Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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