IS Jfínantíal
JS^
(Üatlma <§un
sr./
By J. C. VALLEXXE,
NORTH FRANKLIN, CONN.
ÎR^lre-. ^•'íi
íF'
■ ^ tj'- ri.-vi-:
Some Things are Worth Knowing.
* Money is a Creature of Law."—Tiffany.
Money is the Corner-stone of Civilization."
—Report of Monetary Commission 1876.
VINELAND PRINTINQ HOUSE
VINCLAND, N. J.
COPYRIGHT, 1907, BY J. 0. VALLETTE.
J. C. VALLETTE.
Jfínancíal ^ ^
^ ^ (gatlíng <iun
By J. C. VALLETXE,
NORTH FRANKLIN, CONN.
Some Things are Worth Knowing.
Money is a Creature of Law."—Tiffany.
"Money is the Corner-stone of Civilization."
—lle])ort of Monetary Commission 1876.
I
VINELANO PRINTING HOUSE
VINELAND, N. J.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Six Fundamental Principles of the Constitution of the
United States of America.
Making and borrowing money—The right to demonetize both gold
and silver—The Monetary Commission 1876.
CHAPTER II.
Free Coinage A Special Privilege.
Ownership of money—Free coinage of gold and silver a special privi¬
lege—First coinage law April 2, 1792.
CHAPTER III.
Law Makes or Creates Money.
Bank discount causes compulsory debt—Intrinsic value.
CHAPTER IV.
Volume of Money Regulates Prices.
Eabor and labor unions—Volume of money regulates prices of
wages and products—Paying interest on a debt that has been paid
in full.
CHAPTER V.
Real Estate Mortgage Debt Per Capita.
Amount of money to pay real estate mortgage debt with—^^English
system.
CHAPTER VI.
Paper Money Worth More Than Gold.
First creation and issue of paper money in the United States by Con¬
gress—Amount of money destroyed in ten years—The triplet bank
circulars—Are greenbacks money or debt, which?—Issue of bonds
—Hon. Thad Stevens' speech in Congress.
CHAPTER VU.
Paper Money Issued to Carry on the War.
Congre,ssmati Spaulding'.s remarks.
CHAPTER VIII.
The "Eittue Joker," the Word "Except."
■Greenbacks that were not "funded into bonds"—Soldiers paid $4.55
instead of $13.00 per month. Premium on gold and ''Demand
notes." ^
CHAPTER IX.
Changing the Contract.
Congressman Spaulding's .speech in Congress on the National bank law,
also how to "redeem" bank bills.
CHAPTER X.
Binding the Changed Contract.
Changing the weight of gold in the $10 gold eagle.
CHAPTER XI.
Results of the Single Gold St.yndard.
CHAPTER XII.
The Remedy.
PREFACE.
Someone has said, "The art of literature consists largely in the
sincere belief in what you are writing." The above is the only claim
made in this work for "literary excellence." This book has been
written because there was both a demand and a need for it.
As to the truth of its contents, the readers are requested to study
our financial laws now on the statute books of the United States, study
your dictionary and understand the language used in tlio,«e laws, and
use your reason and judge for yourself. Learn to think for yourself.
No one can do it for you satisfactorily. Every one can understand this
question if they will. It does not require a college education to under¬
stand it. Business of the government should be done on business
principles. The only text books necessary are the Constitution of the
United States of America, Webster's Dictionary and the Law of Reason
and Common Sense, the highest law given to man by his Creator.
The law of self pre.servation should stimulate every American citi¬
zen to thoroughly study this question, for it is a necessary part of your
every day life. The secret of the knowledge of this subject is Thought.
The author of this work has been a working man for more than
fifty years. The most thinking was done amidst the hardest of labor.
Any ordinary intelligent person can undenstand it as well.
If a perusal of this book will set people to thinking the author wiil
not consider his work to have been in vain.
THE AUTHOR.
A FINANCIAL CATLING GUN.
CHAPTER I.
Six Fundamental Ppincipees of the Constitution.
«
"Be sure you are right; then go ahead."—Davy Crocket.
An Old Document and Guide.
Constitution of the United States of America.
Adopted 1787.
Nearly obliterated 1906.
Good reading for honest, intelligent people.
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, pro¬
vide for tne common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterit}', do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
The above instrument is the Constitution of the United States of
America, and has been for 119 years. All the articles and sections that
follow are only the methods introduced to carry out the principles laid
down in the above Constitution. For 119 years the Constitution has
never been changed nor amended. It is true some of the methods have
been cb.anged and amended, which is sufficient evidence that the method
was incorrect.
There are six distinctly enumerated vital principles, viz; Union,
justice, tranquility, defense, welfare and liberty. And for whom were
these principles established? "We, the people,^' and to secure the same
to "our posterity"' for all time to come. The first seven words, "We,
the people of the United States," meant all the people. It was in¬
tended that they should be united. Parties were not thought of.
lO
Classes were not intended. They intended that unity meant strength;
that laws should be just and equitable, for the greatest good to all.
Their mo"to must have been "An injury to one is the concern of all."
They knew that "In union there is strength" and that "United we
stand, divided we fall," Those principles could be maintained only
through just and equitable laws, made and executed by "the consent
of the governed." Hence the term, "equal and exact justice to all;
special privileges to none," under the law.
There is a law on the statute books of the United States today,
that taxes one class, (and that the most essential) and exempts another
(the non-essential). Do you believe any reasonable excuse can be pro¬
duced to justify the act? First, is it justice? Second, does it insure
domestic tranquility for one person to know that he is being taxed to
support the government and his neighbor is exempt, enjoying all the
benefits of government protection and bearing no part of the burden?
These are facts "worth considering, worth investigating and solving
and they affect you. As long as that Constitution stands, as written,
it is a shield against injustice for any and every man, -woman and child
of the United States.
As this work is devoted principally to the present financial system
which has been established under the pretense that it is in accordance
with the Constitution, I shall point out some of the inconsistencies here.
The first seven words of the Constitution place all power in the
hands of the people. No one will deny this. We are told that "gold
and silver are the money of the Constitution. " No one can find any
direct authority for such a statement, either in the Constitution proper
or in the methods adopted. True, the Constitution reads that the Peo¬
ple ordained and established the Constitution for the purpose of, among
other things, providing for the common defense and promoting the
general welfare. This implied (almost directly) the necessity for
money.
I quote from the report of the Monetary Commission of 1876, psge
50, near the bottom of the page: "Money is the great instrument of
association, the very fiber of social organism, the vitalizing force of
industry, the protoplasm of civilization, and as essential toits existence
as oxygen is to animal life. Without money civilization could not have
had a beginning; with a diminishing supply it must languish and, un¬
less relieved, finally perish."
Yet, the word "money" was not mentioned until the 8th Sec.,
Art. 1-2. "The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the
cred."t of the United States." * * Then again in same Sec.
II
(5) "The Congress s'.i ill have power to coin money, regulate the value
thereof, and of foreign c >i.i," etc. Isn't it a little inconsistent to dele¬
gate a Powtr to make inoney and then delegate a Power to borrow
money? The power to make money was given to Congress, not as the
principal, but as an agi nt by the "People." And the only guide for
Congress to go by was the Constitution, established and ordained bj-
"V/e, the People," for the sole and ouh* purpose of embodying those
six principles into the organic law of the land. Congress was only one
of the agents of "We, the people." The duty of Congress was to make
laws in conformity with the people's written Constitution. The meth¬
od of carrying out the principles is possible to be at fault. If those-
methods are wrong the principles still remain perfect. The methods,
if wrong, can be changed, but the Constitution with those six princi¬
ples, never, and this government remain "of, by and for the people."
Not one time yet. so far, have we found the words gold or silver
mentioned. "To coin" is to stamp, to make an impression. "To reg¬
ulate the value of foreign coin." But "to coin" does not necessarily
mean gold or silver coins. Metallic money is not necessarily gold or
silver. There were seven metals known to the ancients: gold, silver,,
iron, copper, mercury, lead and tin. Today there are at least fifty. Of
these metals, gold, silver, iron, copper, tin and even nickle and zinc
have been used as material on which to put the stamp of money. So.
that if any one brought to this country the money of some "foreign"
country, from Sparta for instance, iron money, it was the duty(?) of
Congress to "regulate the value" of those iron coins. There is nothing
to show as authority that gold and silver are the money of the Constitu¬
tion.
