necessity
of a contraction of the currency.
How many men voted for that res
olution ? 144. How many men
against it? Only six. Now, if you
say that every one of these six was a
Democrat, you are in a hole. As a
matter of fact all these were not
Democrats. And such distinguished
Democrats as Samuel J. Randall and
Dan Voorhees voted for it.
Now I come to where they carried
that out. I tell you that when these
financial fellows, the Wall Streeters,
these bankers band together and pro
pose to do a thing, they generally go
forward and do it. They propose
now to start a great combination in
the State of Geargia in which every
bank in the State of Georgia shall
be a partner, and it shall be hedged by
many other trusts, controlling the put
ting out of money, and the drawing in
of values. If you are wise you will keep
your eyes on them. I put you on
notice of it to-day. Notice in your
papers and you will notice that your
Georgia bankers are forming a trust
to control this State currency, just
as W all street is controlling the na
tional currency.
Well, the act of 1866, which des
troyed your circulating medium,
passed the House by a vote of 83
yeas to 53 nays. In the Senate the
bills passed by 32 yeas to 7 nays.
Now in the Senate and in the House
how many Democrats voted against
the crime? One single Democrat,
named Hubbel.
A voice. Hurrah for Hubbel.
Mr. Watson. Yes, hurrah for
Hubbel. “May his tribe increase”
until the whole land shall be filled
with righteousness. In the House
there was a body of splendidly
equipped Democrats charged with
the guardianship of yourj| rights. In
the Senate there was.a similar body,
charged with the guardianship of
rights, and -when this question of
burning up a thousand or fifteen
.hundred millions of your money
came up there was only one man
who said it ought not tb be done.
The Democrats ought to preserve
Hubbel’in amber. Gentlemen, you
are the jury.
A voice. Was that the vote of
1873?
Mr. Watson. No; 1866. The
truth of the matter is the Demo
crats have tried to cover up these
votes. ’They are not Willing to go
back to .the original votes which are
the cauSe of trouble. They try to
blind by referring to liter votes, but
the fact is that there was only one
Democrat who voted against the
policy of contraction.
Now I come to where Cleveland
had recommended the same policy.
Mr. Cleveland, by the report of his
comptroller of the currency in 1886,
said what? Why he said that all the
balance of the greenbacks that have
not been retired ought to be destroy
ed, and that this cheap money of the
people should not be kept out among
the people, and in’ place of it, we
should have, what? National bank
money 'that the people have to pay
from eight to twenty per cent to get
use of.
A voice. You . are skipping; I
asked for the vote 6f 1873.
Mr. Watson. Under this act of
1876—here is the report of
Voice. (All these questions were
from an old gentleman with an ear
trumpet.') I want the vote of 1873
in the House and Senate, about
burning up the money.
Mr. Watson. It all originated in
the act of 1866, and I am giving it
to you consecutively.
Same voice. No, you are dodg
ing because I asked you for the vote
of 187*3. I passed Through battles
of this* kind before, in the Know No
thing contest, and this is a contest
like it. • ~
Mr. Watson. It seems to me
that Mr. Maddox, who is a young
man like myself, should come and
discuss these matters. I do not want
"to be disrespectful to this old gen
tleman, but 1 think it is but fair to
say that I see no similarity between
this and the Know 'Nothing contest.
The Know Nothings were pledged
against a certain religious sect. One
of its fundamental ideas was
“America for Americans.” It was on
that scheme that Stephens led the
fight against it. * I see no compari
son between this struggle of the
people, out in the open air, asking
only for all to have equal rights. We
propose to give equal rights to all
alike, white and black, rich and poor,
and special privileges to none, and I
do not propose to be side tracked.
Now this burning up of the cur
rency started*in 1866, consequent
upon the resolution of 1865. My
friend seems to have lost sight of the
fact that in 1868 the burning was
stopped by act of Congress. Here
is the act of 1868, declaring that the
authority "of The secretary of the
treasury to reduce the currency by
cancelling shall be and is hereby
suspended. Therefore, what I am
talking aLffit was the crime of 1865,
followed up the act of 1866, and
the point I make is that DennMßfe
want to get away from it, wmflßM
reality there was only one DejO
who had the courage
it. 1’ ~
A voice. Was the South rep
resented in Congress at that date?
