banks close every broker in turn deposits the certified checks and the stocks which he has received in his bank to make good the overdraft the bank certified for him in the morning. Without the banks' assistance this whole system would be destroyed and the stock gamblers in New York would have to gamble as do the stock gamblers in London, Paris, and Frankfort, where this form of actual delivery in speculative transactions is not gone through with. Instead, there are fortnightly settlements, where the losers pay and the winners collect their winnings. Such a thing as a London stockbroker having the Bank of England or a Paris broker the Bank of France certify his check in advance and thus furnish the funds for him to gamble with is unheard of. The European stockbrokers gamble as do the London race-track bookmakers, who have their regular settlement day at Tattersalls.

On the London Stock Exchange settlements are made twice a month. On the Paris Bourse settlements are made once or twice a month. On the Frankfort Bourse there are semimonthly settlements. On the Berlin Bourse there are settlements at times fixed by the Government regulation. If the parties desire to continue the gamble, a charge is made for an extension, but either party can quit the game and cash in at any time, just as in any other gambling house.

On the Continent these matters are regulated by the government, so that general industry will no more be interfered with by stock gambling than by gambling at cards or dice. The Prussian Government forbids the short selling of industrial stocks on the Berlin Bourse. Transactions on margins are forbidden except in certain cases between registered parties. Unless a man registers his name as a stock gambler he can refuse to pay his losses. Transactions in futures on agricultural products are prohibited. In Paris bourse agents are not allowed to operate on their own account. There is a tax on every order to buy or sell and on every completed transaction. The French system is analogous to the taxing, licensing, and regulation of ordinary gambling houses by the French Government.

The forms which the New York Stock Exchange go through to evade the New York gambling law are in vogue nowhere else. The French and German Governments treat stock gambling somewhat as race-track gambling is now treated in New York State, where it is permitted in race-track inclosures and forbidden elsewhere. But these continental governments go further. They even decide in what stocks and bonds they will allow gambling.

During the Japanese-Russian war the French Government instructed the Parisian brokers that no one might sell or offer for sale Russian bonds without giving their serial number. This prevented short selling. In Germany similar measures have been taken.

As a result of this separation of stock gambling from the banking business of the country the great drop in Russian bonds, hundreds of millions of dollars of which are owned in France, caused hardly a ripple on the surface of French trade and manufacture. The great fall in the market prices of South African gold and diamond mine stocks at the time of the Boer war did not shut off discounts and banking facilities to English manufacturers, forwarders, and merchants.

What other countries have done in segregating and restricting stock gambling the United States also must do, remembering always that Wall street also performs a legitimate function in providing capital for great enterprises and in affording a market for the actual sale of securities.

The overcertification of checks is already a crime under the national banking law. Section 176 specifically prohibits the certification of any check "unless the person or company drawing the check has on deposit at the time such check is certified the amount of money equal to the amount certified in such check."

This of course prohibits certifying a check before 2.15 p. m. on the strength of deposits after 2.15 p. m. Its violation, however, is difficult to prove, and its evasion is easy by a broker putting in dummy notes at the time of certification.

It should be made both illegal and unprofitable to use bank deposits-other people's money-by loaning them to gamblers without the consent of the owner of the money.

It looks now that it would be wise to require every bank to keep its legal reserve in the form of legal-tender money in its own vaults, instead of as bank credits in Wall street. This would retain in the banks of the manufacturing and agricultural sections of the country the real money necessary for wages and for moving the crops.

Why not prohibit the payment of interest on demand deposits. A demand deposit is the correlative to a call loan, which is a Wall street gambling device. Commercial banks can not afford to pay interest on demand deposits. The stock

exchange banks can and do. By prohibiting any bank from paying interest except on time deposits the Wall street banks will be made unable to divert accounts which properly belong to commercial banks.

But it is imperative to consider whether this gambling can not be entirely stopped. Certainly the State of New York can greatly restrict it by its power of taxation, which is the power to prohibit.

