Newspaper Page Text
mumps.
thos. E. Watson's Reply to
Senator J. B. Gordon.
GIBSON SPEECH REVIEWED.
He Makes no Defense of the Votes He
Has Cast in the Interest of
Monopolies and Trusts.
On May 13th last, a reply was
made in these columns to an article
by Hon. John B. Gordon; which
article assailed the People’s Party, its
principles and its tendencies. The
Legislative evils of the day were all
charged to the Republican party,
while the Democracy was claimed to
be entirely without fault. The pub
lic Records were appealed to as
proofs; and the author of the article,
with a modesty which is quite his
own, proudly asserted that “no man
In this whole Union has longer or
tnore consistently and persistently la
bored for the Reforms and the Relief
Which the people need and ought to
Secure.”
.When a citizen makes a target of
himself in this way, why should he
wonder if he gets shot at ? Can Sen
ator Gordon expect to denounce us
&t will and evoke no response ? Are
We to be kicked and cuffed around
at the pleasure of every passer-by?
Hardly. The reply which was
fnade to Senator Gordon’s attack was
temperate and civil. From begin
ning to end no word was used which
one gentleman might not in fair dis
cussion use to another.
After taking nearly a month to
prepare a rejoinder, the Senator has
given us one which is more remarka
ble for its temper than its argument;
more distinguished for its heat than
Its strength.
The Senator'is nothing if not the
atrical. Therefore, instead of quiet
ly doing me up through the papers
as he started out to do, he drops the
pen from his impatient fingers and
tushes down to Glasscock county
With a stump speech. In order that
the stage-manager, cur
tain-hoister, etc., might all be duly
on hand, much advertising was done
in advance. The Governor of the
State was carried along to look deep
and talk shallow; Pat Walsh to act
the judicious bottle-holder; x Mr.
Black to receive the unctions bene
diction of “Bless you, my children
While Mr. Whitehead posed as the
“end man,” announcing “the next
performance” to the tired audience.
The Sunday’s Chronicle contained
a report of the Senator’s speech sign
ed, Charles J. Bayne. In the Wed
nesday’s issue appears the Steno
graphic Report. The Senator seems
to have done a great deal of “revis
ing,” as usual. He is great on “Re
visions,” as we all remember from
his experience with W. G. Cooper
last year. It is curious to note that
wherever Mr. Bayne had “applause,”
Senator Gordon has “great ap
plause where Mr. Bayne had
“laughter,” Senator Gordon has
“great laughter,” and wherever
Bayne has “cheers” Gordon has
“great cheering.”
Modest men are much given to
this kind of “revision.”
The Chronicle alludes editorially
to my article as “unfounded and
slanderous.” Senator Gordon al
hides to me as “pert,” “dapper,”
“Smart Aleck,” “base,” “false,” “cow
ardly,” “the self-important little fly,”
“traitor to the party,” etc., etc.
After taking a month’s time to
consider, Senator Gordon might have
met the argument and left mere abuse
to smaller men. Perhaps it was the
lack of argument which impelled him
to use language so unworthy. At
any rate, I can well afford to pass by
his scurrility with quiet scorn as I
proceed to strike him full and fair
DR-BICKERS
MCtrTNJS JRSrr JTE
above the belt with facts which he
cannot deny and arguments he can
not answer.
THE MAXIMS.
Greatly aggrieved is Senator Gor
don that his propositions, numbered
carefully from one to five, and duly
tagged and branded as “Maxims,”
got themselves laughed at and pitch
ed out of the window.
Well, they deserved it. No stu
dent could read those things without
grinning from ear to ear. If there is
any one “Maxim” which is accepted
as a truism by all who have read his
tory it is that “Reforms come from
below.” The proposition is so obvi
ously true that I am almost ashamed
to argue it. The Princes of the State
and the Princes of the Church are al
ways averse to change. The poor
priest starts the Reformation-not the
Pope or the Cardinals. The Church
of England is not the author of the
Methodism which sprang from her
bosom. No Archbishop; no well
fed, well-paid Bishop started the Re
volt. No; it was the poor band of
students—Wesley, Whitfield and their
three comrades who-smote the abuses,
aroused the people, organized them
upon Reform principles and thus pu
rified a fountain which today sends
life-giving streams to the uttermost
ends of the earth.
