Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

The People’s Party Paper VOLUME 11. JEFFERSON’S CREED. ADDRESS OF THOS. E. WATSON, Delivered at Douglasville, Georgia, July 4tb, 1893. Fellow Citizens: The 4th of July, 1893, is a day upon which the Amer ican citizen can well afford to in dulge in some reflection : some re view of the past, some examination of the present, some thought of the future. No man doubts that we have reached a period when great changes are hastening upon us. Vital issues which have remained in the back ground,— issues which have stood for a generation like an armed force, resting in line of battle, awaiting the words “ Forward March,” are now moving,—steadily moving, irre sistibly moving,—to join battle with their opposing Principles! Every citizen owes it to himself to study the methods by which he is governed. Upon the law’s of the land depend his property, his liberty, his life. If oppressed by vicious leg islation, there is no escape whatso ever which he can devise by person al industry, or frugality, or recti tude. He becomes the helpless sub ject of national tendencies w’hich no individual is strong enough to resist. Let us come together in the spirit of those who seek to reason, to in vestigate and to know the truth. Citizens of a common country, we surely want good laws, good gov ernment. It surely must be the pur pose of all of us, no matter to what political faith we adhere, to see hon esty, equity, and wisdom prevail; to the end that the people may be prosperous and happy. Let us then upon this memorable day sink the bigot into the student: merge the partisan into the reasoner: banish the politician, and give place to the patriot. AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE A PROTEST , AC- * INST sFU ROPir AN Who framed this Government; and upon what principles was it founded ? You may waste ever so many hours poring over Stamp Acts ; you may nod drearily through Webster’s assertions that the Revolution was fought upon a Preamble; you may believe, because you have heard it so often, that the American Colonies cut loose from England because the mother country insisted upon “taxa tion without representation.” All of which is true, but doesn’t begin to touch the real point in the case. The pith and marrow and vital spirit of the w’hole business went vastly further. Our ancestors came here protest ing against the order of things in the old world. They were kickers : pio neers of a new’ creed, seeking a new country in which to plant it. They put the ocean between themselves and the things they hated. What were those things? • Ist. A religious tyranny which compelled them to support a faith and a priesthood which they ab horred. 2nd. A political tyranny which de nied them the essential rights of manhood. Combatting the savages and the wilderness, these stout-hearted An glo-Saxons gradually grew strong. And in exact proportion to their growth in strength, they showed their dislike of the European forms of Government. Nearly every township in the Col onies was a small Republic,—teach ing Democracy, practicing Democ racy, and drifting steadily to the time when the ideas of that Democ racy must meet in a death grapple with the ideas of the English Mon archy. Jn 1774, those small republics, scattered along the coast from Maine to Georgia, thought the time had come to test the question as to who •was the “ best man”—Democracy or Monarchy. The Stamp Act, and all conceiva ble Preambles, were mere incidents, or precipitants to the conflict. The issue at stake was the vital difference between the principles which pre vailed on the different sides of the Atlantic. Such a difference was certain to lead to a tight sooner or later, Pre amble or no Preamble. THE OBJECTS AIMED AT BY OUR CONSTITUTION. Democracy fought, suffered and won. Casting off European forms, it fashioned a Government which still endures. When our forefathers wrote down those articles of agreement and con tract, which we call the Constitu tion of the United States, they pre faced it by stating that it was done in,order to “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure do- JjL'CqpAieil to uA.ll Special Privileges to None.” mostic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the gen eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos terity” We are the posterity. We are the legatees to whom they bequeated “justice, domestic tran quility, general w’elfare and the bless ings of liberty.” Magnificent bequest! Let us look into the treasure-chest to-day; let us make inventory of our political goods and ch, landts and tenements and Ascertain how much of the estate wt still possess. The executor was ever a good man to watch : let us see how much of the trusts has been convey d to his own use rather than to ours. Learned authors tell us that there have never been more than .three kinds of government; the Monarchy, the Aristocracy, the Democracy. Monarcy is the government of a single ruler; and it may be absolute or limited. Aristocracy is the government of a favored class, which exercises all the pow’er and gets all ahe benefits, and absorbs all the privilege. Democracy is the rule of all the people; it may be exercised by the people them selves or by their agents. In the latter case it is called a Re public. In theory our Government