It is said a tax of one-half of 1 per cent on all the transactions appearing on the clearing-house sheets of the respective exchanges in New York would be a trifling imposition on legitimate purchases and sales, and yet would raise on the basis of last year's transactions an amount more than sufficient to pay all the expenses of the city of New York and of the State government and of rebuilding the Erie Canal.

This shows how large a per cent of the business done on the exchange is on a bet on the difference in prices, which is gambling. If it is important to stop betting on cards, roulette, and horse racing-and it is-how much more important is it that Governor Hughes should rid legitimate business of the contaminating evil of Wall street gambling.

The glamour of great fortunes suddenly made on the stock exchange and the grain pit makes the center of the financial district in New York and Chicago places of fascination. The fortunes lost there in a like time ought to make them places to fear. But aside from those who are drawn in by offers of sudden wealth and often lose, to their ruin, is the great public that is so often seriously injured by the wild speculation, the reckless gambling, and the fraudulent manipulations of prices that are perpetuated there, and it is in behalf of this public that I protest against abuses that involve the security and safety of real business and the peace and prosperity of the whole country.

Not legitimate speculation in the stocks and bonds, the meats, grain, and cotton of the country, but gambling in and fraudulent manipulation of the prices of these stocks and commodities throw the financial districts and the country into a condition of panic.

That Mr. Bryan will be nominated for the Presidency by the Democratic convention is a foregone conclusion. This fact alone is conclusive evidence of his great popular strength. He is the candidate of the rank and file, chosen by popular acclamation in advance of the convention.

Other candidates in both parties are aided by the power of patronage, the support of great newspapers, and the influence of corporate wealth. These are against Bryan. There are no artificial means to promote his popularity. It is spontaneous and widespread. Democrats everywhere demand his nomination, except in the very few States where party bosses and corruption have throttled the popular voice. In the great national convention, however, these influences will be impotent and insignificant.

So I say Mr. Bryan is to receive his nomination direct from the Democratic millions, and this is the first proof of his strength as a candidate.

Now, let us look at other evidence.

Let us compare the popular strength of Bryan when he ran against McKinley in 1896 with the popular strength of Cleveland when he ran against Harrison four years earlier. Cleveland had the prestige that belongs to a man who has occupied the Presidential chair, and had back of him a loyal and united party. Bryan was new in national politics and suffered from the defection of many prominent Democrats who, like Cleveland, refused to accept the new leader. Nevertheless, Bryan, deserted by great leaders, great newspapers, and great business interests, polled more votes than any Democratic candidate ever

Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were Territories, and were not counted nor considered.

Bryan, in 1900, polled more votes in Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana than any other Democratic candidate before or since. Does that show strength or weakness?

In Ohio Bryan's vote exceeded Parker's 130,000, yet Bryan was running against Ohio's favorite son, McKinley. Bryan polled a larger per cent of the New York vote than Judge Parker did four years later.

In order further to illustrate the great popular strength of Bryan, as compared with other Democratic candidates for President within recent years, I invite attention to this diagram, drawn in due proportion and illustrating the relative popular vote for Democratic candidates in the last five Presidential campaigns:

White-States in which Bryan in 1896 received a larger vote than Cleveland in 1892.

Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were Territories, and are not counted or considered.

Thus we have another proof of Mr. Bryan's great popular strength by comparing it with the acknowledged strength of Grover Cleveland in 1892.

Moreover, in examining Mr. Bryan's vote it should be remembered that he received many votes outside his own party, and this is high proof of a candidate's strength. Generally the party is relied upon to carry the candidate. Mr. Bryan can always depend on a great following outside of his party. This enabled him to carry Republican States like Colorado, Nebraska, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. It also gave him in such debatable States as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois more votes than any Democratic candidate has polled before or since.

These remarkable results were obtained, although the Democratic campaign treasury was empty, while the Republican treasury held millions.

We have compared Bryan's popular vote of 1896 with the previous vote for Cleveland four years earlier, and noted Bryan's great strength.

Now, let us compare Bryan's vote of 1900 with the Demoeratic vote four years later, when Judge Parker ran. I have already in a speech in this House testified to Judge Parker's high character. He is a great lawyer, an eminent judge, and a citizen of the highest character and reputation. He received something over 5,000,000 votes. This was nearly a million and a half less than Bryan had received.

