Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

2 THE PEOPLE’S PARTY PAPER. Established October 15, 1891. ATLANTA, - ■ GEORGIA. OUR PUBLISHING COMPANY. THOS. E. WATSON, - - - Preßldent. MACKIE STURGIS, - - Secty-Treasurer. Office 84 1-2 South Forsyth Street. SUBSCRIPTIONS One Year St 1.00 Six Months ...... 50 Always in Advance. For Advertising Rates and Contracts, address Steve W. Floyd, Special Eastern Agent, No. 728 American Tract Society Building, New York City, for all business exclusive of Southern States—or AUSTIN HOLCOMB, Advertising Manager, No. 84 >2 So. Forsyth St., Atlanta, Ga., for all business in Southern States. Money may be sent by Express Order, Post Oflice Money Order or Registered Letter. Do not send stamps. Orders should be made payable to THE FKOPUE’S PARTY PAPER. Subscribers desiring to change the address of their paper will please give the old ad dress as well as the new. We must have your old address to find your name on the mailing lists. Official Organ People’s Party State of Georgia. OUK BUSINESS PLAN. The People’s Party Paper gives no chro mos, pulls no swindlers, inserts no humbug advertisements, and does not devote one-half its space to telling how good the other half is. It is published weekly and is furnished to sub scribers at one dollar a year, postage prepaid. Terms, cash in advance. THEY AKE RELIABLE. We believe through careful inquiry, that all the advertisements in this paper are signed by trustworthy persons, and to prove our faith by works, upon complaint of a subscriber against an advertiser, tiiat shows on its face an irreg ular transaction we will use our best efforts to protect the subscriber's interests, and if the advertiser proves unreliable, he will in future e debarred from the use of these columns and e promptly exposed. Rogues shall not ply their trade at the expense of our subscribers, who are our friends, through the medium of these columns. Let this be understood by everybody now and henceforth. Note, (1) the above offer is to actual “sub scribers" and only to them: (2) it holds good two months after the transaction causing the complaint, that is, we must have notice within this time ; (3) we do not guarantee a pig’s tail to curl in any particular direction ; in other words, we will handle swindlers, but shall not attempt to adjust trifling disputes between subscribers and honorable business men who advertise. Bear these points in mind hereafter. Total Copies Issued 1896 - - 735,080 Average (Sworn) Per Issue - 14,136 Average (Estimated) for 1897 - 21,000 Our neighbor, The THE MACON Telegraph, did us the honor to repro ■pELECRAPH *luCe tn its uoluuoxu. the article we pub lished last week, and AGAIN. ~ the reply to it in the editorial which will be found elsewhere in this paper. It must be confessed that our neigh bor deals very gingerly with the issues involved. It scouts the paper money doctrine, but declines to furnish rea sons. It hoots at John Law, but knows nothing against his theories of finance except that he was a gambler. The Telegraph evidently is making an earnest effort to think well of us, but our defense of John Law seems to put the camel’s back to a severe strian. Come now, let us be fair. What can The Telegraph say against the posi tions we hold ? 1. We say that the Government, and not the banks, should t create and regu late our paper money. 2. That the Supreme Court has deci ded that Congress can create money out of paper. 3. That the paper money issued by the Government will be based upon the credit of the Government—-the same foundation the bonded debt rests upon: 4. That the Government car. as safely be entrusted with the responsibility of deciding the number of our dollars as of deciding the number of our battle ships, military reservations, ports of entry, office-holders, or soldiers of the army. 5. We say that as long as the banks are allowed to usurp the governmental power of issuing money, and of expand ing and contracting the volume of cur rency, they hold all values at their mercy, and are tyrants of the markets, interfering arbitrarily with the natural law of Supply and Demand. Has The Telegraph met any of these propositions ? Not one. It contents itself by saying that the “lessons of history” are all against us. What lessons ? Name tons the coun try which, with a stable government, ever issued paper money to its hurt. Paper money, based upon the credit of the government fails when the gov ernment fails, just as the notes of a merchant fall when the maker falls. When the Government fails its paper money would fail, of course ; but the bonds of the Government would also fall. Our contention is that the paper dol lar ought to have as good a chance as the paper bond. Yet the land is full of doctrinaries who dote on the policy of issuing bonds, while shivering at the idea of issuing paper dollars. The lessons of history, so far as we know them, tend to quite a different conclusion from that reached by the Telegraph. The histories we have read tell us of the wonderful invigorating influence cf paper money on trade, industry and national prosperity. The crash comes not from the paper money but from the destruction of it Historians tell us of England’s mar velous advance during the Napoleonic wars, when paper money was abund ant. They tell us of the crash and the panic and the misery which came upon the people, when the hoarders of gold and silver compelled the Government to call in the paper money, and burn it up, after Napoleon had been securely caged at St. Helena. If the paper money answered all the purposes of England’s commerce dur ing the time of war why would it not have continued to answer those pur poses in times of peace ? - We have read the most glowing ac counts of the splendid effects which the Greenbacks issued by our Govern ment, during the late Civil War, had upon every department of trade and industry. This people never experi enced a fruitfuller season in every field of