I also desire to have published in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a letter from a Republican banker and business man from one of the progressive and prosperous counties of my district. I also desire to say that I voted against this hybrid bill, made up as it is of equal parts of two admittedly bad bills, and it passes understanding how a good measure can be made out of two bad ones: THE PAULDING NATIONAL BANK, Paulding, Ohio, May 11, 1908.

Hon. T. T. ANSBERRY, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have taken the liberty to wire you protesting against the passage of the Vreeland bill.

I can not understand why the dominant party in the House of Representatives should think that the people of this country want or need such makeshift legislation. It is utter ignorance of the first principles of financial stability. The currency question is too dangerous a thing to tamper with and one that ought to be handled without any regard to politics, and if the Members of Congress do not know what they are voting for, as the junior Senator from Iowa so frankly said, then it ought to be left with experts who do know what they are talking about or put in the hands of a commission until the Members of Congress take some lessons and learn what it all means.

I know but little about it myself, do not claim anything, and I can understand easily why so few do know so little, but I am willing to refer to such financial experts as Lyman J. Gage or Charles N. Fowler, who has made a life-long study of the question, and who I consider the greatest authority on the subject in America to-day. I am aware that you will have very little chance to be of service if the Republicans make this a party question in the House, providing of course that you take my view of the question, but I can not help but enter my protest of the passage of this worse than makeshift legislation. C. H. ALLEN.

Yours, truly,

A Review of Bryanism.

REMARKS

OF

HON. HENRY C. LOUDENSLAGER,

OF NEW JERSEY,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Tuesday, May 26, 1908.

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the following order, which I send to the desk and ask to have read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That general leave to print be granted Members from the adoption of this order until five days after the adjournment of the present session of Congress.

Mr. LOUDENSLAGER said:

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the leave to print granted by the House, I desire to place the following in the RECORD, believing that it will not only be of great benefit by way of information to the Members, but also to the readers of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. The subject-matter was printed in the New York World in February, 1908:

TWELVE YEARS OF BRYANISM.

For nearly twelve years, Mr. Bryan, you have been the leader-yes, the dictator of the Democratic party of the United States. With but one exception its policies have been your policies, its principles your principles, its platforms your platforms.

After twelve years of such domination, during which time the party has gone down to three successive national defeats, piling disaster upon disaster and ruin upon ruin, your friends insist not only that you are the most available candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1908, but that you are the only available candidate, and you yourself have issued a statement expressing your readiness and willingness to accept the nomination. For the purpose of demonstrating

the error of your assumption more plainly than in words or figures, we print herewith maps of the United States showing the States carried by Democrats and Republicans in the years 1892, 1896, 1900, and 1907:

The Democratic party went out of power in the nation March 4, 1897. Four years earlier it controlled 23 of the 44 States, the Republicans 17, and the Populists 4.

In Congress the party division was as follows: Senate-Democrats, 44; Republicans, 38; Independent, 1; Alliance, 2; vacancies, 3. HouseDemocrats, 220; Republicans, 128; Populists, 8.

What was the situation November 14, 1907, Mr. Bryan, after eleven years of your leadership, when you announced your receptive candidacy? Of the 46 States the Democrats controlled 13 and the Republicans 33. In Congress the party division now is: Senate Republicans, 61; Democrats, 31. House-Republicans, 223; Democrats, 168.

Whole States at the North are without Democratic representation in Congress, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, north of the Ohio River, there are but 6 Democratic governors,

Such to-day is the condition of the historic Democratic party, Mr. Bryan, after twelve years of your leadership. 10

BRYAN THE CANDIDATE OF THE SILVER TRUST.

Your leadership of the Democratic party. Mr. Bryan, began with the national convention held in Chicago in 1896. It was an unfortunate year for a national campaign.

The American people were paying the penalty of thirty years' of trifling with their currency and their monetary standard of value. Industry was half paralyzed, commerce semiprostrate. Crops had been poor, the price of farm products was low; the farms themselves were generally mortgaged. The National Government itself, with a demoralized Treasury, was borrowing money to pay its current expenses under the form of maintaining the gold reserve. Bond sales to favored syndicates had aroused the indignation of the people, without regard to party. Probably a million men in the cities were out of work. Soup

houses had been opened during the two preceding winters, and in every large center of population police stations had been filled nightly by homeless wanderers.

Armies of tramps moved sullenly along the highways. A Democratic Administration was in power which seemingly had no friends except its own appointees and beneficiaries. Discontent was almost universal. It was the hour of the agitator, and the Democratic national convention was his opportunity.

When a temporary organization of the convention was effected the elements of repudiation and political revolution found that while they had a majority of the delegates, they did not have the two-thirds majority necessary, in accordance with Democratic precedent, to nominate a candidate for President. This embarrassment was short lived. The silver forces, by prearranged plan, had sent contesting delegations from many States, including Nebraska. Only a majority vote was necessary to adopt the report of a committee. The committee on credentials therefore unseated enough conservative delegates to insure a radical two-thirds majority for nominating purposes, and the issue was no longer in doubt.