This does not reflect on Judge Parker personally, because his character, like Bryan's and Roosevelt's, is beyond all question. It simply proves that the ideas for which Bryan stands are the doctrines which the voters favor. It is not so much a proof of Parker's weakness as it is of Bryan's strength.

In order to exhibit this strength of Bryan I reproduce here another map taken from the Omaha World-Herald. It shows in white the States in which Bryan in 1900 polled more votes than Parker did four years later.

Bryanism is the strength of the Democratic party as these figures show. The party is more united on Bryan than ever before, as the overwhelming vote of the convention will show. This proves his strength within the party.

Outside the party his following is greater than ever. Not only has he those who were with him in 1896 and 1900, but he has a great following recruited by Roosevelt during the last few years. Hundreds of thousands of voters have been converted to Bryanism in the school of Roosevelt.

The President has maintained a Democratic kindergarten within the Republican lines, and hundreds of thousands of

They

Roosevelt Republicans are ready to graduate into the school of Bryan Democracy. They joined predatory wealth in fighting Bryan before, but they have entered upon a struggle against its domination this time. They constitute the great army of Bryan recruits in this campaign. To them also should be added the smaller but closely allied followers of La Follette. can find no place within the Republican camp this year. Their leader has been ostracized and repudiated by the Republican organization. He has fought most desperately and brilliantly the currency bill, which was the leading Republican party measure, and they will in this campaign naturally join the great army of Bryan men recruited from Republican ranks.

It thus appears that within the party Bryan is far stronger than ever before, while outside the party he is assured a suppot far greater than any Democratic candidate has ever here tofore received.

The Merchant Marine.

SPEECH

OF

HON. JAMES T. LLOYD,

OF MISSOURI,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Mr. LLOYD said:

Tuesday, May 26, 1908.

Mr. SPEAKER: For sixty years while the Democratic party was responsible for the legislation of the country and for the administration of its laws, two-thirds of all the carrying trade to and from the United States was transported in American vessels under the protection of the American flag. During nearly fifty years of Republican rule the ocean traffic in American bottoms has decreased to less than 10 per cent of the total carriage.

This is one of the direct fruits of Republican policy. That party seems anxious now to extricate itself and declares in favor of the restoration of the merchant marine, but no proper scheme is presented to secure it. Every reasonable suggestion is rejected by the Republican party, because to accept it would be to, in some sense, abandon the teachings of the party. It may be safely asserted that never again will the United States have the ascendancy at sea unless there is a complete change in party policy or another party is called to direct the great ship of State. The Republican party can not avoid censure for this deplorable condition for when it came into power, wherever ships sailed and commerce was carried, the Stars and Stripes gladdened the seas and contested for supremacy. In 1860 the value of the tonnage for the foreign trade was $400,000,000, while 70 per cent of it was carried in American vessels. In 1907 the tonnage value for ocean transit from our ports was $1,660,000,000, of which only 8 per cent was carried under our own flag. Why is it that this unfortunate condition exists? A careful investigation will show that this situation is brought about because American ships are from 30 to 50 per cent more expensive to the owner than foreign-made ships, and that under our system they can not be built in competition with the ships of other countries because the materials entering into the construction are so much more costly here.

Mr. James C. Wallace, president of the American Ship Building Company, said, in his hearings before the Merchant Marine Commission of Congress on the 28th of June, 1901, that

Recently one of our largest steel mills sold abroad 100,000 tons of steel plate. They delivered it, I understand, at Belfast, at $24 a ton. That would practically mean, with ocean rates as they are, $22 a ton at tide water. They are charging us to-day at Pittsburg $32 a ton. A differential of $10 in a ship carrying 5,000 tons is $50,000. the shipbuilder's profit.