human effort than in the years 1865, 1866, 1867 and 1868. Paper money was plentiful Business was good, labor was employed, wages were fine, prices marched upward. Every mill was running on full time, every mer chant was expanding his trade, new fields of enterprise were being explor ed and developed. The commercial body was full of life, because it was full of life-blood — money! The paper money wasn’t hurting a soul. It was doing good everywhere. It was saying “Forward March” to every soldier of the grand army of toil. But the paper money interfered with the hoarders of gold and silver. It was a lion in the path of those who wanted to get a mortgage on the Government in the purchase of bonds. Greenbacks, issued by Uncle Sam, were hateful to those bankers who wished to issue paper money, signed by themselves. The credit of the Gov ernment was good enough to support paper dollars in time of war, but was not good enough to do it in time of— peace. So the Government was ousted —from its sovereign power of creating paper money, and the National Banks seized it, the Greenbacks were called in and burnt up, and in lieu of nation al notes costing the people no interest and doing them immense good, the Government was compelled to issue national bonds, costing heavy interest and doing the people enormous harm. The notes of the Banker took the place of the notes of the Government The Greenback paper money did not hurt this people; the destruction of it was what hurt. The Telegraph mistakes our position when it says that we believe that the fiat of the Government can fill every body’s pocket with money. We did not say that; nor do we mean anything of that kind. We believe that every citizen should rely upon his labor or his produce, or his property, to get money. We do not want the Government to give us a cent. All we ask is that the Govern ment should create enough money to supply the necessities of the country, so that when a man wants work there is money ip the country to employ him. There should be enough money in circulation to stop the stampede of prices, the paralysis of trade, and the pitiable idloixoxx of those who seek markets for their labor. A system in which a dollar of debts or of tax de vours a larger quantity of produce every year, is not a just system. In such a system the dollar constantly rises, and the man. constantly sinks. We would like to see the system so changed that if any sinking has to be done, it will be the dollar which lowers its crest—not the man. This change will never come as long as the banks are allowed to usurp governmental functions, and to use them for private speculative purposes. The capitalists represented by the banks will always prefer a small vol ume of currency which they ean con trol,—well knowing that those who control the currency control prices, almost without limit. The Telegraph, as we rathe.- sus pected, knows little of John Law. It says he was a gambler. We regret to say the accusation is true; but what has that got to do with his financial theories ? Henry Clay championed national banks and Protective Tariff, just as The Telegraph does : would it be fair to damn the Tariff system because Henry Clay was ravenously fond of poker ? The great English statesman, Charles Fox, championed the abolition of the Slave Trade: would it be fair to meet his arguments against the traffic in human beings by saying that from his boyhood to his death he was the most reckless and continuous gambler in Europe ? What has a man’s private character got to do with his economic theories ? Mirabeau might be a monster of vice in private life, (as he was) and yet even a sour dyspeptic moralist, like Carlyle, might love him for his splendid services in the cause of political reform, while Roberspierre might be a pattern of good behavior in private life (as he was) yet excite unbounded loathing in that same moralist, Thomas Carlyle, because of the crimes of the Reign of Terror. John Law was born in Edinburgh of respectable parents. His father was a gold-smith and banker. The son was well educated, and inherited a good estate. He went up to London entered fash ionable society, and sowed a heavy crop of wild oats. Kept it up several years. Wasted his substance in riot ous living. Killed a fellow citizen in a duel, and had to leave. Went to Eu rope. Devoted a great deal of time to the study of the Bank of Amsterdam, and other banks —including Faro banks. Was an expert in mathemat ics, and an enthusiast in finance. Be lieved be had penetrated the mystery of the Money Question. Believed that the circulation should be increased, and that the true basis of money was the credit of the nation. He formulated his plan of a Bank, and bored people by talking about it. Became almost as much of a nuisance as Columbus did when he went mean dering around Europe begging stupid Kings to lend him the money to find a New World with. The inventors of new things are ter ribly tiresome creatures. Had Napo leon Bonaparte listened more patiently to Robert Fulton, he might have real ized that Fulton’s steam-boat idea, properly applied, would have swept the wooden sailing ships of England off the seas, and sent the British Empire to wreck and ruin. But these pioneers of new ideas are fearfully persistent mortals, and they generally effect a landing. Thus, John Law finally secured the countenance of the Duke of Orleans, then Regent of France, and his Bank was established. We have already explained how for many years it prospered, and how it was then looted and ruined by Law’s noble associates. We are not ashamed to defend any THE PEOPLE’S PARTY PAPER: ATLANTA, GEORGIA: FRIDAY, JULY 9, 1897. man who has been misrepresented, and we are not ashamed to defend John Law. The Telegraph can say nothing against him save that he gambled. In those days everybody gambled. The Kings gambled : the Queens gam bled : the nobles gambled: the priests gambled: the commons gambled. There are well authenticated