You, Mr. Bryan, were at the head of the contesting delegates from Nebraska when they marched into the convention hall to take the seats of the sound-money delegates that had been evicted.

The money plank in the platform, which the convention adopted by a vote of 626 to 303, was as follows:

*

The great silver-mine owners of the world were in despair over the depreciation in price of their metal. Its use for money of redemption had been discontinued by the leading commercial nations. The India mints had been closed to its coinage. Congress had been forced to repeal the Sherman silver act, which had made the National Government a heavy purchaser of silver in the market.

The business of the mining operators was in a bad way and ruin stared many of them in the face unless the Government of the United States created an unlimited market for their product by throwing open its mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver.

Never was a political propaganda more vehemently and desperately advocated, and never were the selfish interests behind it more adroitly concealed. If the obvious self-interest of the silver miners in the 16 to 1 crusade carried on by Democrats and Populists in 1896 had been as well understood as it should have been, the names of these men would be as closely associated in the public mind with the silver trust as Rockefeller's is with oil or Armour's is with beef.

The proposition which you advanced, Mr. Bryan, contemplated opening the mints of the United States to the free coinage on private account at the rate of less than 50-cents' worth of bullion to the dollar of whatever portion of this enormous stock of silver its owners or speculators might be moved to present. You asserted that free coinage and the fiat of Government would instantly raise every 50-cent token thus minted to parity with gold.

If so, the wealth of all owners and producers of silver would have been doubled.

Here is a list of some of the gentlemen who assisted in financing your theory that 50-cents' worth of silver bullion ought to be worth a dollar: CONTRIBUTIONS TO MR. BRYAN'S CAMPAIGN fund.

Marcus A. Daly, Montana, principal owner of Anaconda
mine. This sum of $159,000 represents Mr. Daly's own
contribution and sums collected by him...
David H. Moffat, First National Bank, Denver, Colo.
W. S. Stratton, Colorado, owner of Independence mine.
William A. Clark, of Montana_.

Dennis Sheedy, Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo---
Charles D. Lane, of California__.

D. M. Hyman, Denver, Colo..

Other Colorado mining interests

Utah mining interests--

$159, 000. 00 18, 000, 00 12, 000. 00 45, 000, 00 7,500.00 15, 000, 00 7,500.00 6, 000, 00 18, 372. 70

250.00 250.00 500.00

250.00

500.00

100.00 300.00 1,500.00

500.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 1,000.00

1, 000. 00

250.00 2,000.00

200.00 249.00

120.00

1,000. 00

242.00 122.00

34.00

69.00

300.00 537.00

116. 00 307.00 200.00

288,000.00

These contributions, as you doubtless know, Mr. Bryan, were all recorded in the books of the Democratic national committee, although in your eloquent appeals for publicity of political contributions you have never referred to the fact that the silver interests financed your Presidential campaign.

You began your domination of the Democratic party in a period of great financial disturbance. You now purpose to be the Democratic candidate for President in another period of great financial disturbance, as the nominee of a political party whose reputation for financial sanity you have discredited all over the civilized world. Not only have you failed to recant as to your past financial heresies, but you have steadfastly adhered to your free-silver delusions. No longer ago than December 7, in a speech at Freeport, Ill., you declared that your financial policy in 1896 had been vindicated."

་་

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BRYANISM, DEMOCRACY, POPULISM, SOCIALISM. No review of your leadership of the Democratic party would be just or adequate, Mr. Byran, which did not uncover the sources of your political policies and principles.

Your first notable appearance in public life was in 1890, when you were elected to Congress from Nebraska in the popular uprising against the McKinley tariff. At that time, we believe, you were an ardent free trader, and you were also a believer in the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, which was then more or less of an academic issue in spite of a growing agitation.

In 1892 you were a candidate for reelection. The Populist party had then reached formidable proportions in many Western States, including Nebraska. It was composed almost wholly of discontented Republicans. You and certain other Nebraska Democrats in that year arranged an illegitimate fusion with the Populists, by which the Democratic vote was to be cast for General Weaver, a Populist who was formerly a Republican. This succeeded so well that Mr. Cleveland received only 25,000 votes. You yourself voted the Weaver ticket, under instructions," as you say, and were a warm admirer of the RepublicanGreenback-Populist leader.

66

At the close of your second term you retired from Congress. It was said that you had lost faith in the Democratic party, believing that it, no less than the Republican party, was committed to privilege and plutocracy. It was reported, too, that you would devote yourself to the free-silver propaganda under the patronage of certain mine owners. Whether there was any truth in this gossip or not you achieved a journalistic coup soon after your retirement from Congress by which you became editor in chief of the Omaha World-Herald, and a conservative Democratic newspaper was transformed into an organ of aggressive Populism.