So in temporal affairs, Reform of
abuses comes from those who suffer
—not from those who inflict. The
French King leads no Revolution—
it is the suffering people below who
rise in revolt, state their grievances,
elect men pledged to redress them,
and thus achieve final success.
Free Trade in England camo from
below.. The people were aroused
and organized by Cobden and Bright,
their demands formulated, members
of Parliament elected pledged to car
ry them out, and thus such a pres
sure was brought to bear upon the
English Rulers they had to give way.
Emancipation was accomplished in
England the same way. So was Bal
lot Reform, Labor Reform, Catholic
Emancipation and Parliamentary Re
form. In each case the agitation
started from below and worked its
way up. Nobody ever dreamed that
Ballot Reform, for example, could be
accomplished by mere “changing of
the Rulers.” They thought that
public opinion should be gained by
agitation and “education;” that the
Platform should plainly indicate the
popular will; that men should be
elected pledged to that Platform and
thus the Rulers would be changed
and the laws altered.
The principle holds good in this
country as it does elsewhere. Eman
cipation did not come in this country
from a mere change of Rulers. There
was a tremendous movement from
below—from the people. They agi
tated and educated year in and year
out. They ran Birney and got beat.
Not at all discouraged, they ran Fre
mont and again got beat. Not at all
disheartened, they ran Abraham Lin
coln and elected him. And after his
election by that Reform movement
upon the Platform so distinctively
against slavery, no one doubted that
the beginning of the end had come.
Hence the South seceded.
It was not so much the change of
Rulers that alarmed the South. It
was the Republican Platform and the
Reform movement which was back
of that Ruler.
So with Mr. Jefferson. He raised
a revolt against Hamilton and Adams.
He educated the people to his doc
trines. He ran for the Presidency
pledged to those doctrines. He pre
ferred defeat rather than surrender.
Upon a second attempt he was elect
ed ; and to a great extent carried out
the doctrines which he had announc
ed as his Platform. Mr. Jefferson’s
movement was a “New Party,” and
he was severely denounced by the
Gordons, Browns and Northens of
that day.
Andrew Jackson was also the
leader of a “New Party.” He ap
pealed direct ly to the people against
the National Bank and against the
old Party Caucusses and Trickery.
He organized them to fight the
Whigs, who were led on by Clay and
Webster, and the Republicans, who
had followed Crawford and Adams.
His Party was stricdy a Third
Party, and was called Democratic.
Senator Gordon in his abuse of Third
Parties and Third Party Leaders
should not forget that Andrew Jack
son was a Third Party leader and
that the Democratic par:y of today
is the Third Party which Jackson
founded.
Jefferson was always known as a
Republican and his party was known
as the Republican party. Gen. Gor
don is respectfully requested to chew
on this statement a few minutes.
Hence I claimed that in order for
THE SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FARMER ATLANTA, GEORGIA, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1892.
our Reform to succeed, we must ed
ucate the great masses of the
people on certain principles; set
forth those principles as our de
mands ; choose Representatives pledg
ed to carry out those demands and
thus get the desired Laws passed.
Suppose we change our Rulers.
Suppose we defeat Harrison and elect
Cleveland or Hill, will we get Re
forms we demand? No; because
the Democratic platform does not
promise them. Mr. Cleveland or
Mr. Hill could truthfully say, “I will
do all I promised, but I did not prom
ise any Income Tax; nor any direct
issue of Treasury notes; nor any in
crease in the circulating medium;
nor any abolition of National Banks;
nor any land Loans; nor any sub-
Treasury bills.”
How could we reply? We would
be in a silly attitude of having hoped
to win Reforms by electing Rulers
who were unfriendly to those Re
forms.
That is all there is of it; and Sen
ator Gordon cannot hide the plain
truth by all the flourishes of Rheto
ric that fancy ever suggested.
The Senator scouts the idea that
the people need any “education.”
They think differently. They think
the facts have been wilfully held
back and they are now glad to learn
them. They consider the “educa
tion” worth having. They are now
learning many things for the first
time. And one of the men whom
they are rapidly finding out is Sena
tor John B. Gordon.