is founded upon the Principle that all he people rule:—no monarch, no aristocracy, no privileged class. The country being so large that it is im possible for the citizens to transact their governmental affairs in person, they adopted the plan of selecting agents, or Representatives. Thus ours is a Republic based upon the idea that the people govern themselves. ENEMIES TO DEMOCRACY. From the very foundation of the Government, this Democratic princi ple has had its mortal enemies. Dur ing the war of the Revolution, they sought to neutralize the efforts of our armies, and to keep America in subjection to the King and the Aris tocracy of England. After our Independence was es tablished, there we’-* ’.hose who F'ought th/> E.; 3 ’L:i XG a o 2 Gov- ' ernment was best; and they exerted every energy to have our Constitu tion modelled after a limited Mon archy, with its privileged class. Although they failed, their failure was far from complete. Our Senate is really a House of Lords, almost entirely out of touch with the people: while our Federal Judges are com pletely independent of the theoretical sovereign of the land—the people. As soon an the Constitution was adopted, over the strenuous objec tion of some of the ablest and purest statesmen of the time, because they considered it too centralizing and undemocratic, the men who had done so much to fetter its demo cratic principles, at once began to seek Congressional legislation which would utterly transform our Govern ment ; legislation which would infuse the spirit of monarchy, of aristoc racy, of class rule, into the body pol itic of the Republic, The leader of these enemies of the Democratic principles was Alexander Hamilton. He laid down the law for them then, and his ideas control them now. Wherever special Privi leges are asked for favored industries, Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures is ransacked for arguments. When ever Legislation intended for the building up of a moneyed aristocracy as a partner in tho Government is desired by capitalists, Hamilton’s plea for the National Bank is trotted out. Whenever tho speculator de mands the turning of the Paper Money, which pays no interest, into Bonds, which do pay interest,’ and which form the basis of Banker’s money, (which also fetches interest,) Hamilton’s ideas on Funding come to the front. THE APOSTLE OF DEMOCRACY. The leader of the other side was Thomas Jefferson. From the beginning to the end of his career he was the chief Apostle of the common people. Though an aristocrat by birth, and a man of wealth, special Privilege aroused his inveterate hatred. Class distinctions were his abomination. The equality of all men before the law : the right of every citizen to be secure from the spoliation of unjust taxes: the absolute freedom of speech, of thought, and of action: the integrity of individual rights as against cen tralization in government, or monop oly in business, were the fundamen tal articles of his creed. Entering the Virginia Legislature at au early age, his first assault was made upon the Land Monopoly which there existed in the form of Entailed Estates. Against the bitterest op position upon the part of the aris tocracy of the Old Dominion, he un shackled the soil of Virginia from its feudal chains, and threw it upon the market, where it would necessa rily be divided i>p among smaller holders. Following this law he passed an other, destroying Primogeniture—the right of the child to inherit ATLANTA, GA., FRIDAY, JULY 7, 1893. the entire estate. This principle has always been dear to the aristocracy, because it keeps the estate together : encourages accumulation and pre vents distribution. The law of Entails, coupled with the law of Primogeniture, had al ready established in Virginia a land ed gentry, proud, idle and arrogant, fashioned upon the model of the English nobility, and seeking to im itate its style. Jefferson hated this system with implacable aversion, and he destroyed it. Another evil he remedied, while in the Legislature. Ila found the Episcopal Church in partnership with the State. The tax payers, no matter what their relig iou&faith, were taxed to maintain the Episcopal clergy. So naturally do principles go together, that the good old State of Virginia, after imitating England upon the Land system, quite as a matter of course, copied her on the ecclesiastical question. The Land Monopoly and the Church Monopoly were having a gay time in copartnership. Jefferson broke it up. The Epis copal Church was divorced from the State Treasury, and made to earn its living just as the other churches had to do. He likewise secured the adoption of a thorough system of common schools. “ Trust the people : teach the people,” were two of the strong est pillars upon which he sought to rest the splendid fabric of popular government. The Aristocracy of Virginia, both lay and clerical, hated Jefferson with intense hatred the balance of his life. In the eyes of these high born crea tures who had been ousted from their special privileges and plaeed on a footing with common mortals, Mr. Jefferson was a Demagogue, an in cendiary, a stirrer up of strife —ar raying the poor against the rich, for base political purposes. Such was his magnificent work in the Virginia Legislature—a monu ment to his worth, loftier than sculp tor could