Dr. George L. Miller, who founded this newspaper and managed it for twenty-five years, said in 1903:

"It is perfectly well known that Bryan, always very poor and as a lawyer practically clientless, raised a large sum of money from the silver barons and used it to bring about the change in the World-Herald. Mr. Bryan thus became the editor, and from that hour he has been a Populist."

We find that the Populist national platform of the year 1892, when you voted the Weaver ticket, defined the following articles of faith: (1) Government ownership and operation of all railroads. (2) The free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. (3) Inflation of greenback circulation. (4) Government ownership and operation of all telegraph and telephone lines. (5) Restriction of immigration. (6) The initiative and referendum. (7) The election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. This platform also expressed the belief that the nation had been "brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin;" that legislatures, Congresses, and courts were corrupt; that the press was subsidized; that there were only two classes in the country, tramps and millionaires, and that both the old parties were keeping up a fictitious hostility in order to hoodwink the people for the profit of the money changers.

The political alliance which you helped to form that year in Nebraska has since been made permanent, the Populists supplying the platform in each campaign and the Democrats the votes.

An examination of the Democratic and Populistic platforms in Nebraska since 1892 shows how, from time to time, the issues of that year have been reaffirmed and amplified.

In 1897 the Democrats condemned United States judges who interfered with lawless strikers. In 1898 they demanded the abolition of banks of issue and the prohibition of private contracts for the payment of gold. In 1899 they indorsed everything contained in the Populistic platform of 1892 and the Democratic-l'opulistic platforms of 1898. In 1900 they reaffirmed all that had gone before, added a denunciation of Government by injunction, and favored municipal ownership and the referendum.

In 1902 they demanded the taxation of all railroad property, tangible and intangible, to its full value, and favored a reduction of 15 per cent in freight rates on various commodities and the abolition of the fellowservant law. In 1903 they denounced asset currency, preferring fiat money. In 1904 they subscribed to a stump-speech sort of platform, telling what they would have done during the preceding ten years if they had been in power. In 1905 they wanted to make the giving and the acceptance of a free railroad pass a criminal offense and to establish direct primaries. They also made light of Republican prosecutions of the trusts. In 1906 they rejoiced that Mr. Bryan had become the "first citizen of the world," and deplored the fact that corporate influence was paramount in government.

In 1907 they made a new assault on the Federal courts under pretense of defending State rights. As you drafted that plank, Mr. Bryan, you will doubtless thank us for reproducing it:

"Believing with Jefferson in the support of the State governments in all their rights and the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns as the surest bulwark against anti-Republican tendencies,' and in the preservation of the Federal Government in its whole constitutional vigor as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad,' we are opposed to the centralization implied in the suggestions now frequently made that the powers of the General Government should be extended by judicial construction. While we favor the exercise by the General Government of all its constitutional authority for the prevention of monopoly and the regulation of interstate commerce, insist that Federal remedies shall be added to and not substituted for State remedies."

we

Stripped of its verbiage, this means neither more nor less than that when a State legislature has passed a railroad-rate law the Federal courts must not suspend the act by writs of injunction preparatory to determining whether or not the statute is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Thus your new State rights, Mr. Bryan, is really your old "government by injunction" issue under an alias. The Populistic, the Silver Republican, and the Middle-of-the-Road Populistic conventions in Nebraska for the last fifteen years have uniformly adopted platforms which did not vary much from those of their Democratic allies except that in two or three instances they called for an irredeemable paper currency. In all of these platforms it is to be

understood that the issues raised in 1892 by the Populists and in 1896 by the Democrats were affirmed either by specific reference or as a whole.

То

In your own State, Mr. Bryan, you are no less well known as a maker of platforms than as an orator It is to be presumed that you were not only consulted about all these various party pronouncements, but that practically all of them were the work of your own brain. call the long roll, therefore, we find that you, Mr. Bryan, as the foremost Populist in America, have supported and voted for candidates who represented the following political principles:

Free silver, 16 to 1, without the concurrence of other nations.
Government loans to farmers.

Government ownership and operation of railroads.
Greenback inflation (irredeemable).

Government ownership and operation of telegraph and telephone

lines.

Election of United States Senators by popular vote.
Initiative and referendum.

Election of United States judges by direct vote and for short terms.
A promise to pack the Supreme Court of the United States.
No government by injunction."

Opposition to private contracts providing for the payment of gold. Government ownership of interstate railroads and State ownership of State railroads.

Municipal ownership of all public utilities in cities.

Crippling the United States courts and contracting their jurisdiction over questions arising under the Constitution.

We can well believe, Mr. Bryan, that you were well satisfied with that Populistic platform of 1892, when you voted the Weaver ticket; for with the exception of anti-imperialism every important issue which you have since foisted, or tried to foist, upon the Democratic party was taken from that platform.