In Article i. Sec. 10 (i), one of the methods forbidding the states
from doing certain things, it reads; "No state shall * * coin
mone} ; emit bills of credit: make anything but gold and silver coin a
tender in p'ayment of debts."
This is the nearest approach to what is called "Constitutional
money," gold and silver. If this be any satisfaction to those who.
believe it, they must intelligently explain the law that takes one of the
metals (silver) out of the list of precious metals as Constitutional
money, without an "amendment to the Constitution." In connection
with this point I quote from the report of the Monetary Commission,
1876, on page 94: "The right to demonetize gold rests on the same
foundation as the right to demonetize silver, and the right to demone¬
tize both is as well assured as the right to demonetize either.
12
"It is not disputed that the United States may changeât will either
the weight or puritj' of the metal in its coins. It might make its coins
seven tenths instead of nine tenths fine, or might make the gold and
silver dollar, or unit of value, contain more or less gold and silver re¬
spectively than was contai.'ied in the gold and silver dollar of the stand¬
ard value of July 14, 1S70.'"
By the above it is evident the Government has or at least ought to
have the absolute control over all the money in the United States and
furnished in conformity with the written Constitution. Any method
contrary, or opposed to this is unconstitutional. As a matter of fact,
the money in the Ibiited States today is practically owned and con¬
trolled by a little over 5,500 National banks. The trend of events is
gradually devising a scheme that will have but two or rather one kind
of money (gold) and one kind of promise-to-pay mone5', national bank
bills. The history of our financial laws proves bej-ond a shadow of
doubt, that the plot was laid as far back as 1792 in this Free America(?)
but avarice and greed of this class of men, in the form of chattel slavery
got into a wrangle, which brought on a civil war, which up.set their
plans for a time. The financial laws, some of them at least, and in fact
the majority of them were some of the foulest crimes of robbery and
plunder ever placed on the statute books of any nation. You will, if
interested, have an opportunity of judging for j'ourself. There is noth¬
ing recorded in history as foul and as black in the name of law. The
robber barons of old could not begin to compare with them, considering
that we call ourselves a free and independent nation. A something
different from any other nation in the world and it certainl}' is. Justice
is meted out by putting the man in jail that steals a loaf of bread for a
a starving family, but the man who steals a railroad, or m.illions of dol¬
lars, we put in .some office where he can do the most good for the thieves
iu the way of making laws. Not only this, we "promote the general
welfare" and "establish" some more "justice" by exempting those
who have the most, and taxing those who have but little or nothing.
Perhaps they have read in the "Good Book" something that oils their
conscience, and they feel justified. There is some place where it reads:
"To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be
taken away even that which he seenieth to have," or words to that effect.
But we do know that the laws on finance are such that generations
•unborn are to be saddled with taxation to support the progeny of such in
idleness. And yet some people "thank the Lord that •we are a Christian
nation." Perhaps .so. If it be so I fail to understand Christianity as
taught by Christ.
13
One of the great stumbling blocks in the progress of financial re¬
form is the ignorance of the average voter of the simplest functions of
monej\ They are, as the Monetar3^ Commission say in their report on
page 51, "The cause at work to produce this state of things was so
-subtle, and its advance so silent, that the masses were entirely ignorant
•of its nature." How true is the above and .how true the following
from same page: "They had come to regard money as an institution
fixed and immovable in value, and when the price of property and the
wages of labor fell, the}- charged the fault, not to the money, but to the
property and the employer. They were taught that the mischief was
the result of over production. Never having observed that over¬
production was complained of only when the money stock was decreas¬
ing, their prejudices were aroused against labor saving machinery.
"They were angered at capital because it either declined altogether
to embark in industrial enterprises or would only embark in them upon
the condition of employing labor at the most scanty renruneration.
'They forgot that falling prices compelled capital to avoid such enter¬
prises upon any other condition, and for the most part to avoid them
entirely. They did not comprehend that money in shrinking volume
was the prolific parent cf enforced idleness and poverty, and that fall¬
ing prices divorced money, capital and labor, but they nonetheless felt
the paralyzing pressure of the shrinking metallic shroud that was clos¬
ing around industry."
It would be well for every wage worker and every business man to
study the above quotation, especially the union labor and federation
members, before going on a strike. In .short, the Commission plainly
tells you business men and laborers that you are being hurt and don't
~know what is hurting you.
Origin of tiik ^Monetary Commission.
Before going further I wish to explain about this Monetary Com¬
mission, its origin and object. Three years after the panic of 1873
started, or on August 15, 1876, Congress passed a joint resolution to
appoint or create a Commission, three of whom should be United States
Senators; "John P. Jones, Lewis V. Bogy, and George S. Boutwell, of
the Senate; Randall U. Gihson, George Williard and Richard P. Bland,
of the Houie of Representatives; Hon. William S. Groesbeck, of Ohio,
.and Prof. Francis Bowen, of Mas.sachusetts. George M. Weston, of
Maine, was appointed vSecretary." This Commission was appointed
for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the panic of 1873, and what
Telation the financial laws and ihe policy of a metallic standard and
legal tender paper money had to do about precipitating it. If every
14
business and working man would get this report and read and study it
with a determination to understand this question they would be sur¬
prised at the information it contains.
Our present financial system is a scheme to rob and plunder the
wealth from those who produce it. In this country it was planned and
put into execution as far back as 1792 when the first coinage law wa.s.
enacted. It is a borrowed scheme, ■ from the monarchies of the old
world. The result of the operation of it in the old world was to drive
the people of those countries across the waters to the New World, so
called. The same scheme is driving them here every year by thous¬
ands. From 1492 until 1776 the people lived or existed under the Eng¬
lish scheme until it became unbearable, and they arose in their feeble
strength and attempted to throw off the unjust laws that King 'George
forced upon them. They fought for seven long years and thought they
had gained their independence. They drove King George's army
from these shores, with the few patriots that loved liberty better than
life and slavery, and did it with paper currency. One of these bills
lies before me as I write, dated 1775; amount, three dollars, made by
the Continental Congress. It wasn't money; it wasn't even a promise
to pay money. There was no government; hence it couldn't be money.
It simply says on this bill: "This bill entitles the bearer to receive
three Spanish milled dollars" etc. That was the kind of currency that,
drove the hordes of King George from our shores.
They thought they had gained their independence and so they had
practically, but in 1792 put on the same yoke that it took them seven
j'ears of bloody war to throw off. And why did they submit to it? For
the reason that they were ignorant of the cause that had brought on
the war. They said it was "Taxation without representation." That
was only one of the indirect causes.
The real cause was the money question. When England attempted
to tax them ten cents to get money to pay interest on her perpetual
debt and give them no voice in saying aught about it, that was the last
straw. Had they been as docile as are the tax-paying patriots (?) of
today. King George could have raised a tax of fifty per cent and they
»wouldn't have lifted a foot, for as a matter of fact the tax payers are
today paying.more than fifty percent and don't know it. The real and
primal cause was the robber scheme of a gold and silver basis for a
monetary system. Before independence was gained apd acknowledged,
they had the English specie basis system. Pounds, shillings and pence
were the money of the colonies up to the declaration of independence,
and from that time to 1792 there was no money in realit}'. At that
15
time a United States money unit of account was pronounced to be a
dollar. By this act, April 2, 1792, the first unconstitutional financial
law was enacted by a Congress of the United States of America. By
that act the second principle of the Constitution (establish justice) wag
trampled under the feet of a full-blooded English statesmaiji as being
the most active worker in accomplishing the deed. It isn't necessary
"to call his name. Congress not only adopted the "subtle and silent
ycheme of the money mongers, but even went so far as to enact class
legislation into law.
