Norwalk weekly gazette, Wednesday, February 22, 1888 · page 7

 

 

 

l .
f

ink”

" ‘ NORWALK

GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT.

 

l

ing men of this country interested in its preservation. The'blow hits them
first, and it may as well be understood, and they are coming to understand
it all over the land. First,‘the men who work in manufactories, the artisans,
are hit; next, agriculturists and the men who work on farms; next, nianu~
facturers in other sections of the country where they are not as well estab-
lished and where the industries may indeed be said even now to be infant
industries; next, those engaged in transportation; next, those engaged in
merchandise; and last, and least, if you please, the manufacturers of New
England. . , . .
. If the policy of free trade is to prevail, if our progress is to be arrested
and our development hindered, and if the inevitable results of it are to fol-
low, and we are to have disaster and ruin, the first men who Will emerge
from the ruin will be the manufacturers of New England; the first who Will
adjust themselves to the new order of things and go on once more as they
' have in the past, endeavoring to build up and develop and make a strong,
pOWerful, glorious nation. The interest of the New England manufacturer
is more that he may have a market in which he can sell his goods than auy-
thing eISe. That is what he wants. That is where free trade hits him
hardest—the surrender of our market to the foreigner.
About Raw Materials. 3

But perhaps as favorite a method of attack upon the tariff by the free-
trader as any is the claim that raw materials should be free, and why ?_ Be-
cause the free-trader knows that the protection of raw materials is the
keystone of the protective arch; that when you have once ceased to protect
the production of what are called raw materials in the country,>there is _no
logical ground upon which any article can be protected here.. If that kind
of production which employs the greatest percentage of labor in this coun-
try can not receive protection, then nothing should receive protection; and
it is, therefore, that the assault upon protection is made upon what are
called raw materials. ‘

It is more than that. it is an appeal to the supposed selfishness of manu-
facturers. The manufacturers are. told—told by the President in his mes-
sage—that they can cheapen the cost of production if they can have free
raw materials. Sir, the manufacturer that seeks to obtain raw materials
free and demands a tariff upon his product is a selfish man, and selfish al-
most to the point of criminality; and the manufacturers of New. Englund,
as a class, spurn that bribe. When in the preparation of the bill advised
by the leading free-traders out of Congress in this country, the proposition
is made to purchase the support of New England manufacturers by free
wool, by free iron, by free coal, I tell you that they mistake the manufac—
turers of Connecticut and the rest of New England. They know thatéthis
is a system or it is nothing. They know that every industry must be pro-
tected to thrive, and they know that protection alone can make_us_ general-
ly prosperous as a nation. They are not to be diverted from this issue.

What are raw materials? I have not time to speak on this subject as I

would wish, but the only raw materials there are are those which grow out _

of the earth or those which repose beneath its surface. The moment you
dig Out the iron,.and the coal, and the copper, and the marble, and the salt,
and the clay, that moment human labor is added to the natural product, and
from that moment-it is no longer raw material. When you cut down the
tree and begin to saw it into timber or into boards it is no longer, raw
material. '

When the farmer raises or buys his flock of sheep and produces his wool
by means of his labor, that is no longer raw material. Human labor, the
great energizing, civilizing force of the world and of humanity, has entered
into that product. I would not put it too strongly if I were to say the soul
of man has entered into and transformed that natural product. It is no
longer raw material. Go into any one of the manufacturing establishments
of this country; look at one that I have in my mind in my own State. . In
that factory they take copper in the ingot as it comes from the mine into
the front door. When it goes out again it goes out in the shape of copper

' wire of 1-400 of an inch in diameter. Into that crude copper ingot has
passed the highest thought of man ; his brain is in the wire, his soul iS
there.

Labor is Ciivlization.

Oh, I dislike, Mr. President, to hear work-people talk about the sale of
their wages. Labor has that in it that cannot be bought and sold. The
labor of man is civilization; .it is advancement; it is the upward trend of
humanity. No matter whether man with hand and brain transforms the
natural product into the finished product, or whether by pure brain labor
he teaehes in college‘or school, preaches in pulpit or speaks in the Senate,
he works, he labors, he molds, he creates, he developes. In whatever field
labor'may be exercised it is and must be the grandest material human force.

There is no raw material which should be made free if labor is to be pro-
tected. .

But here the President leaves the field of argument and fallacy and comes
to the field of practical recommendation. There is no mistaking his rec-
ommendation on this subject; there is no mistaking his position side by
side with the practical free-trader and doctrilzaire free-trader on this sub-
ject. Let me read a little: '

The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free im-
' portatiou, is of course an important factor .in any effort to riduce the‘priee of‘these nepessaries‘.
a is a a s .