*

A man of your ability and address, Mr. Bryan, can not forever assail constitutions, courts, law, wealth, property, credit, national honor, and private faith without building up a following which will have to be reckoned with some time. He can not forever inflame social discontent without creating class hatreds and sowing the seeds of a class war.

Socialism is more active and eager now than ever before, and, as most people know, the line dividing socialism and anarchy, though in theory they are far apart, is not always definite. Socialism, listening expectantly for your footsteps, has heard them in rapture more than Whether you know it or not, that is the direction in which you

once.

are leading.

THE DISCREDITED PROPHET.

If you, Mr. Bryan, and the Chicago Convention had been right, your overthrow at the polls in November, 1896, should have been followed by continued depression and disaster. You foretold them both.

As a matter of fact, the votes by which you were condemned had hardly been counted when there were signs of business revival, and in an incredibly short space of time the change for the better had become so pronounced that complaint practically ceased, agitation was abandoned, and the sporadic orator of calamity was greeted with derision.

Never before in the history of the world was there so sudden and so complete a restoration of confidence and a revival of industry and commerce. Never before was there so convincing a demonstration of the truth, long known, that the surest way to destroy prosperity is to debase the currency, and the most certain way to restore it under such circumstances is to take a firm stand in favor of the best money known to men.

In measuring the prosperity with which this country has been blessed since the menace of cheap silver was removed, figures rather than words are necessary. Referring to those furnished by the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics at Washington, we find these instructive comparisons as showing the crucifixion of mankind upon a cross of gold: A marvelous comparison.

1905.

83,143,000 110,000,000,000

989,866,772

651,063,589

2,587,882,653

5,6C8

140,501,841,957 3,093,077,357 9,673,885,303 7,696,229 1,117,513,071 1,518,561,666

86,337,700 76,203,100 314,562,881 4,916,663,682

number..

__dollars__

62,622,250 65,037,091,000

Money in circulation..

1,549,296,126

National banks.

number..

Bank clearings.

..dollars..

Savings-bank deposits.

Total bank deposits..

_do...

374,258,923 1,429,251,270 3,558 58,845,279,505 1,524,844,506 3,046,590,171

4,781,605

14,802,147,087

22,992,380 13,859,887 1,025,920,000 362,740 295,488,438 692,979,489

2,707,983,540

13,565,951

350,000

212.349 173,619,762,130 719,654,951

79 31,034 1,728,903

11,520 102,676,172 68,131 152,826,585 23,146 30,399 1,026,499

It may be that some statesman or economist or dreamer has had visions of such activity and progress as these figures set forth most eloquently, but it is certain that in real life they have never been equaled at any other time or in any other place.

They are worthy of painstaking study, not only because they set forth the greatness and the glory of a free people, but because they crush absolutely all the sophistry, all the error, all the misrepresentation, and all the downright calumny on which you and the other honest "Sons of Thunder" made their memorable campaign in 1896.

There is now $900,000,000 in gold in the United States Treasury. The value of the farm products for the year 1907 is estimated by the Secretary of Agriculture to be over $7,400,000,000. Yet you presume to say that events have "vindicated the Democratic position "—that is, your position.

BRYANISM MADE THE SOLE TEST OF DEMOCRACY.

For years you and your friends have insisted, Mr. Bryan, that Democrats who refused to support you on principle in 1896 should be treated as traitors to the party. You have implored your followers to "make treason odious," and, judging from your attitude alone, a foreign observer of American affairs, like De Tocqueville, Bryce, or Von Holst, would be justified in assuming that the Gold Democrats of 1896 were inhabitants of a conquered province.

For the only Democratic President elected since the civil war you have reserved your choicest vituperation. Hardly four years ago you said to him in a speech at Urbana, Ohio: "The Democrats in 1892 played a confidence game on the people and put a bunco steerer at the head of the party." In a signed statement issued June 22, 1902, you said that Mr. Cleveland secured his nomination in 1892 by a secret bargain with financiers; that he spent the largest campaign fund the party had ever had; that he filled his Cabinet with corporation agents; that he placed railroad lawyers on the bench of the United States Supreme Court, and that, having debauched his party, he stabbed it to death to prevent its return to the paths of virtue.

When an Indiana Democratic convention indorsed you for President but failed to reaffirm your 16-to-1 theory, you publicly rebuked the delegates and insinuated that they had made a compromise with the enemy.

You have repeatedly refused invitations from Democratic clubs, in which refusals you ridiculed the idea of harmony in the party and questioned the honesty of those who urged it.

When the Iowa Democrats neglected to indorse the free coinage of silver and timidly ventured to suggest that "the money of the nation be guarded with zealous care," you told them that their financial plank savored of Wall street and that it was framed to deceive the people. You ordered the Democratic national committeeman from Illinois to resign, and when he refused you commanded the State convention to repudiate him. When the convention declined to obey your instructions you intimated that there was no true Democratic party in the

State.