In probing this que.stion we must go to the root of the matter in
order to know what to do to remedy the evil. There is no question in
economics so little understood by so large a number of people as is the
principles of money. And yet there is no question that can be under¬
stood with so little effort. You will necessarily have to do some think¬
ing and then apply reason and common sense. You are not expected
to understand even a little bit without thought. You do not realize
the condition in which you, as one of the units of th s great govern¬
ment, are placed, by this scheme. No man that is a man would volun¬
tarily and knowingly submit to be u el as a "cat's jaw" to make
another man wealthy at his own expense. No working man will will¬
ingly and knowingly work and produce wealth for one 3 ear and delib-
•erately hand over one half or more of his product to an entire stranger,
who has not produced one dollar's worth of wealth during the whole
year, nor assisted the workingman in au}' way whatsoever. Now, to
-compel that workingman to give up that half or more of his wealth,
which belongs to him by virtue of his labor, is an easy matter as long
as the exploiter or thief can keep the secret oí the scheme or method of
doing it from the knowledge of the man that is being robbed. But
once let the men that are robbed (for it is nothing less than robbery)
know this to be the fact, they will stojr and think.
What has been pictured out in the above suppositions(?) are not
suppositions or false pictures, l)Ut are stubborn truths in principle, if
not in exact detail.
As a matter of fact, labor produces all artificial wealth. If it be a
fair (juestion, how much of the wealth created by labor is labor entitled
to? In justice the line should be drawn somewhere, if it is not entitled
to all it produces. Again, justice demands that the wealth producer is
entitled to know what use is made of the wealth taken from him. If it
be taken for public use, he would no doubt be content, but if he know-s
that it goes to feed, clothe and shelter some other human being that is
as well able to produce wealth as he is, and yet produces nothing from
i6
oi)e j ear's end to another, yet lives on the best that is, justice demands^
that the producer shall know the reason why he should support this,
man in idleness. The producer's ignorance of the cause is the main
obstacle in his path. It is the scheme of the non-producers to continue-
the practice and keep the producer in ignorance.
The Commission say: "The cause * * was so subtle and
its advance so silent that the masses were entirely ignorant of its na--
ture." The cause was hatched by .some hitman brain and a remedy-
can be found by someone with as fertile a brain as the promoters of the
scheme. Necessity will compel the people to learn the cause. If it
can be proven beyond any doubt (and it can be) that our present sys¬
tem of furnishing the 80 to 90 millions of American people with monej'
is contrary to the principles written in the Constitution, then it is an
un-Constitutional system, and this republic can no more stand under it,
and remain free than it could remain "half free and half slave."
CHAPTRIR TT.
Free Coinagp: a Special Privilege.
'f ais proof would make the money que.stion, or money trust, or
monoiioly, the foremost and greatest question of the ages. From the
fact, iii the Commission say, "Money" (now mark the importance of it)
"is the great instrument of association, the very fiber of social organism,
th.e vitalizing force of industry, the protoplasm of civilization, and as
essential to its existence as oxygen is to animal life." This system or
• icthod of furnishing this "life blood" of this nation, so stealthily and
i.ilently introduced and operated that the great mass of the people are
"entirely ignorant" of the results. Let us study the following ques¬
tion; If this system is all its advocates claim for it, why do they so
studiously ignore all questions individually and through theirqlitera-
tnre, newspapers, magazines, etc.? It seems to me it should be easier
to uphold right than wrong.
We are told that "the question of money, of finance, is a compli¬
cated, difficult problem for the common people to understand." This
is not a fact. The people have never made it a study; some have never
given it a thought. But the people have intelligence enough to know
that there is a screw loose somewhere in the machine and they are
anxious to learn where the trouble lies. One says,"the land question,"
another says, "Private ownership of public utilities;" another says,
"Tariff;" another says "foreign immigration;" and^still others say
"The Pope of Rome is trying to get possession of the political
machinery by getting all the Roman Catholics possible into oflSce. Na
doubt more or less of those people believe what they claim from the
" -ct that they have studied each of these subjects more or less.
How much thought have any of them given to the question that is
the very base of civilization, the support, the life of the nation?
Scarcely a thought, from the fact that they have been taught by those
■^'ho know no more themselves about it than those they claim to teach,
it is claimed in common parlance that "a man should have interest for
the use of his money." Suppose that be admitted to save an argument
we abk if any man should have interest on another man's money? Now
tvs fair and answer. If you borrow money of a man you expect to pay
r the use of it because you believ ■ he owns the money. If you
i8
borrow his horse you expect to pay him for the use of the horse because
you believe he owns the horse, and in fact you may know that he owns
him, because you know that he raised him from a colt. In other words
the man produced or made the horse, with time and labor. Now, as
to the man of whom you borrowed the mone}', did he make the money
he has? (I am using the word "make" in the sense of creating it from
a commodity to money.) If in this sense he does then he is a "Coun¬
terfeiter" and if you attempt to pass it you will be arrested for attempt
ing to pass it. If this man of whom you borrowed it, did not make it
then he does not own it, and why should you pay him for the use of
what does not belong to him, but to another? You may say, (as I often
hear men say, in good faith, too,) "This is my money." You can see
your own error by just reading the face of the bill if it be paper. You
will find on it the words "payable on demand. " That is not money,
but a "promise to pay." A promise to pay is not pay, is it? Money is
not a promise; it is the thing. Money is not redeemable in the sense
used in finance. In the case of your promise to pay, that you borrowed
from the other man, somebody, somewhere, made that promise. Sup¬
pose it was a national bank's promise to pay on demand, you would
naturally suppose that when you presented it to the bank for redemp¬
tion, you would get the real "stuff," money, wouldn't jmu? Well, we
will say, you present your bank bills to the bank and they hand you out
as many dollars (of paper) as you give them of their bills, but the bills
they give you are marked United States notes, (Greenbacks); We will
say for convenience $ioo. Now if you will examine your greenbacks
you will find these words on each one of them, "The United States will
pay to bearer." Here, then, is another promise to pay. But this time
the promise is from "Uncle Sam," and you say it ought to be good.
True, it may be better than all the others, but it is only a promise to
pay; it is not the thing we are looking for. We are looking for the
money and the real bona fide owner. Well now, you carry your $ioo
of greenbacks to Uncle Sam and he hands you out $roo in gold. Now
you feel like a boy with a new top. Your trouble is at an end now?
Guess notf We know it is not. Just follow along a little further, and
find the absolute truth, the Law. You have now $ioo of absolute
money. It is a full legal tender for all debts public and private and
perhaps you may say "it has the intrinsic value in it," but have you
examined the records as you would if you were buying a piece of real
estate to ascertain if some other person has a claim or mortgage on it?
Let us go back in the record and we find that there is a claim prior to
yours on that j^ioo of gold money which you hold and sincerely believed.
19
was yours. Did not Uncle Sam own that $ioo before paying it to you?
No sir! A thousand times no! Does this surprise you? Let us pro¬
ceed with the record. In this case the record extends back to April 2,
1792. This gold money was authorized at that time. The government
did not own the gold bullion or silver bullion. It was owned by pri¬
vate individuals. This bullion was not money until the government
made it so by law and placed its stamp upon it. This the government
did free of expense to the owner of the bullion, and returned the money
to the owner that brought the bullion to the mint. Now I submit the
question to you, who owned that money, the government that stamped
it, or the ones who brought the bullion to the mint? Is not this plain
enough?
Now if you can point out where there is any authority for Congress,
representatives of the whole people, to take the commodity of any man
or set of men, and stamp it into money, that the people are absolutely
obliged to have, exclusive of any other commodity, produced by any
other person or persons, will you please point out such authority or
right, moral or legal? This is termed free and unlimited coinage of
gold and silver. The "ratio" is just what the Congress declares it to
be, anywhere from 15^ to i to about 30 to i today, and I challenge
any Constitutional expert to deny it. It is your Congressmen that you
elect to make your laws that are responsible. This is the scheme that
in 1792 was placed on the statute books of the United States, engineered
and steered through the legislative branch of the people's government
by that "greatest of statesmen" (?) Alexander Hamilton.