It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufactures. 0n the
contrary, it would appear to give them a better chance 11 foreign markets with the manufacturers of
other céuntrics, who cheapen their wares by free material,

I will not go on to read his long argument to show that wool ought to
be put on the free-list, and subject to no duty. There is no mistaking his
recommendation in that respect. He particularly specifies wool as one of
the materials that should go upon the free-list.

- Let us look at this matter a little. I said that protection is a system.
Every industry which can be successfully carried on within, our boundaries
must feel the benefit of this protection, or the system is destroyed. The
protectionist says that whenever and wherever an industry can be profit-
ably carried on in-this country it should feel the benefit ‘of the protecting
ower and force of the Government, and the labor which carries it on
should be held above and aloof from the cheap labor by which the manu-
‘ facture is carried on in foreign lands. ‘ ,

When he comes to consider raw material the President has no reference
to any inequalities in the tariff; in this respect he does not propose to cor-
rect, he proposes to destroy. His only conception of tariff reform, so far
as raw materials are concerned, is by tariff destruction.

' 'Wiping Out $300,000,000 of Invested Capital.

Wool, the President says, is raw material, but raw material just as truly
includes iron ore, and copper ore, and bituminous coal, and lead, and zinc,
and lumber, and a number of other things, as it does wool. Take all these
things that are classed as raw materials and put them on the free-list, and
what have you done? You have reduced governmental inc0me the
beggarly sum of $12,000.000—beggarly in comparison With the' amount
which we are recommended to reduce. What else have you done? You
have wiped out as with a brush at least $300,000,000 of the capital in the
United States. W'ill you purchase the free list for raw materials at any
such expense as that? Have you contemplated what it is for the purpose
of reducing’our taxation $12,000,000 that‘nobody feels, to destroy at one
fell swoop at least $300,000,000 of capital?

The time was‘ when Chicago was said to be in flames. The whole coun-
try felt it an impending and existing calamity. .That fire did not destroy
$300.000.000 of capital. It would take two Chicago fires to be as great a
calamity t0 the country as putting raw materials on the free-list would be.

More than that, the only mitigation of _ the greatChicago fire was that it
opened a new field for labor; but this destruction of capital by putting raw
materials on the free~list destroys also. the opportunities for labor. It
throws laborers out of employment. I have made the calculation pretty
carefully, having corresponded with people who are producing what are
called raw materials; and I do not overstate it when I say that to put raw
materials on the free-list will throw out of employment permanently not
less than 200,000 and probably 350.000 laborers. and all because by strik-
ing down protection on what are called raw materials taxation can be re-
duced $12,000,000, and the interhal-revenue tax must not be touched. 1

The situation changes when compared with that of a great devastating
.fire. That makes a demand for labor; but the wiping out of capital by in-
viting raw materials free to our shores from the pauper-stricken countries

of Europe makes it impossible for this labor to continue or to find any

opportunity for just and adequate reward, . .

I have said that into the production of these materials which are called
raw materials the greatest percentage of labor enters; more. than into any
other production. Why is it, I ask, if the President of the United States is
not a free trader, that he selects for the free list those particular productions
into which the greatest percentage of labor enters? It is a question that
'may not be answered here, but it will be asked in the coming months,
and it must find an answer.

If the manufacturer were the selfish being that he is supposed to be, en-
lightened selfishness would insist on protection. He knows that to put
raw materials on the free list at the price of destroying $300,000,000 of
productive capital, and throwing out of employment from 200,000 to 350,-
000 laborers, immediately makes such a ‘éondition of things in this country
that he cannot sell his wares. That means disaster.-
materials means no trade for the manufacturer, and if he were the selfish
being that the President of the United States and the free traders generally
suppose him to be, he would still be in favor of a system which insures him
the best market in the world, the best market that mankind has ever known.

What Est-Governor Bigelow of Connecticut Said.

I want to 'call attention to the utterance of one of our manufacturers.
When the President's message first went out to the public and was hailed,
as I have said, with acclamatibns-of joy, and-the whole Democratic party
seemed to unite in one choral song to the praise of the Presxdent, they sent
around a man who, I am informed, and I believe correctly, was in govern-
ment employ, holding a clerical position under the Government, to inter-
view New England manufacturers, to see if he could not obtain indorse-

Free trade in raw '

ments from them of the President’smessage. Among others he called on
a manufacturer in New Haven, a manufacturer who makes steam-boilers,
and who exports them, and he thought he had found a man to give in his
adhesion to this scheme of free raw materials. The interviewer did the
talking and then published an interview in a metropolitan journal, in which
he said that the firm of which Mr. Bigelow, recently Governor of the State
of Connecticut, .was a leading member, was in favor of free raw materials.
It did not take long.for Mr. Bigelow to write a letter disavowing any such
statement. I want to read what a manufacturer thinks about raw mate-

‘ rials.