raise, and more enduring than marble or brass. One other piece of/work Reformer attempted. He tried to abolish slavery. Would to God he had succeeded ! The million men who butchered each other in battle would never have left their fields, their shops, * their homes. The fearful legacy of sectional hate would never have been ours. The billions of treasure wasted in causing misery, would have been a blessed offering in the Temples of Peace. Shylock’s opportunity never would have come, as it did come, when tnh Government found itself forced to borrow from its own selfish specula tors and had to submit to the infa mous exactions of the New York, Boston and Philadelphia Bankers. The professional politician, North and South, never would have beee furnished, free of cost, with a stock in trade which would last him thirty years; and upon which he could thrive, dominate and destroy, upon the sole condition that if he lived North he should curse the South, and if he lived South he should curse the North. FEDERALISM AGAINST DEMOCRACY. When Jefferson entered national politics he found Hamilton develop ing his schemes and carefully laying his plans. Both of these able men belonged to Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson was Secretary of State; Hamilton Secretary of the Treasury. Almost immediately the irreconcila ble differences of opinion appeared. The contest between them being one of vital principles, it raged during all of Wasnington’s time, all of Ham ilton’s life, all of Jefferson’s life; it has raged ever since ; it rages now, and it will continue to rage as long as this Republic endures. For, state it as you will, it is the everlasting hostility which, in every wealthy community, arises between the masses and the classes; between the privileged and the unprivileged ; be tween the rich, trying to establish Aristocracy, and the middle and low er classes, determined that Democ racy shall never die. The creed of Hamilton was the basis upon which stood the political organization called the Federal Party. What were its principles ? They believed that the English Monarchy was the most perfect form of government known to man, and they wished ours to resemble it as far as possible. They wished the Federal government to grow at the expense of the States. They sought to create a moneyed aristocracy by means of a Bond system and Na tional Banks. They’ wished to spe cially foster manufactures by legisia tive protection. They wanted a strong, consolidated nation, sustained by powerful military and naval forties. In short, the Federalists had no faith in the people ; no belief in pop ular self-government. H. C. Lodge, in his work on Hamilton, says that his purpose in creating the Funding System and the National Bank, was not less political than financial. His plan was to ‘ bind the wealthy men, being at th?’ 4 ' day the aristocra cy bequeathed by provincial times, to the new system, and thus assure to the property of the country the control of the Government.” In other words, Hamilton wanted the Dollar to rule this land—not the people I Mr. Lodge is fr mk enough to say that Hamilton had endeavored to in troduce a Class influence into the Constitution at tee time it was framed, by limiting the suffrage for the President and Senate with a property qualification. Failing in this direct attempt to establish Class rule in the organic law, he immediately went to work to devise other means of doing it. His Funding System and his National Bank was the result. The Creed of Jefferson became the basis of a political organization known during his lire as the Repub lican Party. He gave it that name himself, and always spoke of it by that title. What were its articles of faith ? I will quote them from its illustri ous founder. lu each instance, I will give you the words of Jefferson himself. JEFFERSON’S DOCTRINES. In his first Inaugural Address he laid down this “ Golden Rule” of Government:— “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injur ing one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and im provement ; and shall not take from labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good Government.” Further he said, in words which have become venerated wherever the principles of Democr, ey are cher ished: “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, com merce, and honest friendship with ail iiat’, enta/gling with , law Hupport ot Slate gov ernments in all their rights as the most competent administration for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwark against anti-republican ten dencies ; the preservation of the gen eral government in all its constitu tional vigor as the sheet-anchor of peace at home and safety abroad ; a jealous care of the right of election by the people ; a mild and safe cor rective of abuses wiich are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies tre unprovided ; absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principles of the republic, frorr which there is no appeal but to force, the vital prin ciple and immediate parent of des potism ; a well-discplined militia; economy in the publis expenses, that labor may be lightly burdened ; the honest payment of oir debts, and sa cred preservation of he public faith ; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce, its handnaid; the