Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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