It is erfcctly true that free row
would 0 as Mr. Baruum— ’

This was the man with whom the reporter talked—-

told the reporter (thoulgh the latter omitted to mention it) at the ex use of.our home trade. Why?

Because free trade wo d kill of many of our manufacturers here, w 0 could not com to with forel n

manufacturers in their line, and thus the demand for engines and boilers for use in th 5 country wou d

Be greatly decreased. We might sell: few more boilers abroad; we should sell a great many less at
ome.

In order to succesofully compete .with foreign countries in this matter we must have not only free
row luster-lids, such as they have, but clies labor, such as they also have. Give us free raw material
and cheap labor and we' can meet the worl in the manufacture of en use and bolers. But I for one
do not want to corn e withthe world on any such terms. I began ife at the bench, workin at my
trade for $1.50 a do . I know this question from the side of the wags-worker ssrweli as from t in side
of the employer. nd I never want to. see the day when the wor men in my mills or in any other
millgp muesli-glee shellbe compelled to work for the same wages and live in the same manner as the
wor en 0 . urope. * - ,

I sin a firm protectionist in‘everythinz relstin to my own business, to the interest of my employee,
and to the pros rity of the country. I want to s counted, every time, on the side of American in.
dustries, Amer can wages, and American homes.

A good deal of misrepresentation about the manufacturers of New Eng-
land being in favor of free raw material is manufactured, just as was the re-
port that ex-Governor Bigelow was in favor of it. .

Ihave g‘one over—and at inore length than I intended, and .yctI do not
know that I. ought to apologize for it, because this is the most important
topic which we shalldiscuss here this winter—I have gone over the facts
showing that. the free-traders claim the President. I have shown that
every principal argument, theoretical or practical, used by the avowed free
traders is sustained by the President, by the language and tone of his
message. - '

But we come now to another thing, and I say with an understanding of
what I utter that either ,the President intended free trade, or he was not
dealing fairly with the American people, for the method of' reduction pro-
posed by the President means the absolute and final destruCtion of the
protective system, It means absolute free trade and nothing less than that,
so the spirit of the message and the inevitable result of its recommenda-
tions lead us to thesame conclusion. - _ -

.I have come now to where I must spend some time upon the question of
the reduction of the surplus, and, of course, I cannot conclude to-night.

Adjourned to next day. -

materials would tend to increase our export trade. But the increase

 

SECOND DAY—FEB. 7th.

Senator Platt Resumes His Great Speech on
the Tarifi‘. .~

Mr. President, when I gave way yesterday to a motion'to proceed to the
consideration of executive business, I was speaking to the following propo-
sition, namely, that the method of reducing the income of the Government
proposed by the President of the United States means the absolute and final
destruction of the protective system ; that it means practical and absolute
free-trade. I had shown that all free-traders claim the President as one of
them ; I had shown,,as I think,-that the tone, and spirit, and argument of
the message were for free-trade; and I wish to supplement those proofs of
his opinion by showing that his recommendations for the reduction of in-
come can result in nothing else but the entire downfall of the protective
system of the country. ‘

.I can not but assume, Mr. President, that the Democratic” party intends
to follow the recommendations of its commander-in-chief. There have
been, indeed, some straws which look as if there might be some question
about it, as if there might be an attempt at some compromise, as if there
might be a studied effort on the part of the Democratic party to do nothing
in the line which the President has recommended, at this session, and then
go once more to the country upon this free-trade message as its platform ;
but I can not assume that the Democratic party and the Democratic leaders
in Congress really intend that course of action. .

No Occasion for a Treasury Surplus.

I admit the necessityof some reduction in' the income of the Govern-
ment, but I am not to be frightened into an abandonment of the protective
system in this country by the President’s rawhead and bloody-bones figures.
I deny the necessity for this acoumulation in the treasury. '

Right here I wish to correct, if possible, what I believe to be a misunder-
standing in the country with regard to this surplus. The country does not
distinguish between accumulations in the treasury and the surplus income
—the money which the Government annually collects by law more-than it

 

can pay out by law; and .the President in his message does not help us

very much to make this distinction. If the free-trader juggles with words
the President, unintentionally of course, juggles with figures.