PLAYING OLD SOLDIER.
In my article, the distinct asser
tion was made that the Senator had
served his country nobly in war and
that he had been nobly rewarded for
it. In spite of this admission he
wishes it believed that I belittled his
war record. No such thing was done.
He well knows it was not done ; but
he is so much in the habit of thump
ing himself upon the chest and boast
ing of his military services that he
cannot, to save his life, make a speech
without repeating the old, old story.
Many a battered Confederate was in
that crowd at Gibson who served as
faithfully as Jno. B. Gordon and who
has not been kept in fat offices ever
since the War; but the Senator, in
his modesty, has almost persuaded
himself that he is the sole survivor of
the Lost Cause. No man honors our
old veterans more highly than I.
Here in the Halls of Congress, as
elsewhere, I have spoken proudly of
their services and their worth. And
while Senator Gordon was in my dis
trict abusing me in language little to
his credit, I was here doing all in my
power to force discussion upon meas
ures which would bring them relief.
Senator Gordon, as usual, gave the
old soldiers taffy and sweetened rhet
oric. I was giving them my labors
and my votes.
LAND GRANTS.
Although I am denounced as a
slanderer, it seems that most of my
Indictment is conceded. The Sena
tor in his letter had strongly de
nounced Land Grants and Bounties
to Corporations and alluded to their
“Corrupting influence,” etc. He
charged it all up to the Republicans.
In re"ply, I simply showed that Sen
ator Gordon was guilty of like con
duct, and that the first Bill he ever
introduced belonged to the class he
condemned. He admits the charge,
but tries to avoid the force of the ex
posure by claiming that the Bill was
introduced “by request.”
The statement is contradicted
by the Offlcial Records. I have
carefully examined the Daily Con
gressional Record and also the Rec
ords of the Bills themselves, and I
most positively assert that Senator
Gordon’s statement is not borne out
by the official proofs. The Corpora
tion which he was seeking to have
aided by the Government, proposed
to open a Canal from the Mississippi
to the Atlantic byway of the Ten
nessee river.
The first bill Gen. Gordon intro
duced provided for a Government
endorsement of the Bonds in the sum
of SBO,OOO per mile. The second
bill which he introduced, over two
months later, contained the addition
al grant of Seven Million Dollars.
A pretty steep job—coming as it
does from one than whom “no man
in this whole union has longer, or
more consistently or persistently la
bored for the Reforms and the Relief
which the pepple need.”
This Bill was mentioned as a sam
ple. There are more like it. For in
stance his Bill in behalf of the Great
Southern Road from Millen to Key
West, which carried a modest en
dorsement of Thirteen Million
Dollars.
As his first measure was in behalf
nf the Comorations. so was his last.
Among the very latest utterances he
ever made in the Senate, just before
he left the service of the people to
take service with the Railroads, were
a series of speeches in behalf of the
Nicaragua canal.
THE THURMAN ACT.
Upon this point the Senator has to
confess that it’s a plain case. So
it is. Let everybody remember that
here was an instance where the Gov
ernment was trying to get back the
pitiful sum of 5 per cent per year
from the Pacific railroads to which
had been granted 130,000,000 acres
of land besides an endorsement of
Bonds to the extent of $60,000,000.
Let it be remembered that Senator
Allen Thurman was trying to collect
from the road 5 per cent annually of
the amount of interest the Govern
ment had paid on those Bonds. Let
it be remembered that James G.
Blaine and Stanley Mathews (repre
senting Jay Gould, who owned most
of the stock in the Roads) were fight
ing Thurman at every step.
Let it be remembered that the
State of Georgia at that time had in
the Senate a Representative, than
whom “no man in this whole Union
has longer or more consistently and
persistently labored for the Reforms
and Relief the people need.”
Then let it be remembered that he
voted in favor of the Railroads and
against the people.
If anything more be needed, let it
be remembered that when he was
confronted with this terrible vote he
ran away and hid his shivering form
behind the grave-stone of Benjamin
H. Hill!
Some time ago when Senator Gor
don was charged with black ingrati
tude to Henry Grady, he complained
bitterly of being put in a position
where, to reply, he would seem to be
attacking a dead man. Hard must
be the stress of political weather when
John B. Gordon calls up as a shield
the action of a man so recently dead
under such pathetic circumstances—
a man, by the way, who did not love
Gordon and whom Gordon did not
love.