instances in which the mourners played cards on the coffin of the deceased on the way to the cemetery. Louis XIV, the Grand Monarch, who was reigning when Law first appeared at the Court of France; not only gam bled himself, but insisted upon it among his courtiers, and encouraged his chil dren and grand children to bet heavily. Gaming tables were kept ready in the palace, and the King loved to pass among the high-born lords and ladies who were gambling, and exchange courteous nothings with them while the games were going on. Several times he appropriated huge sums of public money to defray the gambling debts of his family and his favorites. The same fashion of universal gaming continued under the Regency of Or leans, and continued during the long reign of Louis XV. When John Law was in London. Charles 11, and all the Court, and all the fashionable world, gambled. When he went to Europe he found the same fever raging there. Being a high-flyer himself, John Law followed the fash ion. In Rome he did as the Romans did. Associating with kings, queens, princes, dukes and other sad trash of similar sort, he lost the simple ways of his Scotch ancestors, and became “a man of the world.” He could not hope to surpass the immoralities of the French Court, but he kept in sight. Good manners required it He could not bet as heavily as King Louis, or the prince of the Blood, because he had no tax-money of the people out of which to recoup his losses. He could not drink as much and be drunk as often as the Duke of Orleans, because he was a foreigner and had a charac ter to sustain. He could not keep as many fine horses as the Duke of Bour bon, because he was not the heir of a family which had been looting the national treasury of France for two hundred years. He could not afford a seraglio of as many fine women, as the Duke of Richelieu, because he had to pass at least part of the day in attend- ing to business. But while Law was not so bad as any of these highborn rascals, we admit that he followed, humbly, at a distance, and became as loose in his morals as royal etiquette demanded. If governmental theories are to be upset because their authors were sinful men, we shall find it difficult to defend any system. Thomas Jefferson was no saint, nor was Alexander Hamilton, nor was George Washington. The Father of his Country loved a quiet game of cards, enjoyed the excitement of moderate bets, and kept a faithful record of his winnings and his losses. The Telegraph should reconsider. To assail fiat money because John Law bet on cards, or at the Faro table, is not good logic. Gold standard editors should remem ber that their own leaders may be hu man and frail; and before a worship per at the shrine of Grover Cleveland’s theory of finance ventures to assail the private morals of John Law, he should remember that Grover Cleveland’s pri vate character cannot be called im maculate. T. E. W. In reply to an arti- THE IOWA cle which appeared in this paper some TRIBUNE. me a &°> lowa Tribune has publish a scurrilous attack upon us. Our readers will remember that The lowa Tribune opened fire upon us soon after the Pritchard election in North Carolina, accusing us of sending to Pritchard a telegram of congratulation. We answered this by denying that any such telegram was sent, and by suggesting to The lowa Tribune that it was thinking of Mr. Bryan, proba bly—he being the gentleman of Free- Silver proclivities who had rushed a telegram of congratulation to a Repub lican gold-bug, to-wit, Wm. McKinley. With this reply The lowa Tribune had to rest content for a while. When the Dingley bill was put upon its passage in the House, and its abom inable features exposed themselves one by one, we began to explain it and de nounce it. The lowa Tribune promptly fired into us again, and intimated that we were a fool for talking Tariff at all. We responded to the attack by show ing the vast importance of the subject of national taxation, and by showing the manner in which the Dingley bill legislated the money out of the pock ets of the toiling millions into the swollen purses of the Privileged few. We further showed that our position could not be so far wrong for The lowa Tribune had itself assailed the Dingley bill in another part of the same issue which criticised us for attacking it We courteously excused the editor from intentional donkeyism by sup posing that when sober he attacked the Dingley bill, and that when tipsy he assailed others who attacked it. Instead of feeling flattered at the manner in which we sought to pull him out of the hole, the Editor seems to be mad about it. He has churned his genius once more, and has brought forth a two column reply which is a curiosity of inconsistency and spite Forced to admit that he had criticised us for assailing the Dingley bill which he himself, had also assailed, the dis tressed editor screens himself behind the excuse that when he assails the Dingley bill he does it for purely edu cational purposes. This weird attitude of imbecility on the part of our fusion brother prompt” us to suggest to him tli»t. nereafter when he assails the Dingley bill he label his article “Educational,” and that when he assails us for assailing the Dingley bill he label his article, “Spiteful and Inconsistent.” The lowa Tribune complains that we have not answered its argument. Its “argument” is that no matter whether the national tax is high or low the trusts and corporations will get all that the producers make. This “argument” we did not try to answer. We were too much inclined, perhaps, to consider it a joke. We could hardly believe that the Editor was in earnest; but since we find him assailing the Dingley bill in one part of his paper, and assailing the Dingley bill assailants in another, we have come to the conclusion that the editor really advanced the proposition seri ously. That it does not matter to the people whether they pay high taxes or low ones I Think of it 1 