There has been some accumulation in the Treasury. There is now an
accumulation of money in the Treasury. It is not the result of surplus tax-
ation for the current year. - It is an accumulation which has been growing
for years. When the Republicans were in power they did. not allow it to

. assume the proportions which it has been allowed to assume under Demo-

cratic administration. I will not refer to the changed system of book-keep-
ing, which makes the surplus, according to Democratic calculations, about
$30,000,000 less than the Republicans under their system of book-keeping
were wont to acknowledge it. But when there was, under Republican ad-
ministration, an accumulation of money in the Treasury, the Republicans
always found some way to put it out for the benefit of the people.

On the other hand, this administration seems to insist in keeping it in the
Treasury, and not paying it out for the benefit of the people; and no reduc-
tion in taxation, as the President and Secretary of the Treasury are pleased
to call it, no reduction of the amount of our annual income, will relieve the
Treasury from this accumulation. You may reduce taxes, as the Secretary
of the Treasury proposes, below the current needs of Government, so that
our annual income will not be by some millions of dollars as much as we
must annually pay out, and yet it will take a long time to empty the~Treas-
ury of its accumulation. So the question of reduction of taxation has very
little to do with. relieving the Treasury of what the President tells us is a
congested condition.’ Some Other means must be devised for that.

As to the question, of reducing income, whether it be by repeal of in-
ternal-revenue taxation or by the‘ destruction of the protective system, so far
as that is concerned, it has nothing whatever to do with the disposing of the
money now in the Treasury. '

We had in the Treasury, the President tells us, on the ist day of Decem-
ber, $55,258,701.19. I will read what he says about it, because upon this
single sentence of the message a false impression has gone forth to the
country, and business men and statesmen alike suppose that the President
recommends an annual. reduction in income of $1 1 3,000,000, or at least of
$100,000,000. The impression may well have gone forth from the Presi-
dent’s language. It is'this': . ‘

While the expedients thus employed, to release to the people the money lying idle in the Treasury,
served to avert immediate danger, our surplus revenues have continued to accumulate, the excess for
the present year amountin on the 1st dsy of December to 355,253,7omo. and estimated to reach the
sum of $113,000,000 on the ‘ h of June next at which date it is expected that this sum, added to prior
accumulations, will swell the surplus in the Treasury to $140,000,000. .

What Does the President Mean?

I defy any member of the Finance Committee on either side of the Cham-
ber to tell us what the President means by that passage in his message. He
seems to mean that there was an accumulation in the Treasury over and
above the $55,258,701.19 of about $27,000,000 of prior accumulations,
when in fact the $55,258,701.19.was the entire accumulation in the Treas-
ury. . '

There was in the Treasury on the 1st day of December, as I have stated
and the President says, $55,258,701.1 . On the 1st day of January it .was
$69,842,879.1 1. On the ist day 0 February it was $85,230,746.09—a
pretty rapid accumulation. _.

But, Mr. President, even that is misleading. - That money is not all of it
in the Treasury. That actual accumulation of money in the Treasury
might afford some reason to suppose that the dangerous condition of things
which the President says exists . does indeed exist; but something over
$50,000,000 is in the national banks of the country, and not actually in the
Treasury, only constructively in the Treasury, and it is being loaned out by
the banks to the people. I think the amount is about $55,000,000, but I
will call-it $50,000,000—I had the figures—so that the actual accumulation
of money in the Treasury on the ist'day of February was only $35,000,000,
or thereabouts. ' , .

The President did not tell us in his message how much of this money had
been deposited in national banks. He told us how much was deposited in
national banks atone time, Ithink; I do not find it, however; but this is
what he says about it: ' .

In addition to this the interest accruing during the current car upon the outstanding bonded in-
debtedness of the Government was to some extent sntlcipat , and banks selected as depositories of
public money were permitted to somewhat increase their deposits.

I should think so. When this new policy of making unusual deposits in
the banks was first adopted by this administration the deposits amounted to
between $17,000,000 and $18,000,000, speaking from recollection—and I
am not far from right—and when they hage run up to $50,000,000 or $5 5,-
000,000 I should think they had been “somewhat” increased, as the President
says. I allude to this fact because I propose to maintain pretty soon that this
great talk about the surplus, it seems to me, could have been for no other

' purpose than as holding out an inducement by way of fear to the country
and to Congress to break down the protective system of the country.