And again, in reply to questions:

That is

Senator GALLINGER, of New Hampshire, in writing the report of the Commission and in commenting on the conditions presented by Mr. Wallace, said:

Whatever may be said for the occasional sale abroad of surplus manufactures below the domestic price, this, manifestly, is a case for which the familiar defense is quite impossible. American shipbuilding is terribly depressed; it is essentially an unprotected industry in the foreign trade, and when American steel mills, long and amply protected, sell material to foreign shipyards at eight or ten dollars below the price asked from American yards, these steel mills simply heap an unjust and intolerable burden upon an interest now well-nigh prostrate. A sense of fair play, or even cool business prudence, should make it manifest to the steel companies that they ought to do their utmost to encourage the struggling American shipyards.

Mr. George W. Dickie, superintendent of the Union Iron Works, the largest shipbuilding plant of the Pacific coast, stated to the same Commission in San Francisco that

He was in a Scottish shipyard in 1900, when they were building a vessel almost exactly like one he was building in his yards, and he saw there materials unloaded from a ship from New York furnished by Carnegie & Co. at about $13 a ton less than he was paying for the same material from the same mills.

Senator GALLINGER, again speaking for the Commission, says, in reference to Mr. Dickie's statement:

A large number of others testified to the same effect. It can be seen at once what an immense profit is given to the steel trust by the operation of law alone. A tarif which enables manufacturers to reap a bonus of from $10 to $15 a ton in addition to the legitimate profits is indefensible from any standpoint of honesty and fair dealing, and one of the first steps in the interest of shipbuilding in the United States ought to be to put at least all materials which enter into the construction of ships on the free list, no matter whether intended for the foreign or domestic trade.

Mr. Edward S. Cramp, of the Cramp Building Company, said, in similar hearings in May, 1904, that

Foreign shipbuilders were then paying only about $25 per ton for materials that cost the American shipbuilder $40 per ton, a handicap against him of $15 per ton.

This extraordinary difference in the cost of ships is brought about largely, in fact almost wholly, by the high tariff on the materials which enter into the construction of the ships. No excuse in morals or in fact can exist for so great protection to our manufacturers that they can reap a bonus of $10 or $15 per ton in addition to their legitimate profits.

The first step that should be taken to secure a merchant marine is to so change the law that only a reasonable profit can be obtained by our manufacturers and that the additional bonus which is now paid above such profits may inure to the benefit of our shipbuilders and place them, in this respect, on an equality with other countries.

If the party in power really desires to secure merchant vessels on the high seas, the American registry law might be so changed that the shipowner would be permitted to buy wherever he can buy the cheapest ship and then have the same protection of our flag as if he had bought the vessel in an American shipyard. To-day no man can fly the American flag on a ship not built in the United States. This change in the law would not seriously affect the shipbuilding industry in this country, if limited to ocean-going vessels, for they have scarcely any trade of this kind under the existing law. The benefit which would result would be in securing vessels for our trade, flying our flag, and this without serious injury to any American interests.

Another helpful policy would be to return to the system of discriminating duties which was enforced under Democratic rule, and which is now advocated by so many and so generally favored. This was the policy of the fathers of the Republic, under which our shipping interests were so marvelously developed in our early history. The Republican party will not inaugurate the system of discriminating duties in favor of goods carried in our vessels, because it would then reduce the protection that is now given to the American manufacturers. That party will not permit any change of law that would admit to American registry the ship built in foreign yards, although that ship may be built from materials purchased in the United States at least one-third cheaper than those materials could have been purchased by shipbuilders in this country.

The reason for this extraordinary position, absurd as it may

you speak of.

WALLACE. The Harland & Wolf Company, Belfast. I presentative GROSVENOR. From whom did they buy it? Mr. WALLACE. The United States Steel Corporation. Representative GROSVENOR. Do you know where it was shipped from? Mr. WALLACE. I do not. I presume from the Carnegie Steel Company. I do not know that, though, for a fact, as they have so many mills.

Representative GROSVENOR. And their present price to you is $32?
Mr. WALLACE. Thirty-two dollars a ton, Pittsburg.
Representative GROSVENOR. And that was laid down at Belfast at
Mr. WALLACE. Twenty-four dollars.