Another vdice. Yes; by carpet
baggers. k
Mr. Watson. Suppose that the
South was not represented at all,
does that help' the Democratic party
North'and fcaA? We are making
the fight on th'e national banks, and
not on the Democratic party of the
the South. In that fight the masses
want to come our way. Why? Be
cause the Northern and Eastern
Democrats vote them and control
them in caucus.
A voice. That is just what they
ought tb do.
Mr. Watson. Now, that march of
contraction, destroying your money
for which you try to exchange your
products, bad the effect of lessening
the price of your produce. Don’t
you see how it takes two bales of
cotton to pay the bill that one would
have done before.
Congress passed the national bank
act in 1863? The Republicans
passed ’ the ’act and the Democrats
voted, mailfly,‘against it; just as the
Republicans passed the greenback
act and the Democrats voted against
it. In that national bank act, Con
gress reserved the right to repeal it
at any time. ’ Any party has a right
to introduce £ bill to repeal it at any
time, desitoyipg the system. If the
Democrats are so anxious to show
their obposflidh to national banks
why did 1 they ’ hot introduce such a
plank ifi their ? I defy any
Democrat *whow me where any
DeraocHttidßplatform has since the
creation of Actional banks said one
word agiinst the system which Jack
son fought and Jefferson denounced.
By the terms of the act of 1882 Con
gress also Reserved the same power
to repeal the law. Some of our
most distinguished Senators voted
for it, though they did not in a body.
Ransom, of N orth Carolina, and Sen
ator Hampton, of South Carolina,
voted for it.
Whe£ that act of 1882 was on its
passage; Call, of Florida, a green
backer, offered an amendment which
would have prevented a contraction
of the currency by reason of the re
tirement of the national bank notes,
and the Democrats helped the Re
publicans to kill it. What Demo
cratic plhtform has ever attacked it
since ? What Democrat has ever
tried to get his party committed to
the policy of destroying the national
banks? Not only that, I can show
my venerable friend that as late as
1884 Congress passed a law increas-
ing the power and privileges of the
national banks, and that the two
Senators from Georgia, Messrs. Col
quitt and Brown, voted against the
people and for the banks. (Great
applause.)
A voice. Why did not you make
these charges two years ago ?
Mr. Watson. I did ; and I have
the speeches here in my satchel to
show it.
It is well known in my district
that although I ran as a Democratic
elector, in every speech I made I de
nounced the national bank system.
I denounced the bond purchase. I
denounced the Democratic financial
policy as wrong, and said that unless
the Democratic party liberalized its
policy there would be trouble. You
all know that the Democratic papers
jumped on me on that account last
year. Lots of these things we only
find out by an examination of the
record. I tell you that I had no
conception the Democratic record
was so bad on these issues until I
went to Congress and examined the
record. It is better to find out the
truth and try to correct it than to go
forward and be deceived. Truth
hurts nobody but the wrong doers.
Now, the Democrats have a chosen
spokesman for this District. He was
invited to here to meet these attacks.
I have not slipped up on anybody.
Why did not their man come to meet
me on fair terms of debate ?
A voice. They are afraid to. Tell
about Cleveland; that is what they
want to dodge.
Mr. Watson. On page 543, there
was a bill introduced to give the
national bankers ten per cent more
national bank notes upon the depos
its of their bonds. You know that
they now get 90 cents on their bonds,
and the Democrats thought that they
ought to get a softer snap. Who
were some of the Demcrats that voted
for that bill, introduced and passed in
the Senate, 1884. Here are some of
the names. Bayard, who was instru
mental in the crime of 1873, Beck of
Ky., Brown, your uncle Joe Brown ;
(Laughter.) Colquitt; (Renewed
laughter) Butler, Call, Camden,
Hampton, Harris. These are some
of the names. In the House it was
not considered. There were yeas 43,
and 19 of these were Democrats. I
simply state that to show you how
the Democrats tried to help the nat
ional bankers.