Why has this accumulation been permitted? Why has taxation not been

reduced—the taxation which created frofn year to year this accumulation?
Why has the Democratic party in power in that section of Congress which
originates measures of this character not sent to this body some bill looking
to the reduction of taxation? It stood pledged by its platform, by the pro-
fessions of its leaders on every stump and at every hustings in the United
States, immediately upon its accession to power, to take steps for the reduc-
tion of the surplus. They misrepresented the amount of the surplus in their
presidential convention of 1884, as I will show; but if there was any one
thing which they stood pledged to do it was, immediately and without de-
llay, to adopt measures for the reduction of this surplus accumulation in the
reasur .

~ We hive waited here now more than two years and a half, nearly three
years, for some bill to come to us looking to a reduction of revenue, and we

have wondered why its coming was so long delayed. It has not come yet.

Nine long weeks have passed since we have been told' that there was a con-

dition of the Treasury which might any day precipitate financial disaster and

ruin, and 3 no bill has been introduced, so far as my knowledge extends,

looking to‘a reduction of this, surplus. ' ’

. , . The Democratic Party Responsible.

This is not a Republican administration. It took a good while for the.
people to get over the idea after the last presidential election that this was
not a Republican administration; but it is a Democratic administration,
and if money has been allowed to accumulate in the Treasury and no effort
has been made and no step taken for the reduction or the attempted reduc-
tion of that accumulation in the Treasury, the burden is not upon us; it is
upon the party in power.

What reason can be given for this delay in the past, what reason canbe
given for this delay‘to-day, if it be not that that accumulation of money in.
the Treasury and our annual surplus income is being used, and deliberately
used, to force Congress into a destruction of the protective system of the
country? Why refuse appropriations for the needs of Government?" Why
refuse payment of its just obligations? Why has the party in power con-
stantly resisted necessary expenditure? Why have we had no bill passed
for fortifications, none for coast defenses, none in the last yearfor the ini-
provement of our rivers and harbors? Why, unless there has been a desire
and a deliberate purpose that this surplus should accumulate until it could
be held out to the country and to the world as a menace to the business in-
terests of the country with the recommendation that it must be reduced only
by such.change of our tariff laws as, I say, will result in the total abolition
and discontinuance of the protective system of this country?

\Vhy Not Pay the Debt?

Another thing, Mr. President. In less than three years we have a debt
falling due of $230,000,000 on the Ist of January, 1891, bonds of the Gov-
ernment. Why not'try to pay it in advance? Why does not this adminis-
tration try to anticipate the payment of that debt? What would be good
financiering for a business man if he had money on hand which he had no
use for, and had a debt falling due at a distant date? \Vould it not- be to go
to his creditor and say, “Here, my creditor, I have money on hand which I
have no use for; you have a note against me falling due in future; I wish
to make some arrangement with you whereby I can take up that note now.”
Why has not the Government done so? It would have made money by the .
transaction. It will make money if it will adopt that policy now instead of
the policy of allowing its receipts to accumulate in the [Treasury and in
national banks until the debt falls due. -

Take a 4 per cent. bond. The 4 per cent. bonds are due in 1907. If the
Secretary of the Treasury were to buy those bonds he would practically
make $500 on each $1,000 bond, over allowing the money to remain in the
TreaSury and in the banks, and paying the interest until the bonds mature.
Twenty years’ interest on a thousand-dollar bond is $800, is, it not? And
it takes to pay the bond at maturity and the interest until maturity, $1,800.
It can be bought in the market now certainly for $1,280, and that makes a
saving to the Government on the transaction of $520. Why should the
Government insist upon this money lying idle in the Treasury rather than
attempt to anticipate the debt of the Government? If one-quarter as much
time had been spent in attempting to devise some fair plan by which an ar-
rangement with the creditors of the Government could be made for the an-
ticipation of the payment of the debt which should be satisfactory to them
and prqfitable to the Government as has been spent in conferences to try to
devise some scheme for striking down the industries of this country, that ar-
rangement could long ago been perfected. -

If the mysterious agents ,who have been flitting between the importers of
New York and the White House and the committee-room of a body which
I may not name here had turned their attention to negotiations between the
Government and its creditors, there would have been. no difficulty in arriv-
ing at some arrangement by which the debt of the Government could have
been anticipated, and the Treasury relieved of its accumulation; but there
would have been no opportunity then to insist that the protective system of
the country must be stricken down. ,

Has the Government Authority to Do This?