In May, 1903, you made an attack upon the Democratic press of the United States, saying that it was as monopolistic as any of the Republican newspapers. October 10, 1907, in a speech at Richmond, Va., you charged that the great metropolitan newspapers, which are all but unanimously opposed to you, were controlled by the trusts and their columns open to the highest bidder.

When the Democratic national convention of 1904 met in St. Louis, Judge Parker's nomination for President was assured, despite the fact that the Nebraska Achilles was sulking in his tent. Your objection to Judge Parker was based on the solitary fact that some of his most ardent supporters had not been Bryanites, although the poor Judge had voted for you both in 1896 and in 1900. • Your influence

on the convention destroyed in advance all prospects of a Democratic victory and gave Mr. Roosevelt a walkover.

BRYAN ON GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF RAILROADS.

Most people believe, Mr. Bryan, that your first proclamation of gov ernment ownership of railways was made at New York City August 30, 1906, on your return from Europe. Such is not the case. The plan of reorganization to "rid the Democratic party of plutocracy," which you promised on the adjournment of the Kansas City convention in 1904, was given to a waiting world on July 21, 1904. You stated the case of government ownership of railroads as follows:

"I have heretofore refused to take a position on the question of government ownership of railroads, first, because I had not until recently studied the subject; and, secondly, because the question had not been reached. Recent events have convinced me that the time is now ripe for the presentation of this question. Consolidation after consolidation has taken place until a few men now control the railroad traffic of the country and defy both the legislative and executive power of the nation. I invite the Democrats, therefore, to consider a plan for the government ownership and operation of the railroads. The plan usually suggested is for the purchase of those roads by the Federal Government. This plan, it seems to me, is more objectionable than a plan which involves the ownership and operation of these roads by the several States. To put the railroads in the hands of the Federal Government would mean an enormous centralization of power. It would give to the Federal Government a largely increased influence over the citizen and the citizen's affairs, and such centralization is not at all necessary. The several States can own and operate the railroads within their borders just as effectively as it can be done by the Federal Government, and if it is done by the States the objection based upon the fear of centralization is entirely answered. A board composed of representatives from the various States could deal with interstate traffic just as freight and passenger boards now deal with the joint traffic of the various lines. If the Federal Government had the railroads to build there would be constant rivalry between different sections to secure a fair share of the new building and improvement, but where this is left to the State the people in each State can decide what railroads they desire to build or to buy. While the Democratic party in the nation is advocating the government ownership of railroads the Democratic party in the cities should, upon the same theory, espouse the cause of municipal ownership of municipal franchises.'

Later, in April, 1905, at a dinner given by the Iroquois Club, of Chicago, on the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, the greatest of American individualists, you repeated and elaborated this highly ornamental scheme of triple State socialism.

August 29, 1906, you returned to New York in triumph from a trip around the world, to be greeted by Democrats from nearly every State in the Union as their candidate for President. In the course of an interview at London, where you had distinguished yourself at the Peace Congress, you said you were more radical than ever.

To prove your own words, you undertook in your speech at Madison Square Garden, August 30, to sound the keynote of a government ownership campaign:

"I have already reached the conclusion that railroads partake so much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public property and be managed by public officials in the interest of the whole community, in accordance with the well-defined theory that public ownership is necessary where competition is impossible. I do not know whether a majority of the members of the party to which I have the honor to belong believe in the Government ownership of railroads, but my theory is that no man can call a mass convention to decide what he himself shall think. I have reached the conclusion that there will be no permanent relief on the railroad question from discrimination between individuals and between places and from extortionate rates until the railroads are the property of the Government and operated by the Government in the interest of the people. And I believe that there is a growing belief in all parties that this solution, be it far or near, is the ultimate solution. But to me, my friends, the danger of centralization is a danger that can not be brushed aside. The greatest danger of a republic is the centralization of power at the capital remote from the people, and because I believe that the ownership of all the railroads by the Federal Government would so centralize power as virtually to obliterate State lines, instead of favoring the Federal ownership of all railroads, I favor the federal ownership of trunk lines only and the state ownership of all the rest of the railroads."

Fortunately for Republican institutions, Southern Democrats had not wholly forgotten the historic principles of their party. While most of them had favored Mr. Roosevelt's policy of government regulation, few of them were in sympathy with your policy of government ownership. Impressed by vehement protests against the marriage of Democracy to State socialism, you began at Louisville, September 12, 1906, your masterful retreat:

*

"I advocate strict regulation and shall rejoice if experience proves that that regulation can be made effective. Yet I would not be honest with you if I did not frankly admit that observation has convinced me that government ownership can be undertaken on the plan indicated with less danger to the country than is involved in private ownership as we have had it or as we are likely to have it. * You say that all these abuses can be corrected without interference with private ownership. I shall be glad if experience proves that they can be, but I no longer hope for it."