Now I submit again, "Is this justice, to give one set of men this
advantage, this preference over all the others?" Do you have any idea
the men who framed the Constitut-on in,ended that all classes of people
except the owners of gold and sibu r bullion, should pay tribute to these
few people? People were obliged to have money and had no way of
getting it without paying tribute > these money owners. I again ask,
do you believe the framers of the t, • 'institution had any idea of making
such a system lawful? They hac' • -r emerged from a seven years'
bloody war to get rid of "Taxath !■ ■ ithout representation," and after
tliro\\ing off a tax of ten per cent ' mie a government based on a Con¬
stitution, whose basic principles v justice and liberty, its slogan be¬
ing "Equal opportunities for all; s;, il privileges to none," do you
think it can be interpreted to mean t it shall be lawful for the masses
to pay tribute to a very few, for t which belongs to the whole?
Not only did they throw off the t r cent lax, but our law makers
•and courts have made and interpr this Constitution as giving to the
20
money owners a fuwful . -;ht to levy and collect a tribute of at least a
50 per cent tax. And 1 ¡is is, and can be proven.
I claim that it is morally and legally wrong, unconstitutional and
unlawful. As an illusti ation I will refer you to the Bible in the 22nd
chapter of Matthew, 17th to 23d verse. The "hypocrites" asked Christ
"Is it lawful to give tr'i'' te unto Cae.sar or not?" And Christ ans¬
wered, "Why tempt yo me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute
money." And they b ^night unto him a penny and he saith unto
them, "Whose is this image and superscription?" They say unto him^
"Caesar's." Then sai'.h he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are
God's." Now who wa ; Caesar? Caesar was the government, and
Caesar's stamp was on the "penny," hence the "penny" belonged to
Caesar. Let me ask you whose stamp is on your dollar. Is it not the
government's? Then does it not justly belong to the government? If
it does why are the mas: es taxed to pay tribute to the money-loaners?
Christ had more trouble than a little with this money loaning class in
his day. I cannot see any difference between them then and now.
In the 2 ist Chapter of Matthew, the 12th and 13th verses, read,
"And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold
and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money¬
changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them,
I "It is written my house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye
have made it a den of thieves." So this scheme is as old as is any his¬
tory. It is the most effective scheme of robbery and plunder that was
ever invented by man or devil. And its success depends on the ignor¬
ance of its victims. It is not apathy, but ignorance, that permits it to
exist. Anyone knowing it and remaining apathetic or indifferent must
be "worse than an infidel" for he will not use his God-given right to
provide for his own household, by casting his vote against this "subtle,
silent" scheme. Why should 75 or 80 millions of people be taxed to
pay tribute to five thousand banking institutions, for the use of some¬
thing called money (but which is not money) and which does not Con¬
stitutionally belong to them? There is no reason at all except the igno¬
rance of the voters. Christ called them a "den of thieves."
The founders and framers of the Constitution on wnich to base a
Government, wrote it down, "We, the People," but our law-makers
have made it a nation of thieves, and all through ignorance. The mon¬
etary Commission say, "The masses were entirely ignorant of its
nature." This question of money is not hard to leam when stripped
of its verbiage. Reason and common sense will uncover and lay it bare»,
2t
What is money? It is a creation of law. What is law? It is the
"will of the people in a Republic (as this was intended to be). In a
Monarchy the monarch's will is ihe law. In a Monarchy the monarch
rules or governs the people of his realm. His word is law. In a Re¬
public the people govern themselves. Whatever a monarch orders
done is law. Whatever the people want done, becomes law. Whti -
«ver the monarch wants money, whatever material he names on which
to place his stamp, is money for his people and no one dare oppose it.
Whatever the people of a Republic select as a material on which to
impress their stamp and declare it money, that is money for everyone
in the Republic, and is created by law and it is not money without the
law, and this law is the fiat of the people. The simple, plain meaning
■of the word fiat is, "It shall be." A Republic, then, being a govern¬
ment of, by and for the people, governing themselves, why cannot they
make their own money, and select any material they choose on which to
place the stamp? Is not the power of 80 millions of people as great in
a Republic as the power of one man in a Monarchy? The question is.
Is the United States a Republic? Does it not partake more of tlie
■nature of a Limited Monarchy or Oligarchy where a few self-appointe4
rulers say what the many shall be or do? Do not the 5000 banking
corporations say what kind of money and how much money the Ameri¬
can people shall have? Would you call this a government of, by and
for the people? At the bidding and dictation of these 5,000 bankers
Congress saj's you shall do this or shall do that and the people are ap¬
parently helpless. Congress says you shall have gold as your only
money and you shall not have .silver as money. Congress says you
shall be obliged to take the note, the debt, the promise to pay money of
a national bank corporation. Is this bod;, of nn-n called Congress held
responsible to anybody? Certainly they are held responsible to their
masters, the corporations, especially the moneyed corporations. The
people have no voice in saying who shall go to Congress, only to ^ote
for the ones the corporations put up for them to vote for. As long as
this coniinues do not abuse the English language by calling this a gov¬
ernment, of, by and for the people, unless you mean that 5000 bankers
know better what 80 millions of people want and need than the people
themselves. The Monetary Commission say that civilization cannot
cxi-t without money. This being a fact, it is a reasonable question to
ask: ShalUthe five thousand corporations have the say, absolutely, as to
how much of this civilizer shall be doled out to the eighty millions of
people?
When Congress was authorized to coin money, the power to, coin
22
as much as was necessary for the use of the people, was certainly im¬
plied, if not spacifically enacted, and it was as necessary to coin enough,
as it was to coin any. And why should there not be enough to supply
the necessary demand? How much is enough is a question yet to be
decided. How would it do to supply enough to answer the demand?
Before that can be done, we have to answer the question how much is
demanded. How great is the demand? Now mark this; The demand
for money is equal to the demand for all other things named in money.
If ®ne man has a product which he wishes to dispo.se of, its price being,
named in money, he finds a person wishing to buy his product but has
no money. Here is a demand for money but no visible supply. Why
should there not be a supply equal to this demand? You will hear so-
called political economists and financiers exclaim: "You would have
the nation ruined with so much money." Have you ever heard of
John D. Rockefeller, H. H. Rogers, or any of the many multi-million¬
aires complain of being over-burdened with money? Oh no, not at all.
It is not money that makes those people so rich. A pupil in mental
arithmetic could tell you that and prove it; in fact you can prove it to
your own satisfaction which is better still. I will tell you how. You
take the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury and ascertain
the general stock of money all told in the United States at a given time
and set that down. Then find atable giving the amount that each and
all of these millionaires and multi-millionaires are reputed to be worth,
and you will find they are worth very much more than all the money
there is in the United States. Now if their wealth consisted of money,
and nothing else, and it was in their possession, there would not be a
dollar of money in circulation among the people.
As it is now, the great mass of people do not have any^ real
money to speak of to exchange their products with. When I say real
money I mean a full legal tender for the payment of any debt in the
United States. There is no real money today, except gold. National
bank bills, legal tender greenbacks, silver certificates, silver dollars,
fractional silver, are all redeemable in gold dollars, under the law of
March 14, 1900. Now if you will take the report of the Secretary of
the Treasury and put down the amount of gold estimated in the United
States and then add all the other kinds of currency together that are in
existence in the United States, you will see how you will make out
in attempting to redeem this with gold. Then remember that every
debt in the United States, which amounts to forty to fifty billion dol¬
lars in the aggregate, must be, and is, payable in gold, if the creditors
demand it.
23
Now as to what the great mass of people do use as money in their
•every day transactions, both business and labor. There are very near
600 millions in national bank bills; there are 346 millions in greenbacks
and probably from 700 to 1000 millions in silver and silver certificates,
making at least 5^1,946,000,000. None of the above are money.
They are each and every one a substitute for money. The great bulk
of the business of the masses is done with bank bills and silver certifi¬
cates. No one wants silver dollars and but few of the greenbacks are
in circulation, most of them being used to pull the gold from the redemp¬
tion fund, for the benefit of the gold gamblers of the Wall Street gang.