But the President says there is doubt about the authority of the Govern-
ment to do this. Let us see what he says. I want to read it, for it is a re-
markable claim—remarkable in view of the practice of the Government and
his own practice in regard to other matters. . He says.

in the present state of legislation the only pretense of any existing executive power to restore at
this time any part of our surplus revenues to the people by its expend ture consists in - the supposition
that the Secretary of the Treasury may enter the market and purchase the bonds of the government
not yet due at a rate of premium to be agreed upon. The only provision of law from which such a
power could be derived s found in an appropriation bill passed a number of years ago, and it is subject
to the sus icion that it was intended as temporary and limited in its application, instead of conferring
u continu ng discretion and authority. »

Pretenseindeedl What is this reasoning but pretense? Here is the
provision in the appropriation bill referred to. It is not injected among the
appropriations in the bill, which is the sundry civil appropriation bill of
the government for- the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, and for other
purposes. It is not injected into the appropriations, but it constitutes a
section by itself. I will read it:

See. 2. That the Secretigy of the Treasury may at any time apply the surplus money‘in the Treasury
not otherwise nppropriat , or so much thereof as he may cons er proper, to the purchase or redemp-
tion of United States bonds: Provided, That the bonds so purchased or redeemed shall constitute no
part of the sinking fund, but shall be canceled.

There could be no language framed which could be any more explicit to
show that that was a continuing authority; and yet the Secretary'of the
Treasury, as I must assume, by direction of the President, bought out of
last year’s revenue bonds for the sinking fund and charged it to last year’s
revenue, so that there might appear to be $113,000,000 excess of revenue
this year, when if he had charged it to this year’s revenue there would not
have appeared to be any such excess of income. 3 ‘ -

I undertake to say that in my belief a‘good lawyer can not be found who
would say to the President of the United States or the Secretary of the
Treasury that there is any question about the right and power of the Secre-
tary to purchase bonds under that provision of law. If there had been a
real hearty disposition on the part of the President and Secretary of the
Treasury to relieve the Treasury from this accumulation of money, I be-
lieve that it would have been done. Why do I believe so? Because they
neither of them hesitate to obey a law which exists only upon appropriation
~bills when it suits their purposes and their needs to do so. When they desire
"to act under an appropriation bill they have no “suspicion” whatever of its
validity and they do not talk about “pretense” and “supposition” and “sus~
picion” in relation to such acts. , '

Didit‘occur, I wonder, to the President when he was writing this mes-
sage and‘ talking about the “suspicion” that he could not buy bonds under
this existing authority, because it was put on an appropriation bill many

. years ago, that month by month he himself is drawing a salary at the rate

of $50,000 per annum instead of $25,000 per annum, when the only pro-
vision for that was upon an appropriation bill passed “many years ago?”

The Senator from Vermont [Mn Edmunds] inquires whether I really
think he would take the money. I think he is drawing it with- great pre-
cision and regularity, probably on the first day of each month,'notwithstand-
ing the fact that the only authority for it is to be found in an appropriation
bill passed many years ago, as much open to the “suspicion” that it was
intended to be temporary as is the act for the purchase of bonds which he
does not think he can execute. This was the appropriation bill of March
3, 1873, to be found in the seventeenth volume Statutes at Large, page 485.
In the executive appropriations of that bill I find this: -

For compensation of the President of the United States, $25,000.

In the legislative appropriation I find this:

That on and after the 4th day of March, 1873, the President of the United States shall receive in full
for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected the sum of $50,000 per annum, to
be paid monthly. ‘ ,

If it had been the case of the purchase of bonds, attention would have
been called to the fact that the same bill was inconsistent in its two provis‘
ions, and that the one under which the $50,000 salary was to be drawn was
put not upon the executive appropriations, but upon the legislative appro-
priations. . .

Inflating‘ the Currency.

We all know how that ‘bill was passed. We know that with it ' was
passed the other billfiwvhich was called “the salary grab.” We know that
the next year as soon as Congress could get together it repealed the pro-
visions of that bill so far as it related to Senators and Representatives, and

et there is nothing in this circumstancewhich indicates to the President of
the United States‘that there is any “suspicion” whatever that that clause
was not intended as a continuing authority to draw the increased salary.

Let us take another appropriation .bill. I amptrying to maintain this
proposition, that when the Secretary of the Treasury wants to do a thing
and when the President wants to do it they are not troubled because the
authority is'found on appropriation bills. There is a little trouble in the
Treasury Department. They have undertaken to try to keep the currency
pretty well inflated until after November next, and it has been. pretty
hard work to do it. The national bank circulation has been 'rapidly with-
drawn, and the only way of meeting it has been twofold—one to ut all the
money in the Treasury into the national banks to loan out to tie people,

and the’ other to issue silver certificates in small denominations as fast as it
could possibly be done, and I think I am not‘mistaken when I say they are
running presses night and day to do that now, or-if they are net asking for
more presses to meet the demand. Where do they get the authority? On
the appropriation bill for sundry civil expenses of the government for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, and they have no authority since June 30
,of last. year to print and issue these notes except that Which is contained on
an appropriation bill. I will read it: ‘