What is the national bank system ?
I have shown you that the Republic
cans established it, and the Democrats
did not fight it. I have shown you
that they attempted to increase the
pow’ers of the national banks.
In 1886, Congress passed a law of
this sort.
“Resolved that any national bank
may, by furnishing proof to the
Comptroller of the Treasury, increase
its stock to any sum approved of by
said Treasurer,) notwithstanding the
limit fixed upon in the original art
icles of incorporation.”
Mark you, the bank might have
a charter which only allowed it to
issue $50,000, but by this act the
)ank couh
(free to in That was
largely, and
among the Democrats who voted for
it were Allen D. Candler and Chas.
F. Crisp. How is that for high ?
(Laughter and applause.)
What did Thomas Jefferson say
about the National banking system?
He saidthat the national banks were
a dangerous institution to the coun
try. That the concentration of
wealth had a corrupting influence in
politics. That it was at war with
the best spirit of Republican institu
tions. Andrew Jackson said the
same thing. The Democratic plat
forms, up to 1860, always denounced
them.
What is the national bank system ?
The government established a ware
house and said to one class of citi
zens : “If you will bring your bonds
and deposit them in this warehouse,
I will pay you interest on those bonds
in advance, and issue you money on
these bonds.” In the last Congress
I introduced a bill to stop paying the
interest in advance, and they would
not even let it be reported. Don’t
they want a chance ? (Laughter and
applause.)
* Not only that, the government says
I will take your property and pay
you your interest in gold, and issue
you ninety dollors on every one hun
dred dollars you deposit, and you can
lend it out and you only have to not
make any more interest than the laws
of the State call for. In the State of
Georgia the legal interest is 8 per
cent. Now, whose money do they
aet? Yours and mine as much as
theirs. Why should they not have
issued that money so that it would
come to the people direct, and let
them have the benefit? Why not
let the man with cotton have some
of this money as well as the man with
the bonds ? Why let the bondholder
have it at one per cent and give him
the privilege of charging you 8 per
cent ?
Not only that; the government
said: “ I will let you have sixty mil
lion dollars out of the taxes of the
people, and you can take that money
for nothing, and lend it to the people
and make them pay you as much as
you can get.” Ain’t that sweet ?
(Laughter.) I know it has been
denied.
A voice. Hurrah for Black.
Mr. Watson. You say hurrah for
Black. Mr. Black was talking about
the subtreasury the other day at
Thomson, and he said he doubted
whether the government could float
its own indebtedness at 2|per cent.
Yet the government has actually
floated bonds at 2 per cent, and he
did not know it. The 4| per cent
bonds -were continued at 2 per cent.
(Renewed laughter.)
Now, here is the report of the Sec
retary of the Treasury, and I want
you Democrats to hear it:
The amount of public moneys deposit
ed with national banks on the first day
of January, 1865, was about $20,000,000.
During the year 1887, the deposit in
creased until in October it was $31,-
000.000, and in December it had swollen
t0|552,000,000. The highest point was
reached in April. 1888, when the amount
deposited was $61,921,293, since which
time it.has decreased until on the 31st of
October, 1889, it was $47,000,000.
Now, that is not what I say, but
what the Secretary of the Treasury
says. He further condemns the
“favoritism which grants to certain
individuals such enormous sums of
money while it is paying 4 and 44
per cent on its own bonds. Is it not
manifestly unfair to give the banks
the use of such money?” Whose
money ? The people’s money. The
banks have the privilege of charging
you 6 to 8 per cent on your own
money. (Cheering.)
The national bankers not only get
interest on their bonds in gold, but
they have the use of sixty millions of
your money which they can lend to
you again and exact interest to the
extent of 6 to 8 per cent. I have
heard it denied that the bankers get
that money at 1 per cent. I have
the law in may hand and dare any
Democrat to deny it.