$22?

protected interests and their determination to in no way affect those interests. Nearly everything that goes into the construc tion of an American ship has upon it a protected duty, so that our shipbuilders have but little, if any, opportunity to buy elsewhere, but they must take their materials from the Ameri can manufacturer at the price he fixes for them. It is a surprising thing that the American people have so long upheld the policy which is so disastrous in its effects upon this important industry. A policy which protects the man who sells to the shipbuilder here and then permits him to sell 30 or 40 per cent

Such things keep the people who own corporate property in this District in a constant state of dread and apprehension and force them to seek protection in the only practical way left open to them, and that is by making it to the financial interest of those who have great weight and influence in securing or preventing legislation not to be indifferent and careless when such interests are threatened.

Whether well founded or not, there is a widespread belief among the poorer classes in this District that favoritism is shown in making street and park improvements. They firmly believe that in sections of the city where high officials own property expenditures for city improvements are much more lavish than in other parts of the city. I think that we should, so far as possible, remove all temptation to use our influence for private gain. That we should, so far as possible, remove all reasonable grounds on which to base charges that we are interested in legislation concerning the public-service corporations. Faith in the honesty and integrity of public officials is the keystone in the arch of our republican form of government. I think we should not hesitate to pass any bill that will tend to strengthen public confidence in official purity and honesty of purpose, and to this end let others own and operate these public-service corporations in this District. I thus call the attention of the Members of this House and the country to the object and purpose of this bill, with no thought of causing embarrassment to any individual official, but with the hope-and for that purpose only-that this matter may receive cool and dispassionate consideration before the next session of Congress, and if in the judgment of the House this bill ought not to pass I shall be contented with having done what I felt to be a public duty.

Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.

HON.

SPEECH

OF

fifth amendment is the amendment that increases the fees of the clerks. As the vote "aye" is against the increasing of the fees, I vote "aye."

This question has been thoroughly thrashed over, and I am vain enough to believe that I have convinced the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization that it would be wrong to increase the already high fees. I have here with me the hearings and my statement before that committee, and I ask leave to insert in the RECORD certain portions from said hearings had on May 2:

NATURALIZATION.

THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Saturday, May 2, 1908. The committee this day met, Hon. BENJAMIN F. HOWELL in the chair. Present Representatives HAYES, MOORE of Texas, BURNETT, SABATH, FRENCH, BENNET of New York, WOOD, and O'CONNELL.

STATEMENT OF HON. ADOLPH J. SABATH, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. SABATH. I have some gentlemen here from Chicago who are desirous to see our friend, the President, and I must ask to be excused, and ask that the consideration of bill H. R. 21052, which increases the fees of clerks for naturalization papers from $5 to $10, be deferred for a few more days.

Mr. HAYES. You do not want to fight this bill in the committee? You can fight it on the floor of the House.

Mr. SABATH. This is the place to fight it. I will not consume more than ten minutes, at most fifteen minutes.

Mr. HAYES. Did you not say about all you wanted to say the other day?

Mr. SABATH. No, sir; I want to express my views and my opinions, and also give such reasons as will convince you all, Mr. Chairman, not to report this bill.

I think it is an unfair, unjust, and unreasonable bill and calls for unjust, unfair, and unreasonable fees. We should not legislate for the purpose of trying to enricch the clerks of the respective courts at the expense of poor people who desire to become citizens of the United States, nor do we want to place ourselves in the position to say to the world that our Government desires to make profit out of naturalization. Mr. HAYES. What do you say about this: That the clerks of the courts will not do the work for the fees?

OF ILLINOIS,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Friday, May 29, 1908,

On the bill (H. R. 21052) to amend sections 11 and 13 of an act entitled "An act to establish a bureau of immigration and naturalization of aliens throughout the United States."