I will in connection with the above give you something to think of
by inquiring what harm would come to the business and labor of the
country should Congress issue a full legal tender paper money,
and put it in place of the substitutes now used as money. Do
you see any danger to our "free institutions"' in allowing the people to
have a full legal tender money to use, a money that a creditor 'will! be
obliged to accept when tendered, or forfeit his debt? There can be but
one class that would oppo.se it and this is made up of the so-called
financiers and money owners. The national bank branch of this class
would oppose it tooth and nail, not because it would injure the people
or endanger the Republic, but because it would deprive them (the na¬
tional banks) of the ownership and control of all the] money, and stop
their legalized stealing of wealth produced by labor.
The real pith and marrow of this whole question is the ownership
of the money the people must have to pay the debts forced upon them
by a law of Congiess. Debt and interest is the cur.se of and destroyer
of nations as well as of individuals. This is the tap root of]]the "cause
that is so subtle and so silent that the masses were (and are) entirely
ignorant of its nature."
The cornerstone of this system ("scheme is better) in this Govern¬
ment was laid by authority of the law enacted Apiil 2, 1792. This Act
made it lawful for any person or persons to bring to the said mint gold
and silver bullion, in order to their being coir»ed; and that the bullion
so brought shall be there assayed and coined as speedily as may be after
the receipt theteof, and that free of expense to the person or persons
by whom the same shall have been brought. And as soon as the said
bullion shall have been coined the person or persons by whom the .same
shall have been delivered, shall upon demand receive in lieu thereof
coins of the same species of bullion which shall have been so delivered,
weight for weight, of the pure gold or pure silver therein contained."
Coinage Laws of the United States, Chap. XVI., Sec. 14, page 8.
'i'üat is free coinage. The person or person. T3ring that bullion
to the mint owned it. After changing it from bullion to money free
the person or ijersons bringing the bullion, owned the money—owned«
all the money in the United States. Is there a man who dares deny
those statements? Made a private commodity into public money free of
expense, on private account.
Now if you will turn back to the Constitution and study hard over
the one word "justice." Study the meaning of it. Congress was
authorized to levy and collect taxes. The people must pay taxes.
Taxes must be paid with money. Money can be created by the Gov¬
ernment, "We, the people," only. Congress created none for the peo¬
ple, the Government, but did create the money for the person or persons
bringing this bullion to the mint, and for nothing, and for no other
person or persons. Then no other person or persons owned any money
except the owners of bullion.
Reverting to the substitutes for money which the people must
use, without doubt national bank bills constitute the greater part of the
substitute used. Every one (nearly) says bank bills are good because
the Government makes them good. Let us admit this to be true, that
does not change the fact that they are not money, they are only a prom¬
ise to pay money. No creditor is obliged to take them for a debt; not.
even the banker that promises to pay them is obliged to take them for
the interest on the bonds which the Government holds as security for
these bills, simply because they are not money, not a legal tender for
debt.
The point is, is it justice to compel the people to use these prom¬
ises, these substitutes, to do their business with, and be compelled t&
pay interest on these bills to the banker, the man that owes them, and
they must be a debt of the banker, and the people are compelled to pay
interest on the banker's debt. I ask, is it justice?
Your making a law to compel a man to give a part of his time to-
produce wealth for another without an equivalent, is depriving him of
his liberty to the extent of the time that he is deprived of. And if a
part of his liberty is taken from him and it be just, then why not take,
all his liberty from him on the same ground? "Right wrongs no'
man."
Colton says: "Law and equity are two things which God hath
joined, but which man hath put asunder." Juniussaysof justice, "The
pure and impartial administration of justice is perhaps the firmest bond
to secure a cheerful submission of the people, ar.d to engage their afiFec-
tions to the government."
25
To say that the government, the people, cannot make a full legal
tender paper money, is begging the question. What the Government
has done it can do again. The Government does issue millions of dol¬
lars of substitutes in the form of national bank bills, silver certificates,
etc., in the place of real money. Can anyone give any reason why it
cannot make the real money? The Government has made real money
from gold bullion, silver bullion and paper. Were all money made by
Government declared a full legal tender for all debts, instead of substi¬
tutes, there would be no need of getting it redeemed, for real money is
not redeemable in any specific commodity. Bank bills, certificates of
all kinds, Government bonds, are all made on paper. They are all good
because the Government says so, but they are not good enough for
your creditor if he says "no" because they are not legal tender money.
Tho.sc two words are the only attributes or functions of money—Legal
Tender. The scheme of intrinsic value of money has been exploded by
the gold gamblers themselves. For 81 years these schemers stood by
this Í7itrinsic value .scheme in the two metals, declaring one ounce of
gold was worth about i6 times as much as one of silver. Iir 1873 the
scheme was hatched to deprive one of the metals of the privilege both
had enjoyed for 81 years.
The moment the jtrivilege of free coinage was taken from silver,
the bullion in the silver dollar took its place in the market by the side
of aiu' and every other commtidit}' except gold bullion. We now have
the intrinsic value scheme in this form, that 375/4^ grains of silver bul¬
lion in the market is worth only 50 or 60 cents, and the Government
coins it into 100 cents or $1.00. Where has the intrinsic value scheme
gone? It is to prove that law and law alone makes money.
Were all money issued by the Government and made a full legal
tender put in circulation by paying it out for expenses there would be
no excuse for the people to be iu debt, provided the supply was equal
to the demand. But for the people to demand more money in circula¬
tion raises a howl from the money owners, and their ignorant and pliant
tools, the Press, that "you want to fiood the country with lamp black
and rags."
That there is not money enough to uge is proven, first, by the
Government issuing bonds to borrow money to build the Panama canal,
when it had 80 or 90 million dollars on hand, in the banks. Second,
when Grover Cleveland was president in the go's, he had 262 millions
of bonds ¡.ssued to buy gold bullion to coin more money.
F. A. A'anderlip, vice president of the Standard Oil's bank of Xew
"Vcrk predicted tliat v; . the financ: 'tern of the United States be
25
soon reforinecl the country would within a very few years experience a
frightful panic. This prediction was made before the New York State
bankers' convention at Bluff Point, July 6, 1906. Mr, \'anderlip at
one time was assistant Secretar}' of the Treasury. Mr. \'anderlip ought
to know what was needed to avert such a panic. Plis proposition, en¬
dorsed by Mr. Shaw, Secretary of the Treasury, was that there should
be more paper substitutes Lssued by the Government to the banks.
This was or is to be called an "emergency currency." These bills are
to be issued to the banks by the Government, secretly, unknown to any
one except the Comptroller of the currency and the banks receiving
them. The}' are to be an exact imitation (counterfeit?) of the present
bank bills which read "This note is .secur'd by United States bonds
deposited with the Treasurer of the United States." On the new bills
the above quotation is to be eliminated, kft off. The common people
in their business, holding these "emergency bdl.-,'" will have no security
as to their being good. It is proposed to i■^sue at least 50 per cent
as many of these as there are of tho^e ha\ ing a security of bond depos¬
its. For instance if there is 600 midion dollars (and it is near that) of
the old secured bills they are to issue one half as many more of these
unsecured bills, 300 million dollars.
Without close inspection you will not kuuw but you have a bank
bill "as good as gold." If there is enough money why issue this much
more? And isn't this "Lampblack a'ud Rags" with a vengeance? The
one and only thing with them is to retain the ownership of money, as
they have had it since 1792.
That the price of commodities is governed and regulated by the
number of dollars in circulation has been claimed for a long time, no
one will deny. The question is, is it from any inherent quality of the
money, or is it from the insufhciency of the supply. As a matter of
fact, the supply has never been equal to the necessary demand. In
order to have it equitable the supp'y must equal the demand, and this
supply must be regulated by a scientific principle, if we would have a
scientific monetary system.
As money was invented to get rid of the cumbersome system of
barter, by transferring tlie diversified products of labor from the pro¬
ducer to the consume., or from one producer to another producer, for
under an equitable sy stem everybody would be consumers, therefore
every one should be producers. In- fact, money in its true sense, is no
more nor less than a means of transportation of the ownership of com¬
modities, from one to another.