By the report of Cleveland’s Sec
retary the 1 per cent which they
paid for the use of the money from
1863 to 1886 amounted to $67,000,-
000. How much circulation did it
take to yield $67,000,000 ? Six bil
lion seven hundred million dollars.
Therefore they got $6,700,000,000 at
1 per cent and loaned to you, or to
others more favored, at 8 per cent.
How much did that amount to ?
Five hundred and thirty-six million
dollars. Now, take the $67,000,000
from the $536,000,000 and you have
got 8469,000,000 as clear profits that
the bankers made off the people. Is
it not a shame ?
A Voice. Scandalous. (Applause.)
Do you wonder that you have
grown poor when over a thousand
million of your money is stricken
down at one stroke and four hundred
and fifty millions given away to na
tional bankers to be compounded
every few months and loaned again
to the people ? And when I show
you that Democrats and Republicans
are alike responsible the question for
you to decide is whether you will
continue in power men who have
been so false to your interests.
A voice. They must go. (Ap
plause.)
Mr. Watson. When the People’s
party comes and says, “We will
strike down this national bank rob
bery ; we will give free silver at the
ratio of sixteen to one ; we will give
more currency to the people,” how
can you hesitate to align yourselves
beneath the flag of tne People’s party
and march to victory? (Great ap
plause.) They say that pur plans
are wild, are visionary andycan never
be accomplished, jpfrYheaj theysay
that res Wh re cri<T
jjSHHfijfijjf®MC&Teft'ereonian De
have shown you that
Jefferson denounced national banks.
1 have shown you that he was in fa
vor of the free coinage of silver. I
have shown you that he denounced
State banfag 'as a Scheme of shavers
to swindle the people. I have there
fore shown you that Jeffersonian
Democracy cannot be found in their
platform but can be found in ours—
and in ours alone.
Now, let us discuss the real reason
that you can never expect relief
from the Democratic party. They
tell you that you can never have a
2 per cent loan on your cotton, your
wheat or your land. Why ? The
national bankers get money at 1 per
cent. The Democrats never said
that was wrong. They have re
peatedly, in the meantime, put up
national bankers for the highest
offices in the gift of the people. Na
tional bankers are in control of the
machinery of the Democratic party.
What is a bond? A paper prom
ise to pay. How is it made good ?
The government levies a tax on your
clothing and mine, or everything
that you consume and I consume, to
pay interest on that bond until it be
comes due, and then pays the princi
pal. That is the reason. Its value
is derived from every acre of land,
every bushel of wheat, every bale of
cotton, every stroke of labor. Why
should the bonds have all the cream
and these things that give value to
the bonds have none of the cream ?
(Laughter.) Why shonld not the
owner have as good a chanee as the
agent; the thing have as good a
chance as the thing representing ?
The bonds are good only by reason
of the property behind them. So
you ought to say to the owner of
that property, whether white or black,
rich or poor, that he is entitled to as
fair a chance as the bondholder who
only holds something based on it.
In a word, you should demand equal
rights to all, special privileges to
none. (Great applause.) Our fun
damental idea is that there ought
not to be any favored class of bank
ers or any other individuals standing
in between the government and the
people, making them pay for the
privilege of using their own money.
We say that every citizen ought to
have the use of the money of all the
people on precisely the same terms.
Is not that true ? Is not that fair ?
Cries of, Yes, yes. Hurrah for
Watson. (Cheering.)
Mr. Watson. The national banks
ers are aTavored class to-day, using
the government’s money on terms
which you and I do not share.
What would the State banks be ?
A favored class doing the same thing.
What is State bank money ? Simply
due bills of the man who sings them.
They cannot be made a legal tender;
will not pay a tax fi. fa.; will not pay
a judgment. Take it out of the
State and it is not good. Do you
want a currency that may be good,
here to-day, and not be good in South
Carolina? Do you want a currency
that is good only at the pleasure of
the bankers and speculators? Not
only that, you have to pay eight per
cent for the privilege of using my
due bill, as a banker, by means of
which I will be getting rich out of
what I owe you or the community.