Mr. SABATH said:

Mr. SPEAKER: This bill as it originally passed the House was bad enough, but now it comes to us from the Senate in much worse form. It is a bill in the interest of a few court clerks of large cities, and an indirect step against thousands upon thousands of honest, industrious, and law-abiding people who have left their native country seeking a country of freedom and liberty, believing that the principles of democracy of equal rights to all were still alive in this Republic of ours. Last session you passed a law making it nearly impossible for thousands upon thousands of these honest and well-meaning foreigners to become citizens of this country by providing that no one can become citizens who are not able to read and speak the English language and by increasing the fees for naturalization papers from 50 cents to $5. One-half of this $5, however, was to be turned over to the immigration fund of the Government. This bill, however, provides that it is in the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to permit clerks issuing these papers to have additional help, and gives him the power to allow them the entire amount by them collected over $6,000 a year. This legislation would appear to be specially in interest of the clerks in large cities. And after this bill had been passed by this House repealing the clause which provided for turning over to the immigration fund one-half of the fees, it being done for the sole interest of these overworked and underpaid chief clerks (who make only $10,000 to $50,000 a year), the Senate amends it by increasing the naturalization fees from $5 to $10, or 100 per cent, inserting the clause that I, after a hard struggle, defeated in the House when the bill came up the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this House will not concur in all of the amendments, as I believe that the Government should not stoop so low as to try to make money out of a sacred matter like this. I understand that the motion of the gentleman from New York was to concur in Senate amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and disagree to Senate amendment No. 5. The

Mr. SABATH. Very likely the men who are making application are Mr. HAYES. Perhaps you are not familiar with the great amount of work required?

Mr. SABATH. I am, and would be pleased to do the work for onehalf of what the clerks are receiving. They are receiving $1 for the affidavit, $2 for the certificate, and $2 for the final certificate. I was under the impression that we in Chicago had about as keen a lot of gentlemen looking after the money as anywhere, and they never claimed that the fees are not high enough.

Mr. HAYES. We do not care anything about the clerks; that is not the point. We must look out for the men who are applying for citizenship and who are sometimes compelled to wait three or four days before they can get hearing on account of the crowded condition of the United States courts since the State courts will not take jurisdiction.

Mr. SABATH. Do not the courts instruct the clerks to do this work? Mr. HAYES. No, sir; because the clerks can not get their money. Mr. SABATH. There is a provision for $5 fees.

Mr. HAYES. Only half of it goes to the clerk; the other half goes to the Bureau of Naturalization. They only get 50 cents for the first declaration and $1 for the petition and the order.

Mr. SABATH. Is not that sufficient for making out the petition?
Mr. HAYES. No, sir; there is no use in discussing it.

Mr. SABATH. I am not here for the purpose of interfering with the people obtaining naturalization; I am here for the purpose of trying to make it easier for them. In our city the clerks do not receive any more than in yours, and there is no objection.

Mr. HAYES. But you must remember that the proceedings are now very much longer.

Mr. SABATH. And the charge is $5 now, being ten times as much as formerly. Under the old law all these clerks were permitted to charge was 50 cents for the first and 50 cents for the second papers, or the final papers.

Mr. HAYES. But that is spread over a period of five years. If the thing had not been tried, if it had not been in operation for awhile, your contention might have some force; but it had been tried, and we know the consequence. We know that the clerks will not do the work, and we can not force them by a law of Congress, because we have no jurisdiction. On account of the congestion of the United States court we are going to make it possible for a man to get naturalized, or we are going to let him pay enough so that there will not be so much loss of time. Instead of being more expensive we are trying to make it less expensive.

Mr. SABATH. By increasing it 100 per cent?

Mr. HAYES. The way it is now he can not get naturalized at all, or if he gets the naturalization he has to go three or four times. Mr. SARATH. Why do you not elect decent and respectable clerks down your way?

Mr. HAYES. We have not anything to do with that.

Mr. SABATH. Our clerks in Chicago will not refuse to do any work they are supposed to do even if the fees are not increased, which I am satisfied is not needed.

These clerks are getting a salary all the way from $2,000 to $7,000 a year and fees. They all have assistants. The clerks are paid by the respective counties and by the States themselves; these naturalization fees they are receiving are extra.

Mr. HAYES. You are entirely mistaken. In my State the clerk is paid $8,000 a year, and he has to employ his own deputies, all of them, and when you put this additional work upon him he can not afford to