Here’s a man so wrap ped up in fusion entanglements, his wide-stretched eyes so glued to that prospect of Bryan money which Allen holds, that he actually commits him self, deliberately to the statement that it does not matter to the people wheth er national taxes are high or low ! According to this apostle of fusion, it is all the same to the people whether they pay tax on salt or not: all the same whether they pay tax on cotton bagging and ties or not; all the same whether they pay tax on binding twine, clothing and farm tools or not. According to this wonderful editor and thinker, Congress can’t hurt us or help us except by legislation upon that one specific subject which the Fusion Pop is paid to agitate—Silver I If the Fusion Pop talks anything but silver he loses all claim to a share in that slush fund which Allen so persua sively fingers. In no other way can you account for the astonishing doctrine of our Tri bune friend that it does’nt matter whether national taxes are high or low—the corporations will get all the money anyhow. Touching this “argument” which The lowa Tribune complains we have not answered, we beg to ask it a ques tion or two. (1) If it does not matter to the peo ple whether national taxes are high or low, does it matter whether state and county taxes are high or low ? (2) If the money question gets set tled right, will it make any difference to the people whether the national taxes are high or low ? (3) Is national taxation now framed with the view of enriching certain classes and of legislating the money out of the pockets of the many into the coffers of the few ? (4) If our national taxation is fram ed on that plan, and operates to enrich the Carnegies, Hannas, Rockefellers and Havemeyers at the expense of the masses of the people, will the adjust ment of the money question relieve the victims of the tax system ? (5) Ought not the Dingley bill to be defeated, and can it be defeated unless it is opposed ? (6) Why do you question our motive in attacking the Dingley bill when you have not questioned the motives of the Populist and Democratic Congress men who have opposed it ? The lowa Tribune is so completely blinded by its malice that it accuses us of attacking the Dingley bill for the purpose of taking the eyes of the peo ple off the dearly beloved silver ques tion. The editor actually says that our purpose is to keep the Republicans in power I He says that all the gold standard folks are talking tariff, and the fact that we talk tariff also, proves that we want the Republicans to stay on top. Tried by the same rule, The New York Journal, the leading Democratic Silver daily of the world, wants the Republican gold standard to prevail for the Journal has been talking tariff by the cart load ever since the infa mous Dingley bill was proposed. The best weekly paper devoted to free silver is Wharton Barker’s “Amer ican,” published in Philadelphia. For several years it has been a standard authority on the money question, and it is dead against the gold standard of the two old parties. Yet The American has been shelling the woods on the tariff question ever since the Dingley bill showed its head. Is The American false to the cause of reform because it, also, recognizes oth er issues besides silver ? The lowa Tribune has lost its head It does not know how silly it is making itself appear. The glare of that Bryan money has hypnotized it. There really is something else on the earth besides the silver question, and the Tribune will so discover in good time. Those who really wish to “down” the Republicans in 1898, and 1900, might do well to remember that the very worst whipping the Republicans ever got was on this question of the national taxes — The McKinley Bill. The Dingley bill is vastly more vul nerable than that upon which the Re publicans met their Waterloo in 1890. Instead of shirking the issue, those opposed to the Republican system of legislating money from the masses to the classes should boldly accept the challenge, and show to the people what a monstrous outrage this new federal tax is. The Tribune concludes its tirade by repeating the worn out charges that we helped to elect McKinley and Pritchard. Neither of these did we help elect and neither of them did we congratulate after his election. Our great regret during the last campaign was that Mr. Bryan would not allow us to aid him, as fully as we might have done had he been governed by wiser counsels. The fusion policy of Butler and the Tribune has just about made a poliii cal prostitute out of that wing of our party. Populism as thus represented is a common street walker whose only search is for a customer. Anybody who will pay her price can enjoy her favors. , . . p nr .-iL.m ot that sort is almost too contemptible to denounce. T. E. W. A New Destruction of Jerusalem. Medieval Jerusalem is being rapidly destroyed, not this time by Roman legions, but by the march of progress. The railroad that now enters the sacred city has been the precursor of a new development, and the description of travelers who go there nowadays have about them a modernness that is ap palling, especially when they tell of the rival hackmen at the railway sta tion. Dr. Henry A. Harper, author of “The Bible and Modern Discoveries,” writes in Sunday at Home of his new experience in entering Jerusalem by railway and describes the altered ap pearance given to it by the busy col onists : ‘ That we were arriving at a season of drought was shown by seeing in middle distance carriages driving along the Bethlehem road enveloped in dust. Away on the left stretched the German colony, ‘The Temple’ colonists. This had such a strange out-of-place look— its neat houses with red roofs, the lines of streets quite straight, the well-kept gardens, tall cypress-trees, its trim church, schoolhouse —so tidy, so well kept, such an object-lesson to all around, a lesson not learnt by either Arab or Jew. It seems impossible for an Eastern to be ‘tidy’; the Jewish colony hard by is a living example of how not to be tidy. Yet—strange con tradiction—one almost resented the clean look; long years of Eastern travel have made me so accustomed to-dirt and disorder, that, much as one loves cleanliness at home, here it looked out of place. It looked like a ‘model’ vil lage, with ‘model’ people; and had too much of the ‘martinet’ about it all. Ah, well! we shall have enough and to spare of dirt and foulness ere long, “Os all the wildest drives I ever took that from the station to the hotel sur passed them all. The carriage—made when or where? —at least had strong springs; the horses were three abreast —one was literally tied on to the other two by strange straps, chains, bits of rope, string. These horses were ‘screws,’ but, like all Arabs, full of go? Go they did. With yells, lashes of the whips, all the Jehus set off, each try ing to get in front of his neighbor, width of road or other traffic quite ig nored. Had one horse gone down every other must have gone over him— or over the wall! One looked round in astonishment at not finding—as yet— the pole of the following carriage in the small of one’s back. Then, the dust! A sand storm in the desert was the only thing I could think of; but there, one was not going headlong. Up the hill, down tho hill, faint forms of horses galloping; of trees white, houses white, valley of Hinnom full of white dust! By dint of hammering my driver I persuaded him to drive slowly, threatening him in the strongest Arabic all the time. Covered with dust, our throats lined with strange geologi cal formations, a few miles of such a road and we should have become fos sils! —buried in dust! “Outside the walls, the medieval character of Jerusalem is gone forever; on the northwest side a huge quarter or suburb exists, a modern city of Greeks, Levantines, a few rich Jews; hotels, shops, huge convents—French and Russian; built or building; the English bishop’s ‘palace,’ as the na tives call it‘ ‘college’ say some, rivals that of other denominations. Where buildings do not as yet exist the ground is littered with masses of stone fresh from the quarry, heaps of lime, heaps of rubbish: while, thronging every track or road, are herds of camels, car rying stones, morter, or timber. These animals seem to resent their loads. They, the Old-World carriers, made to bear modern rubbish! Their haughty heads and scornful eyes resented the degradation. “Again, hurrying past, were some of the most ramshackle ‘things on wheels’ ever seen, ‘carriages,’ full of Moslems or Jews, bringing produce from the outlying villages. All the charm of the olive groves on that side is gone. The ‘Golgotha,’ ‘Gordon’s tomb,’ are equally the scene of the builder’s activity; great walls are be ing constructed to mark the division of properties, or to make gardens for houses which are being erected ; close by, a puffing factory! All poetry of the past is gone. Much, also, has been done to disfigure the Mount of Olives — on its summit is a tall lookout tower, built by Russia ! On the slope a hide ous church, built by the late Russian Emperor to the memory of his mother, a building of considerable size, with ugly towers like the Kremlin at Mos cow, utterly out of keeping with the landscape. Then, on the slope toward the wilderness, stand huge convents of various monks. Even on the ‘Beth any’ road houses disfigure the view; •Scopus’ is being dotted with ‘villas’! “Everywhere there is the same fever ish activity in building. If you cross ‘Hinnom,’ houses and walls are being erected by the Franciscans ; down in the valley, near ‘Absalom’s Tomb,’ high walls are being erected, marking off land bought either by Greek monks or Roman Catholics. Money for build ing is evidently furnished without stint, but by strangers, remember; not by Arabs or by Jews. The chief build ers are Russian or French. The ‘alliance’ will some day have a rude shock whenever the question of the possession of Palestine becomes a question of the day.” Referring to the work of the Pales tine Fund exploring party, Dr. Harper tells us that it has demonstrated that all existing maps of Jerusalem are wrong as to the extent of the old city on its southern side. The city extended seven hundred yards beyond the south east angle of the Haram wall. Both the pools of Siloam were included in the ancient city, and a flight of broad steps has been found leading down to the pools, reminding Bible students of Nehemiah iii. 15, where stairs “which go down from the city of David” are mentioned, and Nehemiah xii. 37 where mention is made of a procession which “went up by the stairs of the city of David.”—Liteary Digest. The man who waits to advocate re form until it becomes popular, may not really think that he is a coward and probably imagines that it is diplomacy, but if the world was entirely made up of such men and always had been, the present race of tailless monkeys would be living in bark houses and caves in the ground, while the civilization of ten thousand years ago would just about equal the barbarism that would exist today and ten thousand years hence. The world is not indebted to pelitical cowards for the advancement marked by civilization. —Chicago Ex press. Baller Exposes Himself. Senator Marion Butler is out in a four column article in his paper, the Caucasian, doing bis very best to jus tify himself and cast odium on Mr. Watson. For his text he takes two questions he culls from a recent ar ticle in the People’s Party Paper. In this article were a number of other questions, and while Mr. Butler at tempts to reply to two of them, he ig nores the others without stating why. However, he takes nearly four columns to reply to two, which would seem to indicate that he found them very diffi cult to answer. We deprecate this crimination and recrimination between these two Pop ulist leaders. While we have the ut most confidence in Mr. Watson and be lieve he did right in the course he pur