And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and re ulred o ' A '
denominations of one, two and five dollars, and the silver certificates licleidshlhfih‘fii-lzegdcggsil‘lmlfg 3:1:
solvable, redeemable, and payable in like manner and for like purposes as is provided for silver certifi-
cates by the act of February 28, 1878, entitled “An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver
dollar, and to restore its legal tender character," and denominations of one, two, and five dollars msv
Eggplsupgsgacgpogfgygr gcugficates giflatrlger denominations in the Treasury or in exchange therefor

e o ers, an o It extent as
cancelbd and destroyed. _ id certificates of larger denominations shall be

. Compare the languagecf the two provisions. Is the authority for the
issuing of Silver Certificates any more express than the authority for the
purchase of bunds? . Not a particle. There was an old story that I read in
my childhood in which a man said it made a good deal of difference whose
ox was gored; and it makes a good deal of difference with the President
and Secretary of the Treasury whether they want to doa thing or whether
they do notwant to do a'thing. ’

But the President says that there is a great danger that if he did attempt
to relieve the Treasury by the purchase of bonds, the wicked holders of
bonds would combine and run up the premium on them unreasonably.

In considering the uestion of purchasing bonds as a means of mate in t ‘
money accumulating in the Treasury it 'shonld be borne in mind thsrt grel‘l’fllfggulllfiggnl): 2:118:31):
midbgps):r:’|‘lfilsl Izrpggebltppet thgqhmpy up}: lint- e part of tililese bonds held as investmeiits which 'can
an s cc no one am '
sonsbly enhance the cost of such bonds to the Governmeggg oiders who are willing to sell may times.

A Buying Bonds in Open Market.

- nd yet the statement was made with the recent knowled e that 2 -
684,283.55 of bonds, both fours and four-and-a-halfs‘, had begn purch$as7e,d
in_open market by the Secretary of the Treasury without enhancing the
price one dollar. Why not try it again under this authority? Why not
keep on at least until.these wicked holders do 'make this combination and
enhance the price upon these bonds to an unreasonable extent? There is
but one answer, and that is this acciimulation of money in the Treasury is
put there to frighten the people of the United States to give up the protec-
tive system. . Suppose more specific authority is requested—and the Sena-
tor from Indiana [Mn Voorhees] I see does not quite follow the recommen-
dations of his- commander-in-chief in this respect. He. thinks with me
that no better use can be made of idle money than to apply it to the pay,-
ment of future debts, his one thing to praise the President to the skies
and it is another to state that on the whole, after all, Senators are not will1
ing to follow his recommendations in all respects. By why is it, if it is de-
sired that this should be done, .if the President and the Secretary of the
are anxious to relieve the Treasury of its “congested” condition, .why is it
that no bill giving to the Secretary of the Treasury specific authori for
that purpose is .pressed in this.body, to say nothing of the other body of
Congress? I think there is no constitutional provisi0n against the intro-
duction and consideration of such a bill in this body. It is not a revenue
bill. Any Democratic Senator who has desired during these long nine
weeks, or who desires to-day, that the Secretary of the Treasury shall have
authority to purchase bonds which is not open to “suspicion”? can bring
in a bill to that effect and press it on the consideration of the Senate and it
will not take a great while to pass it.

Mr. Plumb—Will the Senator from Connecticut allow
him for a moment to call his attention to the fact, which he may have men-
tioned without my hearing it, that the Secretary of the Treasury in pur-
chasing bonds himself fixed the price of every single bond purchased.

'Mr. Flatt—And he can do it in the future.

Mr. Plumb—Therefore, that did not open anv door whereby combina-
tions could be effected, because he named the price, at which the Treasurv
would buy the bonds. ' .

Mr. Flatt—What man has done man can do; and if the Secretary of the
Treasury has once purchased bonds without any possibility of the price be-
ing enhanced, it is fair to presume that he can do it again.

Mr. Plumb—And in the same connection, the price of both those classes
of bonds which the Secretary purchased at his own price immediately de-
clined after his purchase was concluded.

(1 Mr. Flatt—And have not been higher since,
av.

Mr. Plumb—They have been lower since, all the time. -

Mr. Platt—I have already said that a reduction of our annual income,
unless it is far below the current needs of the Treasury, will do nothing
towards relieving this congested condition.

- How Much Surplus Reduction is Wise?