Senator Gordon is a brave man,
but the good sober sense of the pub
lic will j udge that he lost his balance
when he charged me with “coward
ice” at the very moment he was run
ning to shelter toward Bon Hill’s
tomb.
demonitezation of silver.
But the most astonishing part of
Senator Gordon’s speech is yet to
come.
In my article it was charged that
neither he nor the Democratic party
made any contest, whatever, against
the chains which John Sherman riv
eted upon the people by means of
the Demonetization of Silver. This
statement by me was strictly true.
Senator Gordon realizes the crushing
force and attempts a denial. He
reads from the New York Herald
extracts from a speech made by him,
and deliberately sought to make the
•impression that he was combating the
Demonetization of Silver.
What will those people think when
I show them that Gordon did not
open his lips on the Demonitization
question ? What will they think
when I show that the speech from
which he read was upon another
subject altogether, and that he
did not utter therein, a single word
against the crime of Demoentization ?
Here is the proof:
By act of Feb. 12, 1873, the coin
age of the standard silver dollar,
which had been the unit of value
since 1792, was discontinued. This
act is usually called the Demonetiza
tion act, but erroneously so. The
Silver outstanding still continued to
be Legal Tender. Another act was
required to take away from the out
standing Silver the legal tender qual
ity and transfer it, solely, to gold.
This was done in the codification
of the Coinage Laws approved June
22,1874. When that was done, the
crime was complete.
Now, Senator Gordon was not in
the Senate when the act of 1873 was
passed. Therefore he could not have
made any fight on it. He was in the
Senate when the act of 1874 was
passed. Therefore he could have
made a fight on it. He did not do
so. What Sherman Bill did he make
such a desperate war upon, then?
Why, upon a mere Resolution of
Sherman’s, setting forth that the Gov
ernment should take some steps look
ing to Resumption of Specie Pay
ments. That was all. It had noth
ing, whatever, to do with Demoneti
zation. I defy Senator Gordon to
GIVE US A SINGLE PARAGRAPH FROM
HIS SPEECH IN WHICH HE SO MUCH AS
MENTIONS THE DEMONETIZATION OF
Silver.
„ In the presence of the people of
Georgia, I ask John B. Gordon this
Highest of all in Leavening Power.—Latest U. S. Gov’t Report
PritfaJ Baking
PvtEs Powder
ABSOmTECT PURE
question: When did you.first know
that Silver had been Demonetized?
As you fear God, answer truly 1
No Democrat made any fight for
Silver; and Demonetization was
accomplished so quietly that the
charm of Ernest Seyd’s British gold
seemed to have hypnotized the whole
business. The Democratic platform
of 1876 contains no denunciation of
the crime of Demonetization. The
Greenback platform was the first one
to arraign the crime and the crimi
nals. When Democrats and Repub
licans realized that the country had
got hold of the facts from the Green
backers, they both began to denounce
the wrong which jointly they had
perpetrated. The despised Green
backers were the Detectives to whom
the people owe the exposure of the
crime and the proofs against the
criminals.
Senator Gordon has been the hero
of many amusing episodes, but he
never appeared in so sorry a plight
as when he tried to prove by a speech
on Resumption that he was valiantly
fighting the Demonetization of Silver.
No wonder he objects to “educating”
the people. It suits his plan to keep
the facts hidden away.
WHERE is THE RESPONSIBILITY ?
Equally curious in his doctrine
that Minorities have no Party re
sponsibility. Nobody ever broached
such a claim before. A Party is re
sponsible for what a majority of its
members do. It is responsible for
the Platform adopted and the votes
cast by that majority. Upon such
platform it goes before the country
and asks support. If it is never re
sponsible except when in control,
why do people put faith in its
pledges ? Why do the people con
tinue to elect Democrats upon a cer
tain platform if such platform carries
no responsibility? The position is
so weakly absurd it needs no argu
ment.