sued during the last campaign as the candidate of his party, and while we are further convinced that he was treated shamefully by those who were in honor bound to stand by him as true friends, still we have not endorsed Mr. Watson’s course since the election in his fight on Mr. Butler. We believe that for the sake of harmonizing the party Mr. Watson should have been willing to bury the past. We believed that Mr. Butler really thought the in terests of the people would be best served by leading the party, boots and breeches, into the camp of its enemies. While this did not raise Mr. Butler in our estimation as an executive officer of a great party, still we conceded him honesty of purpose and ascribed his mistake an error of the head and not of the heart. We were the readier to do this because so far as his record was known to us, he had been a con sistent Populist, working zealously for the success of Populist principles in his position of U. S. Senator. We have noted the many little flings which constantly appeared in his pa per against Mr. Watson, and have tried to palliate them on the ground of irra tation because of the unforgiving atti tude of Mr, Watson. It was not until Mr. Butler’s article this week that the conviction has come to us that it were better for Mr. Butler to be relieved of his office of party chairman, and that he is not east in the proper mould to make a chairman who can build up the party. Mr. Butler calls those Populists who favor the holding of the national con ference Coxeyites. Why? To bring reproach upon them. Coxeyite has be come a term of reproach. To call a man a Coxeyite is equivalent to stig matizing him as a crank of the first water among the mossbacks, and even Populists have so come to regard it without troubling themselves with finding a good reason therefor. Though we do not agree with Mr. Coxey in some of his views, and think some things he has done are fantastic and absurd, yet Mr. Coxey has never in sisted on extreme measures and always has readily and cheerfully subordinated his plans to those of the party when authoritatively expressed. In this Mr. Coxey was a good Populist, and it was manifest injustice to regard him as a crazy and impracticable crank. Yet when Mr. Coxey came to Georgia, having been misled by a few over zealous admirers to believe that he would meet a cordial reception, he was ignored by the state convention. The use of the hall was denied him to make a speech. He was positively snubbed by Mr. Watson and so chilly was his reception that the Atlanta Constitu tion, in big headlines, said Coxey had been given the marble heart. These things Mr. Butler knows, and when, knowing this, he terms Mr. Watson and the Georgia Populists “Coxeyites,’“simply to make them odi ous, it is clear to us that he isjunfit to be the national chairman. Mr. Butler asserts that in justice to the Populist party the Democrats should have withdrawn Mr. Sewall, but he explains that he made no earn est effort to compel the Democrats to act justly. By his letter it appears that all -his efforts were directed to force Mr. Watson to accept the fusion policy and support Mr. Sewall. Mr. Butler says that this course was the proper one for Populists to pursue, for to have voted the Populist ticket would have been to help elect McKinley out of spite, and to abandon the Populist candidates after having nominated them and in doing so pledged to support them, would rescue a suffering people from the clutches of the gold and mo nopoly ring. So far as Mr. Butler was able to force it, the Populist ticket was abandoned* yet McKinley was elected. And even if Bryan and Sewall should have been elected, the gold and monop oly rings would have continued as they are. They have got nothing which they did not get through the aid of the Democratic party, and the insincerity of the party is attested by the fact they never keep a single campaign pledge. Though they pretend to favor a double standard, since the election a number of states, our own Demo cratic free silver state among them, have voted to legalize gold contracts, thus repudiating, as far as they were able, their platform professions in fa vor of silver. As a reason for suppressing Mr. Wat son’s letter of acceptance Senator But ler says it was done because its publi cation would have helped elect McKin ley We distinctly remember how at the time Mr. Butler protested that he had never received the letter. The adm’ssion he now makes of having de liberately told an untruth does not ex alt Mr. Butler in our estimation. It may be diplomacy, but it is not what we expect of the official head of the People’ party. If Mr. Butler had employed his ene my to write a book he could not have damaged him worse than the Senator has done for himself by [writing that long article on “Two Queries and Two Answers.”—The Augusta, Ga , Tribune. There is about as much sense in leg islating against child labor as there would be in passing a law punishing people for getting hungry. Remove the cause and child labor will cease. Children do not work because they want to, nor do parents force them to do so as a matter of choice, but of ne cessity. It would not only be foolish, but it would be inhuman as well, to deny a child the right to work for its own sustenance or that of its poor parents because it happened to be born a year or two too late. Give the peo ple the opportunity that by nature and justice belongs to them and child labor would disappear at once, and with it would disappear about nine-tenths of the drudgery of their parents. --Living Issues. A Sensational Speech. At the meeting of the Georgia Bar Association at Warm Springs, last week. Chief Justice Baldwin, of Con necticut, delivered an address on the subject, “Absolute Power and Ameri can Institutions.” He began by saying: “Os the great nations of the world, two only in our time represent the principle of political absolutism and enforce it by one man’s hand. They are