The retreat ended at Lincoln, July 19, 1907, when you asked for an armistice in these words:

"Government ownership is not an immediate issue. A large majority of the people still hope for effective regulation, and while they so hope they will not consider ownership. While many Democrats believe and Mr. Bryan is one of the number-" that public ownership offers the ultimate solution of the problem, still those who believe that the public will finally in self-defense be driven to ownership recognize that regulation must be tried under the most favorable circumstances before the masses will be ready to try a more radical remedy.

Regulation can not be sufficiently tried within the next year. There is no desire anywhere to make government ownership an issue in 1908." At present there may be no desire anywhere to make government ownership an issue in 1908, but if you are the Democratic candidate for President the Republicans will force the issue upon the country. There can be no escape from it.

Do you think the Democratic party can convince voters that it honestly favors regulation of railroads if it nominates a candidate who believes in government ownership and who has proclaimed in advance his belief that regulation will prove a failure? Do you think that the American people could safely trust you to carry out a policy of regulation with which you have no sympathy and for whose effectiveness to remedy abuses you have no hope?

MR. BRYAN AND THE COURTS.

Let us see, Mr. Bryan, whether your campaign against the Federal courts had a more rational inspiration than your campaign for a 50-cent

dollar.

You and your associates gave your followers to understand that the United States courts were prejudiced in behalf of the rich and powerful-were, in fact, controlled by trusts and corporations and were deaf to the welfare of the people as a whole. Not only have you ap pealed to mob passion against Federal courts of justice and threatened to pack the Supreme Court, but you have persistently advocated short terms and popular elections for United States judges in order to make them creatures of popular clamor. We have, therefore, thought proper to indicate here as briefly as possible important cases arising since 1896 in which proceedings have been begun or judgment has been entered against the very interests which you charged were privileged. The list is instructive in many ways, but in none is it more so than in its complete refutation of the slanders of socialistic demagogism. In 1898 the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the circuit court, southern district of New York, and the circuit court of appeals, and enjoined the Joint Traffic Association from violating the antitrust law. Thirty-one railroad companies engaged in transportation between Chicago and the Atlantic coast had formed themselves into an association to control competitive traffic and fix rates. By the action of the court it was dissolved.

In 1899 the Supreme Court sustained the circuit court of appeals, sixth circuit, in the matter of an injunction restraining the operations of the cast-iron pipe trust, which attempted to increase the price of cast-iron pipe by controlling and parcelling out the manufacture and sale thereof throughout the several States and Territories to the several companies forming the combination. This is known as the Addystone Pipe case, and it stands as a precedent in all similar proceedings against trusts.

In 1900 the Supreme Court decided that the inheritance-tax law of 1898 was constitutional. Under this act a legacy to a husband or wife was exempt. Legacies to others paid a tax, which increased as the degree of kinship was more remote, until property passing to strangers in blood paid 5 per cent. To this initial rate a progressive rate according to the value of the legacy was applied. Property valued at $10,000 or under was exempt. Exceeding $10,000, but not exceeding $25,000 the rate was fixed by kinship. The rate increased with the amount, until property exceeding $1,000,000 was required to pay the rate fixed by kinship multiplied by three. This law was afterwards repealed by Congress, but the court has established the principle of a graduated inheritance tax for all time.

In 1900 the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the antitrust law of Texas, one of the most drastic yet adopted by any of the States. State prosecutions of trusts in Texas have been frequent and determined.

In 1901 the Supreme Court, in the insular cases, held that the President and his Cabinet officers could not constitutionally govern and make rules and regulations for the Philippines and Porto Rico in time of peace, that power belonging to Congress. These decisions checked a tendency on the part of the Executive to establish military government in our dependencies.

In 1904 the Supreme Court, having the cases against the beef trust before it, decided: (1) Traffic in live stock transported from State to State is interstate commerce, and persons engaged in buying and selling such live stock are engaged in interstate commerce; (2) the combination between dealers to suppress all competition in the purchase of live stock is an unlawful restraint of trade; (3) the combination between dealers to fix and maintain a uniform price in the sale of meat throughout the country is an unlawful restraint of trade; (4) the combination of dealers to obtain preferential railroad rates is an unlawful restraint of trade, and (5) all combinations suppressing competition fall under the prohibition of the Sherman antitrust act. On the general principles outlined in this great judgment the numerous prosecutions of the beef trust and other combines are now proceeding, although we admit, alas, too slowly.

In 1904 the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the circuit court, Minnesota, enjoining the Northern Securities Company from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, holding, voting, or in any manner acting as the owner of any of the shares of stock of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern Railway Companies, and restraining the Northern Securities Company from exercising any control over the corporate acts of said companies. It was held that the Securities Company was formed for the purpose of acquiring a majority of the stock of the two companies in order to effect practically a consolidation by controlling rates and restricting and destroying competition in violation of the Sherman antitrust law.