Labor and land are the two prime factors in the production of
27
wealth, Land was here befóte labor. Labor is human effort. From
the land comes all wealth,' through human effort, both mental and
physical. But in order to have a scientific system of money, there
mnst always be enough to readily transfer the ownership of all com-
snodities to be transferred, without any inju.stice to the ones exchang¬
ing, hence, "The demand for monej'is equal to the demand for all
other commodities, the price of which is named in money units." In
another way, the demand for money is equal to the supply of commod¬
ities to be exchanged for monej'. There oiight to be money enough
for the people.
CHAPTER III.
Law M.\kes or Creates Mon.ev.
Going back to the "person or peisons" owning all the money there
was, let us ascertain how the people were to get money to pay taxes.
Taxation was compulsory. There was but one way to get it and that
Was to borrow or hire it of the person or persons that owned it. They
must run in debt and bind themselves and their posterity to pay interest
to the money owner. Running in debt was also made compulsory. The
people of this republic are in debt today somewhere near 40 billions of
dollars, or about one half the value of all the wealth of the nation.
That is not all. This dèbt fexists by compulsion of financial laws.
Neither is that all. This debt is growing larger every day, faster than
ever before. It is like a small snow ball in the beginning, and every
time it is turned or rolled over it gathers more snow until it becomes
so large and bulky that it breaks of its own weight and size.
This vast debt of today was started away back in 1792, and it has
gradually and steadily grown and is steadily growing today, and will
continue to grow under this system of private ownership of money,
until the money owners will own all the wealth of the nation. History
teaches this le.s.son.
At the downfall of the Roman Empire three per cent of the popu¬
lation owned ninety seven per cent of all the wealth. The three per
cent that owned that wealth were the money owners and money loaners
of that day and gold was the money of that Empire.
But I have a proof stronger even than history that will satisfy any
one interested enough to analyze it, and one that is plain enough for
38
any ordinarily intelligent person to comprehend. There certainly was
no more money in the hands of the "person or persons" than the Gov¬
ernment coined for them free. When the Government coined all the
bullion brought to it and gave all the money to those p>ersons, they
owned all the money in existence in the United States, did they not?
Those persons at once opened a place of business to loan money to the
people. Call it a bank if you choose. A. goes to the banker to borrow
$100. He wants to borrow it for sixty days,three months, six months
or a year, say for a year. The banker fixes the terms. He says "I
must have lo per cent" (if you please) "interest, and I must have the
interest in advance, now." A writes a note for $ioo and signs it, and,
gives a "security" that he will pay the $ioo at the end of the year.
The banker takes the note and the security on A's property and counts
out to A ninety dollars in gold. As the account now stands, the bank¬
er holds a debt secured by wealth, again.st A for $ioo, and A has $90 of
the banker's money to pay the $too of debt he owes the banker. Will
some mathematician, some expert, tell how A can pay $100 of debt
with only $go of money?
I am simply explaining bank di.scount. No matter about the
amount, the time or the rate of interest, the principle remains the same
for that $10 is a debt that cannot be paid with money. Then at. the
end of the year that $10 begins to draw interest for the banker, the
owner and the loaner of money
Interest upon interest is called compound interest. Did you ever
ponder over a-compound interest table? Do you know that one dollar
at compound interest for 100 years would amount to $13,809? Multiply
this b}- 10 and 3-011 have $138,090.
But the question is, how is A going to pa}- his $100 of debt with.
$90 of mone}'? There is more than one person that borrows money
from the bankers but the terms are all the same, as a rule, the interest
must come out in advance. B gocs to the bank a little while later and.
puts himself in the same condition as A is in. The two owe $200 and
have only $x8o to pa3^ with. The two are $20 short. Then C goes to-
the bank the same as the others, and so on down the alphabet until 11
of them are all in the same b(-x as A. The eleven men owe the banker
eleven notes of $100 each, making $i 100 of debt, and there is onl}- $990-
of money in circulation to pa3- with. This leaves an unpaid debt of
$110. Now, A's note coming due first he sells to B, or any of the:
others, $10 worth of potatoes, puts the $10 with the $90 he got from,
the bank and pays his note. Has A paid his note? Yes. Has A paid
it with money? Yes. Are you sure? Did he not pay it, or part, the
29
$io, with potatoes? No. Now let us reason this way. B only got JJgo
from the bank on his note and that left him short just $io. He lets A
have $io of that for potatoes and A has paid it to the bank and B, in¬
stead of being $io short, is now short $20 because if he had only $90
at first he ha.s $10 less which leaves him only $80, and he owes $100.
A has not paid that $10 in money. He has simply transferred that $10
of interest debt onto B for B is now $20 short instead of $10. And
when B, or before, B can pay his $100 note he must transfer, not only
his own $10 of debt, but A's with it, onto C or some one of the other
borrowers and give up $20 worth of his products, and so on down the
line. Under this system a man can take$ 1,000, loan eleven men $100
«ach, and have ten dollars left. This is called bank discount.
It must be plain to any man that there can be no more money than
the amount made by the Government. This money is all made for the
banks, and is owned by the banks, and the onlv way to get it into the
channels of trade and commerce is by the banks loaning it. When it is
loaned to the manufacturer or any business man, such borrower con¬
tracts to do an impossibility, viz: he contracts to return more money to
the bank than it lets him have.
This so-called interest is no more nor less than a debt in perpetuity.
As soon as it becomes due the interest on it commences to compound,
«nd if this debt is paid it must be by a transfer of the debtor's property
to the money owners and loaners. This system was what put 97 per
cent of the wealth of the Roman Empire into the possession of 3 per
cent of the population, and then was ushered in the period of the Dark
Ages.
Mr. Spaulding, a Congressman and a banker, says in his financial
history that "Credit is the essential element that underlies the business
of banking. Banking in all its forms is dependent upon credit." It
seems to me it ought to be plain to anyone that where there is credit
on one side there must be debt on the other.
The banking system, then, is a machine invented for the purpose
of taking the surplus wealth from those who produce it. The success
T of this system is entirely dependent upon the ignorance of the great
tnass of the people. Just so long as people can be led to. believe that
money must have an intrinsic value in the material on which the money
Stamp is placed, the system will flourish and the producers will be
plunged deeper and deeper in debt until all wealth is concentrated in
the hands of a very few. It must be evident to any thinking person
that if gold money is to be the only money recognized by law, the vol¬
ume of it must be limited to the extent of discovery of new gold mines.
30
Ji^ven if silver wa? re(;ogniy-e,iJ>.a,s.cqL-al to,gold at the ratjo pf 1.6 to i
or any other ratio the law : lay fix, it will not,change the.fact; ...Üiat na¬
ture furnishes the-supply of the materials on ^■4;ich the money stamp is
placed, and this must be always accidental, No man, no mining ex¬
pert, can tell how much or how little there is of gold or silver ore in ,
the bowels of the earth. So,»then, the people of this, great nation, in
its infancy, so to .speak, must depend upon chancg, for its very exist- ^
ence, if the intrinsic value of money fraud is persisted in. b}- the gold
standard advocates.
'You need ponder well the fact that gold money is the only money
in existence in this United States today, and the debtor that does not
have it in his possession, when the creditor calls for his pay, that debtor
is an phject slave to the creditor. The power is in the hands of the
creditor.class,: made .so by a law of compulsion. It i.s the unjust s.ystem
thafis complained of. Tliere is no-necessity for it. This Government
cannot endure imder such a financial system of robbery any more than ,
did the Roman Empire.
All people who stop to think, a,gree that as population increases
business must increase, and as money is so all-important to civilization,
the mone}' volume must increase in proportion. No sane person will
deny it. In this connection is meart the money .of final or "standard
payment)" and as gold is the only money under pre.sent laws (1907),
we are dealing with gold. Not onl}' is this nation, but there are thirty
five other nations that make their so-called "standard" of gold, except
four. Thirty-one nations, all demanding gold for their money of final
payment. All the gold that has been produced in the past and that
may be jiroduced in the future must be divided among these thirty-one
nations, by some method, jn order to carry out this specie basis fraud.