That is what is proposed by offering
you State banks. The men who have
the privilege to pile up a collossal
fortune because they owe the com
munity, and have the privilege of
charging interest on that indebted
ness. Ain’t it a shame that in this
age of material advancement in elec
tricity and all the arts and sciences,
we should do the crawfish act in fi
nance, and go back thirty years to
wild cat money ? What will be the
effect? The State bankers will get
what is left after the national bank
ers have squeezed you to their content.
The State bankers will get what the
national bankers leave. The na
tional bankers will be the reapers,
using the State bankers as their hum
ble gleaners in the fields of the earth,
and the sun will not have gone down
before you will find the Boaz who
hires the reapers making love to the
Ruth who does the gleaning, for their
interest are the same, and their hearts
will be one.
Voices. The God’s truth.
Mr. Watson. They say we must
have a currency which must stay at
home. In other words, Democratic
imbecility has reached a point where
it says they will give you a currency
that is so very feeble that it has not
got the strength to drag its weary
bones across the State line. (Laugh
ter and applause.)HA currency that
the great centers ofcommerce scorn
fully refuse to receive, and they are
going to make you take it here at
home just because it is not good
enough to go abroad. Ain’t that
statesmanship ? (Laughter.) Ain’t
that a brilliant method of dealing
with the vast problems of the day ?
(Renewed laughter.) Here they are
doing the Lot’s wife act. It is no
w onder B they are turned into pillars of
salt, (luproareous laughter.)
We say we do not want any money
kings. We say let the government
do what the national banks have
been doing. Let the sovereign peo
ple be the sovereign. Let the people
decide what shall be the money, and
how much shall be the issue, taking
the Jeffersonian idea, that money
shall be issued directly to the people
from the Treasury. We say that all
the people cannot get the benefits of
that money unless you recognize the
fact that there are such things as
cotton, wheat, and other staple com
modities, entitled to recognition,
keep spindles running,
fatories in operation,
Now, ]
know, or care,
whetheilW? white or black, I know
his story. He starts in and pays
twenty-five dollars for a mule, 1,000
pounds of cotton rent, and two bales
for supplies. By the time he pays for
that mule, and the store account, and
the guano, he has not enough money
left to buy a bottle of laudanum, and
not enough of cotton to stuff his old
lady’s ear.
A voice. How did you find
out?
Mr. Watson. I’ve been through
the mill.
I have been between the plow
handles as well as in office, and be
fore I would live off the poverty of
my fellow men I would go back to
the plow handles again. (Great ap
plause.) I want no special favors
under the law. lam willing to take
equal chances in the office, in the
court room, or in the field with my
fellow men. (Applause.)
The landlord grows poorer year
by year. Why? Because by the
time that he pays an occasional
shortage for the provisions account,
and pays for repairs and accounts
for washing away of his land, he has
nothing lef:.
~ The land gets poorer year by year,
and the landlord has no money
to improve it—the tenant has no
money to improve it. Thousands of
your Georgia homes are going to de
cay. I have witnessed it, and it
makes my heart ache with sadness.
It is a bad thing for the landlord in
another respect. He cannot com
mand labor. Why? Because by
the time he pulls out a pencil to
write an order the laborer is mad.
Why? He knows what an order to
the stores means. He knows per
fectly well that he is at the mercy of
circumstances. He knows that he
cannot get the goods as cheap as for
the cash. He knows that there is
another profit to come out, and that
takes away a part of his labor. N ow,
that farmer is as much displeased to
see you displeased as you are. Why?
It makes dissatisfaction on the farm.
Dissatisfaction among the laborers.
He knows that he cannot give a fair
day’s pay for a fair day’s work.
Why? He cannot get the cash to
pay his hands. It hurts him as bad
ly as it does you. He goes into the
house and tells the old lady with
tears in his eyes that he will have to
mortgage the place to get supplies.
He tries and cannot get the money
because it is not in the country, and
he has to struggle all the year with
dissatisfied labor and suspicious mer
chants, and he loses his little home
just as you lost the remainder of
your wages. Why, cannot he get
that money from his merchant? He
has got to put that money in goods.
Why? to get his profits. He has got