In 1905 the Supreme Court affirmed a decree of the circuit court, northern Illinois, enjoining various great packers in Chicago, commonly known as the "beef trust," from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy entered into between themselves and certain railway companies to sup: press competition and to create a monopoly in the purchase of live stock and the sale of dressed meats. This injunction is perpetual. On an indictment of these packers for continued violation of law the individuals were dismissed on the ground that they had been granted immunity by giving information to the Department of Commerce and Labor, but the indictments against the corporations were sustained. In 1906 the Supreme Court affirmed various judgments of United States courts in Wisconsin and Minnesota against the General Paper Company, which had been proceeded against as a trust. After more than two years of litigation the combination was, by the decision of the Supreme Court, finally dissolved.

In 1906 the Supreme Court decided the celebrated Chicago street railway franchise case in favor of the city and against the traction trust. By bribery and trickery the street railway companies had attempted in 1865 to secure from the legislature a franchise extension of more than one hundred years, but the law was carelessly drawn, and although it had been sustained below, the Supreme Court held it to be invalid, thus depriving the corporations of so-called rights" in the streets which had been capitalized at more than $100,000,000.

The notable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States mentioned above having established the constitutionality of the laws most frequently invoked against combinations and mergers in restraint of trade, a great number of prosecutions have been begun in the inferior United States courts, nearly all of which are still pending. Of those wherein indictments have been found or judgment reached, some of the most important are these:

In 1899 a bill was filed in the circuit court, southern Ohio, to annul a contract and dissolve a combination of producers and shippers of coal in Ohio and West Virginia, formed for the purpose of selling coal at not less than a given price, to be fixed by a committee. The trust was enjoined, and the combination was dissolved.

In 1902 the circuit court, northern California, perpetually enjoined the Federal Salt Company (the salt trust) from suppressing competition west of the Rocky Mountains. In 1903 the salt trust was indicted in the same court, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.

In 1905 the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company was convicted in Missouri, under the Elkins Act, of charging less than established freight rates, and was fined $15,000. Similar prosecutions in Kentucky resulted also in convictions and fines.

In 1905, in Missouri, Thomas & Taggart were convicted of conspiracy to obtain rebates. Thomas was sentenced to jail for six months and fined $6,000, and Taggart was sentenced to jail for three months and fined $4,000.

In 1905 Weil and others were convicted in Illinois of receiving rebates and were fined $25,000 each.

In 1905 the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company and various of its officers were convicted in Illinois of granting rebates. The corporation was fined $40,000 and the officers $10,000 each.

In 1906 proceedings were begun in the southern district of New York against the tobacco trust. These resulted in several convictions, fines of $10,000 and $8,000 being inflicted upon two of the defendants.

In 1906 bills to restrain the National Association of Retail Druggists were filed in Indiana, and indictments against thirty-one corporations and twenty-five individuals engaged in a combination to control the manufacture and sale of fertilizers were found by the grand jury in the middle district of Tennessee.

In 1906 Swift & Co.. Armour & Co., Nelson Morris Company, and the Cudahy Company, of Chicago, were convicted in Missouri of receiving rebates and were fined $15,000 each.

In 1906 the American Sugar Refining Company and others were convicted in New York of receiving rebates, and fines aggregating $88,000 were inflicted.

In 1906 the New York Central and Hudson River Railway Company and others were convicted in New York of granting rebates, and fines aggregating $114,000 were assessed.

In 1906 the Ann Arbor Railroad Company was convicted in Michigan of granting rebates and was fined $15,000.

In 1907 John M. Faithorn, of the Chicago and Alton Railway Company, was convicted in Illinois of granting rebates and was fined $25,000.

In 1907 the Standard Oil Company, of Indiana, was convicted in Illinois on 1.462 counts of receiving rebates and was sentenced to pay a fine of $29,240,000.

The National Government now has suits against the Standard Oil Company pending in five States-Missouri, New York, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Illinois. The total number of counts in all the indict

trust.

ments is 6,326. The suit in Missouri is for the dissolution of the In 1907 the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad Company was convicted on fifty counts in the United States court at St. Paul of rebating.

People who are inclined to accept your dissertations on "government by injunction," Mr. Bryan, as something particularly dangerous to the poor, will not overlook the fact that in most of the proceedings against trusts, combinations, and rebaters the Government's first move has been made by injunction. They will not overlook the fact that the injunction is employed fully as often for the protection of the public as for the protection of private property.

The cases here cited destroy your assertions and arguments as to the Federal courts as effectively as the record of the country's material prosperity has confounded your free-silver prophecies of calamity.

Alcoholic Liquor Traffic.

REMARKS

OF

HON. JOSEPH G. CANNON.