Wherever a sufficiency of Demo
cratic votes were cast for or against
a measure to change the result, I have
claimed that the Democratic party
was partly responsible. This is emi
nently fair and all just men will ad
mit it. Hence Senator Gordon can
not get away from the argument that
the Democratic party is partly re
sponsible for contraction, for Demon
etization of Silver, for the Repeal of
the Income Tax, for extending the
powers and privileges of the Na
tional Banks and for squandering the
public lands.
While discussing the responsibility
for bad laws, let me remark that by
Senator Gordon’s own rule the Dem
ocrats are partly to blame for nearly
twenty years.
In 1875-76 the Democrats con
trolled the House—the Republicans
the Senate.
In 1877-78 it was the same.
In 1879-80. The Democrats had
both House and Senate.
1111881-82. Republicans had both.
In 1883-84. Democrats had the
House—Republicans the Senate.
In 1885-86. Same. Cleveland
President.
In 1887-88. Same. Cleveland
President.
In 1889-90. Both Republican.
In 1891-92. Democratic House
and Republican Senate.
GIVING AWAY THE LANDS.
The Ideal Baking Powder
is
Dr. Price’s Cream Baking Powder.
'■ ■■ I
For more than fifty years Cream of Tartar and Bi
carbonate of Soda have been used for leavening purposes
with sufficient flour added to preserve the strength of the
powder unimpaired, and this with the addition of whites
of eggs comprises this pure and wholesome leavening
agent, that has been the standard for 40 years. In its
use pure, wholesome and delicious food is always assured.
Makes cake and biscuit that retain their moisture, and
while they are flaky and extremely light they are fine grained,
not coarse and full of holes as made with ammonia baking
powders, latter dries up quickly. Alum powders leave a bit
ter taste in the bread or cake.
Dr. Price’s Cream Baking Powder once used, always used*
When it was stated in my article
that previous to 1861 the Democrats
were in power and had given away
some thirty million acres public
lands, I was, of course, speaking of
that party as opposed to the Repub
licans who had not yet got into pow*>
er. I did not mean to say that the
Democratic party had been in con
trol since the foundation of the gov
ernment.
Senator Gordon, however, with his
happy faculty of making ten blun.
ders out of a possible nine, exclaims,
“The Democratic party was in power
before the war, I think, for sixty
years. * * * Democratic econo
my :—Republican extravagance. 30,-
000,000 acres in 60 years by Demo
crats. 130,000,000 acres in less
than two years by Republicans—be
sides $60,000,000 of public credit.”
Thus orates the great United
States Senator who scouts the idea
that any one needs “educating.” The
Democratic party, says he, was in
power sixty years before the war and
only gave the railroads 30,000,000
acres during that long period.
There are two pretty sound rea
sons why this statement is untrue.
First, there was no Democratic party
prior to 1828, and no railroads prior
to 1827.
Caught again Senator!
Andrew Jackson’s party was the
first national organization known a«
the Democratic Party. It was formed
in 1828.
You only missed it about thirty
years.
You admit that the Democrats are
responsible for the 30,000,000 acres.
Now let us see about the balance.
The Pacific railroad grant of 130,-
000,000 acres and $60,000,000 boun
ty, which you say the Republicans
are solely responsible for, was passed
by the almost unanimous vote of
both Democrats and Republicans.
Only two Democrats in Congress
voted no.
The Texas Pacific Land Grant Bill
was one of the last of the shameful
series. It passed in 1871. Twenty
eight Democrats voted for it in the
House and only nineteen against.
I In the Senate an attempt wai
' made to kill the bill by laying it on
i the table. Every Democrat voted
1 against the motion. The bill then
passed without division.
If Senator Gordon would but ex
amine the Record he will find that in
all these Bounties and Land Grant(
both the old Parties combined. If
the good Senator will just turn to
the Democratic National Platform
of 1856 he will find that the Demo
cratic party in Convention assembled
pledged its aid to these very Rail
Roads.
If the good Senator will go further
and examine the Platform of his
Party for 1860 he will see that the
National Democracy again renews
its pledge of aid to these Rail
Roads.
If the good Senator will read the
Message of President Buchanan
(Democrat) in 1858 he will see
where the Chief Magistrate of the
Union, for the first time in the his
tory of the Government, suggests
that money and land be given these
corporations.
, Further than this it has been
shown time and again that Stephen
A. Douglass, Democrat, was the
5