Russia and the United States. The czar of Russia, indeed, stands for Rus sia in a broader sense than that in which we can say that the president of the United States stands for them. “The people of the United States have not put all their power in the keeping of all or any of their temporary rulers. They are the sleeping giant, that sleep ing or waking is a giant still, Their ward is still the ultimate rule of con duct, their written word, but when they gave their assent to the constitu tion of the United States they created in it the office of a king without the name.” president's absolute power. He illustrated that the president of the United States had absolute power by the following: “First—The president’s power in re moval from office. “Second —His power to receive or refuse to receive ministers from foreign countries. “Third —His power to call the militia out in the different states of the Union. “Fourth—His power to determine when it is proper to call out the mili tia.” He declared that the power of the president of the United States was practically unlimited in war, that his command of the army and navy was absolute. In this connection, he said the emancipation proclamation was an imperial decree. He said the Monroe act was the single act of an executive. He might have added that in addi tion to the immense power granted by the constitution the president during the. last administration had usurped the further power of nullifying the law and mortgaging the future labor of the people to the money power, while the Speaker of the House had arrogated to himself the right to determine what Congress should not do. The address created a sensation. D. N. S. Foreign Telephone Rates. While in America the telephone ser vice is still in the hands of private cor porations, in foreign countries there is a growing tendency to place the tele phones under public control. Where this has been done it has usually re sulted in the lowering of rates. In Switzerland, for instance, the charge for service is 824 the first year, S2O the second, and 816 thereafter. In New Zealand the rate is 824 a year ; but in England $35.70, and in Germany $36. But in Sweden above all countries, the cost of telephoning is brought down to a point that excites the wonder and envy of Americans. The population of Stockholm is 205,000, and everybody in moderately good circumstances appears to have an instrument. The telephone is not used for business purposes only, but is found pretty generally in private houses, in the smallest cigar stores and newspaper shops, and in all sale rooms. In the houses of well-to-do families the rooms are connected by telephone, and the cook in the kitchen announces by telephone to the lady of the house in the drawing room that dinner is ready. The steamboats on the canals are connected to the telephonic net work on land. The central telephone exchange is a great tower of three stories, in which 259 girls are busily employed connecting up subscribers. The average number of conversations per week is 100,000. The time to con nect up two subscribers averages from eight to nine seconds. The length of the conductors connected to the cen tral station is 10,200 miles. The chief cause of the enormous spread of the telephone in Sweden is the low tariff. The cost to a subscriber for one tele phone is $22 50 per annum. In Stock holm the tariff is still lower, if 400 con versations per annum is not exceeded. In this case it is $15.75 per annum, 2,76 c being charged for every additional con versation. On the trunk lines the rates are equally reasonable, For five minutes’ conversation on a sixty-mile line, the cost is 4c; from 60 to 150 miles, it is 8c; from 150 to 360 miles it is 13 l-5c for a greater distance 27C. The instal lation of the telephone in Stockholm was started by a private company. In recent years the state has been con structing trunk lines and has already about 4,000 subscribers.—St. Louis Globe-Democrat. The workingmen in the rubber and silk factories on Long Island voted for McKinley and “prosperity” last fall and now are on strike against reduced ’wages.—-Civic Review. There’s a Difference. We notice that many populists seem to admit that the only difference be tween the populist and democratic platforms on the money question is the metal redemption feature. While this is surely enough, it is not all by any means. There is nothing in the dem ocratic platform inconsistent with the retirement of the greenbacks ; there is nothing in it that ean be construed as opposed to state bank money; in fact it was purposely worded at the sugges tion of Bailey,of Texas,so that it would not declare against state banks. The democratic money plank, when read between the lines, and with a knowl edge of how the sub-committee, and a knowledge of a strong desire to return to state bank money by many demo cratic free silver leaders, means this : State bank money, retirement of green backs and national bank money ; free coinage of silver. In the East the dem ocrats rather prefer the national banks to state banks of issue, but would pre fer state bank money to greenbacks. In the South they are decidedly in favor of state bank money, and opposed to greenbacks ; in the West they are, as a rule, in favor of greenbacks. Upon the whole, the democratic party is op posed to greenbacks, don’t believe the government ought to issue the paper money, that in so doing it is encroach ing upon the field of private enterprise; that the issuance of paper money properly belongs to the banking insti tutions of the country. We do not be lieve there is a genuine populist in the United States who would give his vote in aid of reinstating the democratic party in power if he thoroughly under stood the true position of the democrat ic leaders on the money question— those whom the rank and file of the democratic party cheerfully support.