Judging the future by the past I turn to pages 36 and 37 of government
circular No. 72, and find a table compiled by the Treasury Department,
givii^g the amount of gold and silver produced in the world since 1492 ^
up to and including the year 1902, a little over 400 years. The entire
amount of gold produced was $10,624,712,900. During this period
there was a little over eleven and one half billion dollars of silver pro¬
duct (1. r.emember, this was the value of the amount produced as val¬
ued b, law.
Cn pages 34 and 35 is another table giving the approximate.
amount of money in the principal ci-untries of the world, December 31,
i(;o2. You will note the differentx between the amount produced m -
410 years and the amount of gold m.oney iu the thirty-six principal
countries of the world. Gold money $5,382,600,000.
3r
The populatio:''. of t!ie 36 ccantries at the t'inc war, i,cS5,6oo,ooo,
giviiij a pc-L japita of $4,19. The 'ot.'l Ft'-': of -i'vcr •■one;,' -war
$3,63.;,20ÍJ,ODO, a rcr capita of oî.iy $2.85, [pi\ i:"g at;' par capit 1 of
both g>.! 1 and silw,' cf 57.04 fcr tf'c whole \ or'd. Tlte I'nited Stat.
at thir (1902) h:::' $[,2JS,ooo,ooo of ah t' ' mona}' and $673-
300,of FÜver out of ah the .sih-c in the wn: ' hnt as silver is not
money in a t;"ue .Fer:S..a the United States on.r v. ney per capita in
1902 wa- orly $15.64.
On pa.j' - "S, 39 and 40 are tables .showi- ' ^ ■ p; .i','n.ctinn of gold
of the w< rid fer the years 1900, 1901 and 1902. For 1900, $254,576,3or:;
for 1901, $262, 492,900, and for igc c $295,83.3 • mailing a tot.al of
$812,958 .8e- This am.Gunt is iacinded in lli'.' tv.i billion noted above_
Out of'd- ■ 'lirca years production of the en'ire "tld the United States
coined i' *l.c three 3-ears respectively of gold $79.272,943;—-$101,735,-
187;—.p 17,184,933, making a total coined of $2_iS, 193,063, out of a total
coined i'ti 'd:o v. orld of $823,4^5,409.
If the gold produced and coined into money in the United States
couh". 1 • 1: •; L here it r.right make a litt'e differeime, but it cannot be. It
is si'.bi : ■ ■ t< migration like wild geese. It has always been the case that
•whei! \( u (h n't wim.t it j'ou may get it and when you do want it and
need it yo'c cannot get it. This was a notable fact during the war of
the lebdlion.
The fa.be claim of the gold standard advocates is that the intrinsic
value i". the metal is the only factor that gives the money its value as
money. The claim is made that the bulliou in the money is just the
sime due bcfo:e being coined as it is after. The claim is that the
value of Ih.e dollar is inherent in the metal itself. Then this inherent
value ini--,t, if true, have been a natural value Weie this claim true,
how c , 1:1 Congress "regulate the value'"? "Congress shall have power
to coi i money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin." Those
are tb.e voids. If Congress knows ju.st how n.riiy grains of gold are
■worth, exactly one dollar, how does Congre.'-.s know this?
Pre, ioto 1873 and from 1792 Congress declared that 371^4^
grail,-, cf pure silver was worth just one dollar. During this time (81
years) Congress knew(?) just how many grains cf each metal was worth
ju.st one dollar. The claim was made then, that the value was in both
metals, the same before, as after, being coined. To prove that this
claim was and is false, and that law and law alone makes money., that
the people have been taught through the papers and magazines, and
that intrinsic value has no part or parcel in the creation, I will refer
you to an official document of the Government, circular No. 72, obtain-
32
able at the Treasury I>epartmeiit, Washington, D. C. On page 29 of
this circular you can find a table giving the market value of the bullion
in a silver dollar from 1873 to 1903, the highest, lowest and average
price. In 1902 silver bullion reached its lowest price, 36 cents and 7
mills for 371^ grains, the amount of pure silver in a silver dollar.
Here, then, was a dollar made of silver with only 36.7 cents of value in
it. The Government would buy this 371^ grains of pure silver for 36.7
cents and make a silver dollar of it. You know that it takes 100 cents
to make one dollar. Subtract 36.7 cents from 100 cents and it leaves
63.3. Now can you tell me what lhat 63.3 cents is? Is it value? The
law says "presto, change," and immediately 36.7 cents becomes 100
cents.
The Government can take this same dollar, go into the market and
buy 1011.58 grains of pure silver. Divide thisb}' 371^, the number of
grains in a dollar, and we find it will make $2.72. Thi.s $2.72 cost 36.7
which makes about 13I2 cents value in each dollar. Then take the
$2.72, go into the market and bu>- 2751 ..}.9 grains at the price of 36.7
cents for 371 grains, and this will make $7.41. Now figure out the
value there is in one of these S7.41 dollars. Yet the Government
takes 371^ grains of pure silver and coins it into a 100 cent dollar.
Now you work out this problem, and you will find that the cost of the
silver in the silver dollar is less than the cost of the paper dollar. Sum¬
ming it up it amounts to this: 36.7 cents would buy 371X grains of
pure silver, which the law makes into a dollar. At the same price the
dollar will bu}^ loii^ grains, which the law makes into $2.72, costing
13^ cents each. $2.72 would buy 2751 grains, which the law makes
into $7.41, which would buy 7496 grains which the law makes in^o
$20.10.
The value of the first dollar was 36.7 cents; the balance, 63.3 cents,
was law, fiat. These dollars are made and paid to the man with the
"dinner pail" for 100 cents worth of labor. The spellbinders of the
gold standard advocates of both old parties said in 1896 that if the
Government reinstated the free coinage of silver it would give the
workingmen, the savings bank depositors, the widows and orphans and
of course all others except the bankers and bondholders a "50c dollar."
The only criticism of them that is necessary is that the}'^ were densely
ignorant or wilfully intended to lie. Free silver was defeated. Gold
won out and instead of a 100 cent dollar for all the people that were in
such danger, they are not being paid in "50c dollars." Oh, no! The
dollars they are paid with range from 52 cents in 1896 down to 40 cents
in 1902 on an average.
33
We were told if we had "free silver" and a 50c dollar the business
•of the country would be ruined. You cannot pick up a Democrat or
Republican paper worth notice but that is shouting about the great
prosperity. If a 36 cent dollar makes such prosperity, why will not a
less valuable dollar make greater prosperity?
On or about the loth of October, 1906, the Government bought
600,000 ounces of fine or pure silver bullion, to coin into fractional cur¬
rency, at about 69 cents an ounce, costing $414,000. In the $1.00
piece there is 371^ grains. In two 50 cent pieces there is only 346)^
grains of pure silver. Now we will pitt the problem this way. If one
•ounce (480 grains) costs 69 cents, bow much will 371.25 grains cost?
51 cents. Again, if one ounce (480 grains) costs 69 cents, how much
will 346grains cost? 47^ cents. The 600,000 ounces or 288,000,- k
000 grains cost the Government $414,000. If the Government coined
them into standard dollars 01371)4^ grains at cost 51 plus cents it would
make $775,784, a gain of $361,784 plus. If coined into halves, quar¬
ters and dimes (of ¡46% grains in the dollar) $831,688, a gain of $417,-
688. There is only 51 plus cents in one, and 47)^ plus cents in the
■other. The workingmen have to take either one for 100 cents. In the
one he gets 51 cents of value and 49 cents of fiat or law. In the other
he gets 47)^ cents of value and 52)^ cents of fiat, law. True, he can
buy 100 cents worth of value with it on account of the law. Now pre¬
vious to the law of 1873 the Government could not buy that 600,000
ounces for less than $774,000, you will observe. Before the law of free
•coinage V a i repealed in 1873, an ounce of pure silver could not be
bought for less than $1.29 coined or uncoined. 23.22 grains of pure
gold cannot be bought today for less than one dollar, coined or uncoined.