diffu sion of information, ind the arraign ment of all abuses al the bar of pub lic reason ; freedom »f religion ; free dom of the preis; freedom of the person under the prcection of habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartial ly selected—these pinciples form the high constellation vhich has gone before us, and guied our footsteps through an age of rvolution and re formation.” Listen to these father words : “ Men by their constitutions are naturally divided ito two parties: those who fear anedistrust the peo ple, and wish to driv all power from them into the hads of the higher classes; those whe identify them selves with the peple, have confi dence in them, chesh aud consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the n>st wise, deposit ors of the public irtjrestß. In every country these two arties exist.” Hon. W. L. Wilm, of West Vir ginia, one of the blest and purest Democrats now hug, thus summa rizes the principle of the Republi can Party foundedby Thomas Jef ferson : ' 1. Opposition t*the Funding Sys tem. 2. Opposition tche National Bank. 3. Opposition tthe Internal Rev enue, or Excise Sstem. 4. Opposition o the Protective Tariff. 5. Opposition > centralization in the Federal GoVnment at the ex pense of State Jghts. 6. OppositiorP Hamilton’s plans to foster the class, and to build up an alli*ce between the cap italists and This is a faiitatement from Page 59 of Mr. Wbn’s “ Historj’ of the National Party.” These wer Jefferson’s remedies for Hamiltonpoisons. These were the breast-w<p be erected to check the Federal Aristocracy. These were the pjCiples which were to preserve to “ people the freedom their father had won : and these were the piciples which were al- i ways dear to the followers of Jeffer -3 son as long as desire to be right wa -1 stronger than the love of office. TESTING THE PRESENT BY THE PAST. On July 4th, 1826, this great statesman died. Two generations ’ have come and gone, since he folded ' his hands in eternal rest. The Government which he did so much to establish, still survives. A political Party which professes to follow his teachings, is in full pos session of every branch of the Ad ministration. ’ Its platform of Principles recently revised, repaired and replenished, is ’ known to all the world. Its Policies are beiug outlined by its Leaders, and being debated by all classes of citizens. Let us to-day do ourselves the jus ’ tice to firmly investigate our politi cal status. Let us without the assistance of Beef-Tea, or other doubtful com pound, imagine that we are all Cobbs, of Alabama, and anxious to know “ WHERE ARE WE AT ? ” What were the evils Jefferson most feared ? We have already seen how he dreaded Slavery. Wisely did he foretell its consequences. In the year 1821, he said that “the public mind would not bear” his proposition, made in 1776, for gradual Emancipation. “ Nor will it bear it, even at this day”—(lß2l.) “ But the day is not distant” contin ued the prophet, “ when the public mind must bear it, and adopt it, or worse will follow ! Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” Knowing how terribly correct was his foresight upon this subject, his warnings upon other subjects in crease in importance. Jefferson’s fears. 1. He foresaw the dangers of the Funding and National Banking Sys tems. He saw that Hamilton en couraged the speculators to gather u j all the paper money, which they bought for a song, upon his intima tion that they might exchange it dol i&x for av.l.w, xor bearing a high rate of interest. He denounced this Funding scheme as a plot to get the money and the wealth of the country into the hands of a favored few. The National Bank was even more pernicious. Listen to his words. In a letter to Mr. Galla tin, in 1803, he writes : “This institution (National Bank) is one of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our. Government. * * * Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hos tile? ** * Now, while we are strong, it is the greatest duty we owe to the safety of our Constitution to bring this powerful enemy to a per fect subordination under its authori ties. The first measure would 4>e to reduce them to an equal footing with other banks, as to the favors of the Government. But, in order to be able to meet a combination of the banks against us, in a critical emer gency, could we not make a begin ning towards an independent use of our own money through the Govern ment’s sub-Treasuries ?” He predicted that the special fa vors granted by the Government to the National Bankers would result in creating an aristocracy of Capital, which would dominate legislation, corruptly influence elections, and subsidize the press. But while he thus denounced Na tional Banks, he was still severer upon State Banks. In his famous letter to Jno. W. Eppes, he entered into an elaborate discussion of the dangers, the rascal ities, the corrupting influences, and the swindling rapacities of State Banks. I mean, of course, State Banks of Issue. Mr. Jefferson writes: * * “And so the Nation may continue to issue its bills as far as its wants require, and the limits of circulation will ad , mit. Those limits are understood to extend with us, at present, to $200,- 000,000. “Bit this, the only resource which the Government can command with certainty, the States have unfor tunately fooled away, nay corruptly alienated to swindlers and shavers, ' under the cover of private banks. “But although we have so improvi k dently suffered the field of circulating medium to be filched from us by pri vate individuals, yet I think we may recover it if the States will co-oper ate with us.” * * * In another letter he sums up the whole matter by saying, that the ob ject of these private banks of issue “is to enrich swindlers at the expense of the honest and industrious part of the nation.” JEFFERSON'S FINANCIAL PLANS. What then, were Jefferson’s finan cial doctrines ? 