— Missouri World. PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS, fl Ex-Senators to be Debarred from the UyS. Senate Floor. Senator Hale’s amendment to the U. S. Senate rules designed to take from lobbying ex-senators the privileges of the floor which are now extended to former members of that body, has called very pointed attention to one of the glaring abuses which has grown'up around the national capitol. It has become notorious that certain ex-senators have been able, through the possession of this privilege of the floor, to carry on a more or less vigor ous lobbying in favor of either some thing in which they have special inter est as lawyers. The Hale resolution has resulted In temporarily clearing the atmosphere, if it does nothing else. It has gone to the committee on rules and will be heard from later. As for the men at whom it is aimed, only one paper that I have seen has undertaken to specify, though all have done so as well as it could be done without naming names. The Journal goes the whole length, however, and cites the following bill of Ex-Senator Felton, of California, agent for the opposition to the annexa tion of Hawaii. Ex-Senator Gibson, of Maryland, agent of steamship companies and against restriction in immigration laws. Ex-Senator Farwell, of Illinois, act ing for those opposed to the passage of a bankruptcy law. Also agent for a scheme to purchase the mouth of the Brazos river. Ex-Senator Paddock, of Nebraska, agent of the Sabine Pass scheme. Ex-Senator Brown, of Utah, agent for the opening of the Uncompahgre reservation and the Gilsonite deposits. Ex-Senator Eppa Hutton, of Virgin ia, agent for private claims. Fx-Senator Butler, of South Carolina, agent for the Cramps. Ex-Senator Higgins, of Delaware, agent for paper manufacturers. Os course this may be wrong in some particulars, but it is not so very far wrong. The presence of these ex-sen ators about the halls of congress has led to this talk and the reasons for their presence will need very vigorous explaining before people will be con vinced that they are here simply as patriots. John law Financiering. We print today the rejoinder of Hon. Thomas E. Watson, late candidate for vice president on the Populist ticket, to the arguments submitted by The Macon Telegraph against the free coin age of silver at 16 to 1 and against the fiat money issues proposed by Mr. Watson. After reading his disserta tion, we have only to remark that the lessons of history are all against him. Would they were not so ! If it were only possible for the government to make money out of paper and to make it circulate at its imprinted value, there would be no more poverty, no more hunger, no more wolves at the door of the poor. Would that the gov ernment could do this ; for if it could there would indeed be plenty of money for everybody, and toil would become a question of physical exercise instead of an obligation put upon us by the Almighty; Blessed is the state of that - man who can dream as Mr. Watson dreams, who can build glorious castles in the air and be sure that they may be obtainable, who believes that the good day is at hand when the fiat of the government shall fill the purses of everybody. It is most refreshing, as one goes down the dusty road of life to have the way cheered by the presence of men like Watson, who. in the most altruistic spirit is preaching the doc trine that by a mere change in the fi nancial sys:em of our government the sky will rain larks. The manifestation of such sublime faith must win respect for him who has it, much as we may believe his trust is misplaced. Perhaps that man is, after all, the richest man who is convinced that he is about to seize the philosopher’s stone, and with it to turn the leaves on the trees into the currency of the realm. From that view-point Thomas E. Watson is richer » far than any Croesus who has ever lived. We may further observe that Mr. Watson’s article has a special in terest from the fact that he defends the memory of John Law. In this respect Mr. Watson may lay claim to especial distinction, for he is about the first since Law ceased to vex the earth who has undertaken to be the apolo gist of the man who developed a sys tem of national finance on the “Missis sippi bubble.” History tells that Law was a professional gambler, and -the— — only difference between him and other gamblers was that he played a limit less game. Mr. Watson says that Law went to France a rich man. That is true, but his wealth was due to his success at the gaming table. When the leader of the Populist party, con fessedly the ablest and most courage ous of them all, deliberately sets up John Law as an authority for a mod ern financial propaganda, further ar gument would seem to be unnecessary. The reductio ad absurdum is complete. —Macon Telegraph. Political Catechism. - If special class legislation is paternal ism what is more paternalistic than a protective tariff ? If a government can loan money to a banker with bonds, why can’t it loan money to a farmer with lands ? -JI If other governments own their rail- S| roads and telegraphs why can’t ours'JH do the same ? < j If the democrats are in favor of I silver why did they vote for Cleveland three times—twice after it was known he was opposed to it? If greenbacks are not money why have the United States Supreme Court and fifteen State Supreme Courts deci- —- ded that they are ? It the government can take 50 cents worth of silver and make out of it 100 cents worth of money why can’t it do so with ten cents worth of silver ? If it can make a dollar out of ten cents worth of silver why can’t it make it out of one-tenth of cent’s worth of pftP er ? If the greenbacks are not money>how did the soldiers get pay for theiis" sac rifices and services during the warj? If the government can eontroTarmie.frJqgj and navies and the postal service wligg§ can’t it operate a railroad?—MorgaTgEsjS ' Buzz Saw. jgpggjqg The Albany Penny Press very pJgs edly remarks that the want pie is the principal want many people.—Griffin News.