I now come to this question, how much, reduction of the governmental
income is necessaryeor wise? My argument would be stronger, if possible
more conclusive, if I were to adopt what is the general understanding
throughout the country as to the President’s recommendation, and the Secre-
tary of the Treasury’s recommendation, and argue upon $100,000,000 reduc-
tion; but I want to be fair. , I wish this country to understand that there
is no need of $100,000,000 reduction, and that it can not be made with any
wise regard to the condition of the national finances. As I said, the Presi.
dent’s figures have carried the idea that it ought to be $1 13,000,000. The
Secretary of the Treasury, with this debt which I have spoken of staring
him in the face, proposes a reduction below the current needs of the gov-
ernment. Let us see what the surplus annual income is in fact. I take a
number of years, and the figures bring to mind some most remarkable
statements made both in the Democratic presidential convention and by the
Secretary of the Treasury in past reports.

The surplus income of the government, deducting from its receipts what
it is obliged by law to pay and no more, was for the” year ending June 30,
1885, $17,859,735.84; for the year ending June 30, 1886, it was $49,405,-
545.20; for the year ending ilune 20, 1887, $55.567,849.54.

These have been the actua figures of government receipts over govern-
ment expenditures by law. Then we come to the field of estimate. The
estimated amount for the year ending june 30, 1888, is $66,182,214.52;
estimated for the year ending June 30, 1889, $56,469,206.74. No $113,-
000,000 surplus revenue there, but there is something there to which I
wish to allude. '

The convention which nominated the present executive was held in June,
1884. It said this:

Surplus taxation of more than $100,000,000 has been yearly collected from u suffering people.

And the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Manning, thought it important
enough to quote in his annual report for the year 1886; but in the very year
which followed that declaration the surplus revenue of the government was
but seventeen million and odd dollars. It is said that a lie will travel leagues
while truth is putting on its boots, and we have never been able to over-
take that false statement made by the convention which nominated the
present executive, and it will be repeated next fall on every hustings by
Democratic orators.

What was it the next year? The next year it was $49,405.545.20, the
year ending June 30, 1866; and yet that very same year in his report to
Congress the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Manning, said that our sur-
plus taxation was $125,ooo,ooo a year, and emphasized it by giving it a
display heading in his report. _ -

It has been said sometimes in excuse of this that they did not reckon the
sinking fund and the amount expended for the necessary purchase of silver
for coinage as obligations of the Government; but is there any man in the
Senate who will stand here and say that the law which provides for the
sinking fund is not just as much an obligation of the Goveinment as that
the Government should pay the interest on the public debt? There is no
excuse for this misstatement and misrepresentation of the surplus taxation,
as it is called, in the United States.

What is True of the Man is True of the Nation.

So, then, I say that theutmost that taxation can be reduced without im-
periling the financial condition of the country is $60,000,000. That is the
outside. It ought not to be more than $55,000,000 even upon the policy
which the Democratic party seem to have adepted of the administration of
the Government economically and penuriously. I would reduce less even
than that: I would expend more. My experience in life has taught me,
and somewhat painfullytaught me, that it is not .a pleasant condition to be

me to interrupt

unless for an exceptional

' in and that it is not good business fer a man to be in a condition where he

has no money in his pocket except that which he must pay out for his
daily expenses. That man is not very well off financially. What is true
of the man is true of the United States. The idea of reducing so that there
shall be no money in the Treasury, depleted entirely, run from day to day
and'hand to month, using its daily receipts to meet daily expenditures, is a
policy which is entirely unwarranted by any sound financial theorv.

But I would expend more, Mr. President. I might say, in passing, that
when the President sent us that message representing an accumulation of
$55,000,000 in the Treasury, he might have been told that was. there be-
cause duties on manufactured goods had been reduced and the revenue
thereby increased, and because previous Congresses had refused to make the
necessary expenditures for Government. I would expend more. I would
havea little patriotism instead of so much penuriousness. I would have
some coast defenses. ' I would‘ not be longer at the mercy of foreign powers,
at the mercy of England, whose system it is sought to engraft upon our
republican institutions. I would have a- navy built as if we intended to
have a navy, and not in the pottering way in which it has been going on
under this Administration, and I would have reasonable appropriations for
internal improvements. ‘

Let Us Have an American Policy.

I would have, even if I do not think very much of our foreign represen-
tation, our diplomats, our. ministers, our consuls, enabled to represent this
country abroad in a respectable manner, to say the least, and I would pay
them enough so they could do so. I would have an American policy. 'I
am sick and tired of going ,to any otherJand for the policy of this great na-