1. He believed in the free and un limited Coinage of Silver and Gold. His report to that effect was the law of the land from 1792 till 1873. The ratio was slightly altered, once, but the principle was never violated until NUMBER 42 John Sherman, the Republican, and fhos. F. Bayard, the Democrat, de monetized Silver in 1873. On page 1150 of the Congressional Globe, part 2, second session, 42d Congress (1872-73) you will find the proofs of what I say. Mr. Bayard’s name is signed to the Conference Report which struck down Silver, just as John Sherman’s is signed. 2. He believed in a direct issue of Treasury Notes by the Government, in a quantity as great as the needs of the hour demanded, and the channels of circulation could hold. In 1803, he said the limit of the Treasury Notes the country could stand was $200,- 000,000. Since that time the population and the business have increased more than ten fold. Therefore, the coun try could now carry, without depre ciation, Two Billions of Dollars of Treasury Notes, according to Jeffer son’s own figures. How many do they actually give us? Only $346,000,000, nA one-fifth of what Jefferson said we coiucCSTifely carry. All the balance of our paper money is merely representative of coin which does not circulate. To bring conviction to any one who doubts Jefferson’s position on this most important matter, let me quote him further. In devising a means by which the Government might drive State Bank money out of circulation, he says in the Eppes letter, already mentioned : “If Treasury bills are emitted, on a tax appropriated for their redemp tion in fifteen years, and (to insure their preference in the first moments of competition—with the notes of the State Bankers) bearing interest at 6 per cent, there is no one who would not take them in preference to the Bank paper now afloat. * * * I’his credit once established, others might be emitted, bottomed also on a tax, but not bearing interest; and even if their credit faltered, open public loans, on which these bills alone should be received” as specie. These, operating as a sinking fund, would reduce the quantity in circulation, so as ‘to maintain v hat ru equilibrium, with specie. ” ‘ This language is so plain, its mean ing so clear, the financial plan out lined so undeniable, that I shall not take the trouble to quote other pas sages in other documents, to the same effect. Mr. Jefferson believed that Money was a National agent; -should be created by the National Government and for the use of the Nation. He scoured the idea that this tremendous power should be farmed out to pri vate individuals, for private purposes, in order that one Class might fatten upon all the others. Nor did he see the logic of the po sition that it was wrong for the Gov ernment to create money “by getting a machine to work and stamping it,” but entirely proper for the Govern ment to allow thousands of Bankers to “get their machines to work and stamp it” by the millions. It is only a non-Partisan” camp follower of these later days who can see the 'loveliness of such logic as that, and flop down upon his supple knees and cry “Hosanna!” EVILS FORETOLD. But the main question is, has Jef ferson’s warning proved to have been well founded ? Was he right when he said the National were in stitutions of deadly hostil.ty to the spirit of our Government ? Was he right when he foretold that they would create an aristocrary of wealth, which would dictate the policies and the legislation of this country ? The evidences which meet us upon every hand, show that his statements were not only true, but appallingly true. Obtaining their supply of money from the Government at 1 per cent, lending it to the business men at from 8 to 20 per cent, clothed with the . enormous advantage of contracting , and expanding the volume of curren cy at pleasure, the National Banks have had, since the war, the most amazing opportunities of making money at the expense of the masses of the people that any Government ever granted to a favored class. CORRUPT LEGISLATION. Their net gain from this special privilege, granted them at the ex pense of the people at large, have equalled the enormous average of 150,000,000 per year for the last twenty-five years. Who doubts that they have cor ruptly controlled legislation ? How else can you explain the laws and the policies which have been adopted in their favor? Who believes it was right to pay them the interest on their Bonds in advance ? Who believes it was right to change the contract with them so that they c©uld demand payment in coin ? Who believes it was right to say that the Treasury notes of the United States Government should be good enough for the merchant, the farmer, the lawyer, the doctor, but should