Mr. CANNON, by leave of the House, inserts in the RECORD the following report of an interview between the Speaker of the House and a committee of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in session at Baltimore, Md., composed as follows:

Governor J. Frank Hanly, of Indiana, chairman; Governor E. W. Hoch, Kansas; Samuel Dickie, Dr. A. B. Leonard, Dr. D. D. Thompson, John T. Holland, Dr. Levi Gilbert, Hon. J. E. Andrus, Dr. R. T. Miller, J. A. Patten, Summerfield Baldwin, Homer Eaton, C. L. Meade, L. C. Murdock, George D. Selby, W. S. Bovard, E. A. White, Rev. N. Luccock, T. J. B. Robinson, Samuel Van Pelt, H. W. Bennett, Charles A. Pollock, Christian Golder, and A. W. Adkinson.

INTERVIEW.

SPEAKER'S ROOM,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., May 8, 1908-3.30 p. m. Hon. J. FRANK HANLY, Governor of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, let me present to you the members of the committee appointed yesterday by the Methodist Conference. These are the gentlemen.

The SPEAKER. I am glad to meet you, gentlemen. Governor HANLY. This committee, Mr. Speaker, represents the Methodist Episcopal Conference, rather the Methodist Episcopal Church, assembled in general conference in the city of Baltimore. It bears to you a resolution passed yesterday by the conference with a unanimity and intensity of conviction that represents the conscience, the thought, and the best resolve of that great body and of the constituency it represents; a body composed of almost a thousand representatives, having for its constituency more than 3,000,000 communicants, representing directly about 10,000,000 of people, and voicing the sentiment and the thought of millions of other Christian men and women in the country.

The resolution relates to pending legislation in reference to the interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors into dry territory in the several States. We present it to you in the performance of our mission, with the request from the conference that you, for us and the conference, lay it before the House of Representatives. We do this that the House may know our conviction on this great question. Without further words, we thank you for your kindly courtesy and beg to leave with you this resolution. [Submits resolution.]

The SPEAKER. I shall be glad to see the resolution. [Reads

aloud]:

Memorial of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal

eration through the petitions of millions of American citizens;

and

Whereas no effective action has ever been taken thereon by the Congress; and

Whereas there is now pending before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives an effective and satisfacment bill," and has been so pending from the day of the organitory measure, known as "the Littlefield interstate liquor shipzation of the present House of Representatives; and

Whereas such committee has failed to act upon such measure upon the ground of doubt as to the constitutionality thereof; and

Whereas able jurists and profund constitutional lawyers differ upon the question of such constitutionality; and

Whereas certainty as to the constitutionality of such measure in this age of multiplying, varying, and conflicting precedents by divided courts, is impossible prior to its interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States; and

Whereas failure of the Federal Government to act in this behalf daily nullifies the enactments of the several States as aforesaid in a matter of grave import affecting the peace, happiness, and welfare of society throughout every State which has sought to limit the evils of such traffic by excluding it from a part or all of its boundaries: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church now in this goodly city, the cradle of Methodism in America, in general conference assembled, That it is our conviction that all doubts as to the constitutionality of such measure should be resolved in behalf of the people and of the public welfare; that said committee should report the same to the House of Representatives with favorable recommendation; that the House should thereupon enact the same and send it to the Senate for its consideration and action before the adjournment of the present session of Congress, and that in this we voice the awakened conscience of a Christian people and the high resolve of millions of Christian freemen, who intend that the results achieved by them in the control and inhibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors by State government shall be preserved without further impairment by Congressional enaction: Be it also further

Resolved, That a committee be appointed by the board of bishops, consisting of one member from each general conference district and ten members at large, and that such committee be, and the same is hereby, directed to repair to Washington and to respectfully present a copy of this resolution to the Hon. JOSEPH G. CANNON, Speaker of the National House of Representatives, with the request that he cause the same to be submitted to that body for its consideration. Respectfully submitted.

Church.

Whereas seven other States have by like enactment or by constitutional provision wholly inhibited such traffic; and Whereas the territory from which such traffic has been excluded constitutes in the aggregate more than 70 per cent of the whole territorial area of the United States and contains a population of more than 38,000,000 people; and

Whereas the effectiveness of such inhibition by the several States, both legislative and constitutional, is seriously impaired for lack of Federal legislation prohibiting interstate shipments of intoxicants into such territory; and

Whereas such legislation has been for many years annually presented to the National Congress and urged upon its consid

has been made upon this subject was made by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary upon what is known as the substitute bill for all the bills pending by Senator KNOX. The whole matter of constitutionality seems to have been most exhaustively discussed by that committee and by the report, if I may be permitted to call it to your attention. “Mr. Alvord," says Senator Knox in his report, "Mr. Alvord, attorney for the antisaloon interests, said:

"So I think that naturally this committee will be inclined to give us relief, if it has the power, and thinks it has-I do not ask it to do anything that is unconstitutional. I am not asking it to take a gamble on what the Federal courts will say. I should say this, however: If the committee were equally di