Will some one point out the truth in the statements of the gold standard
advocates, that the intrinsic value in the metal or dollar is the only rhing
that makes it money? If gold was treated by law as silver was treated
by the law of 1873 the result would be the same.
I have been thus explicit and devoted this much space to this gold
-and silver question to bring out plainly the point that a dollar is made
t.y law and law alone, and that the material has no function of money
e.cce; t to receive and carry tl;e impression or stamp of the law, and I
challenge proof to the conlrary. Were the free coinage privilege taken
■from gold as it was from silver in 1873, the gold bullion before being
coined would be subject to t;ie same fluctuations in price and value as
is the- silver bullion today.
We have today silver dcillars, of \'arying values, and have had since
1873. We have a silver dollar in which the price of the material varies
34
anywhere from 36 to 50 cents each, and yet a dollar never changes
from 100 cents, and never can change unless changed by the law. It is
the unit of account, not the unit or "standard of value." This is the
one great .stumbling block in the way of progress. You may take a
silver dollar and it reads on it "one dollar." The value of the material
may be 35 cents today. Tomorrow, or next week the material in it
may be worth 50, 60 or 75 cents, by a rise in the price of bullion. Ily
holding that dollar do you gain anything by the raise in price? There
must be one ortwo things. Either the Government is issuing a decep¬
tive dollar, or the material has nothing to do in making the dollar.
Take either side you choose.
CHAPTER IV.
Volume of Money Regulates Prices.
"HI fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
When wealth accumulates and men decay;
Princes and lords may flourish and may fade,
A breath can make them as a breath hath made,
But an honest peasantr}', a country's pride.
When once destroyed, can never be supplied."
—Goldsmith.
That is to say, the foundation, the basis of a great nation is its
lionest workingmen, the wealth producers.
A few words now with the workingmen of the United States. I
liave noticed what I consider an error of reform writers, in attempting
to teach reform, that they shoot, so to speak, over the heads of their
readers. From experience I know that the average wage earner, (and
I will include about all of the average businessmen, fanners and others)
are about the same as children when they first commence attending
«chool, in so far as this question is concerned. All these people must
be reckoned with and taken into consideration before this reform can be
made a success.
From the foundation of this government up to the present time,
the voters of this country have been kept in ignorance, purposely, by a
•clique or set of men, for the purpose of exploiting the wealth producers,
for the purpose of taking from them all the wealth produced except
just enough to barely sustain life. Does any man believe that if
he receives, say $2.00 per day for his wages, that the product or wealth
lie produces sells for $2 00 in the market? No, no man would believe
that because it would be unreasonable. But as a matter of fact, statis¬
tics show that the average wage per day for labor is a little over $1.00
.and the average price for which the product sells in the market is a lit¬
tle less than $10. In order to ask a question, and provoke thought, let
us say the wage paid is just $2.00 and the price of the product to the
consumer is $8.oo. The question is. Who gets the difference of $6.00?
After finding who gets it, then find how, for that is the main point.
S6
To you workingmen, business men and all those who produce-
wealth by labor, human effort: I propose to talk to you plainly, under-
standingly, with reason and commonsense. I want to make it so plain
that you cannot misunderstand its meaning, and then you have the
privilege of doing as 3 011 ma3' choose. That it is a premeditated plan
to force the wealth producers to give up the greater part of the products
they produce through secret devices, can and will be proven. The one
thing aimed at in this work is that every voter and reader may know
how this is accomplished, and what part you, unknowingly, have acted
in bringing it about.
Are you satisfied with what you get for 3'our labor? As a rule
does not the average workingman join a union for the purpose
Ol bettering his condition? Is there a man belonging to a union that
vrould refuse to accept more wages and less hours? In fact, is it not
for this purpose that the average workingman joins a union? Do you
believe there is a man with average intelligence, owning property and
pa3dng taxes, who would refuse to accept a lower rate?
The difference between the wages paid and work done in producing^
the wealth, and the value of same is something enormous. The Gov¬
ernment has a department of labor and commerce, and the duty of its
officers is to ascertain the facts relating to labor, its wages, the cost of
living, etc., for the information of the people.
In Number 65, page 187, Jul}^ 1906, Bulletin of the Bureau of La¬
bor, is a table that every laboring man should read. This table gives
the wages, the cost of living of 2,567 workingmen's families in all
parts of the United States. The total number of persons in these fami¬
lies was 13,643. The average number in each family was a little over
five. The average income for each family per year was $827.19. The
average expense for all purposes per 3'ear was $768.54. This leaves
lö lay by fur a rainy day. One item of expense alone for each
family, rent, $99-49. making a total of $255,390.83, for 2,567 families.
The amount each family saves per year $58.65. The total amount
saved by these 2,567 families amounts to $150,554.55. Now bear this
in mind and think it over. The 2,567 families paid $104,836.28
more for rent than they all saved. On the average each family paid
$40.84 more for rent than was saved,
No\-,'again do a little more thinking. Just imagine, as nearly as
you can, how many workingmen's fam.ilies there are in the United
States averaging five in a family. There are at least 16 million fami¬
lies and there must be at least 10 million workingmen's families. From
the above figures you may figure out some interesting problems. No\g
37
if you will enumerate and add together the many millionaires, and their
incomes (one at least receiving $2,000 an hour, $17,000,000 a year) and
place it by the side of the savings ot ten million workingmen's families
and tell me where those millionaires get their wealth from.
Suppose we admit that the Government statistics are absolutely
correct, and that the average workingman's family saves only $58.65
out of his income per )'ear, this fact does not prove nor show that he does
not produce more wealth than his income of $827,19 per year repre¬
sents. You will observe that all the margin between the workingman's
family and starvation (the average family) is $58.65. This may be
placed in a savings bank against a "rainy day," and then the thing
happens that does happen every day somewhere in the United States,
viz: failure of the bank, and then where has the $58.65 gone? Do
}'ou know? Do you know how, by what process? You do know it has
gone from you. You do know someoneelse has got it. On the face it
may look to you to be legitimate. But the question forces itself on
your mind is it legitimate, is it justice, is it equit}', is it right? There
is a cause for all this, which you who vote are in duty b jur.d to know,
and to apply the remedy. I said it is and'was a premeditated plan to
get the wealth produced by labor into their possession without produc¬
ing it. This method, this plan, this scheme, this conspiracy, was se¬
cretly concocted by the few cunning, unscrupulous thieves in order to
keep the producers quiet.
On page 56 of the monetary report the Commission says: "It is
natural that the money capitalist should exact from labor all he can in
exchange for hi.s(?) mone}', and that the laborer should exact all the
money he can in exchange for his labor." They say it is "natural."
I doubt its being a factor in Nature. They say further: "What is
known as the conflict between capital and labor is not so much a con¬
flict between other forms of capital and labor as it is between money and
labor." By this you can see that the real conflict is between mo: e\' or
mone}^ owners and l ibor. Again they say. "Indeed the conflict be¬
tween money and other forms of capital is as distinctly marked and
quite as severe as the conflict between money and labor, and in that
conflict other forms of capit il suffer fully as much as labor, the only
difference being that they arc better able to endure losses. Other forms
of capital must ba constantly converted into money in order to pay
wages and to meet demands incident to industrial enterprises. When
the stock of money is shrinking and prices are falling this conversion
can only be made at rates continually growing more unfavorable, while
at the same time the products of the labor for whose wages sacrifices
38
have been made are also undergoing a shrinkage of money value.
* * It is in the shadow of a shrinking volume of money that
disorders social and political gender and foster, that communism organ¬
izes, that riots threaten and destroy, that labor starves, that capitalists
conspire and workmen combine, and that the revenues of governments
are dissipated in the employment of laborers, or in the maintenance of
increased standing armies to overawe them."
From the above it must be plain to an interested observer that the
fight is between labor and the money owners. Then the labor union's
methods must be wrong, from the fact that the employer of labor is as
severely crushed by the money power as is labor. That is, that the
•employing capitalist is made a cat's paw of by the money owners to pull
the wealth from labor. The three factors in this three cornered fight
are Labor, Capital and Money. All three are absolutely necessary.
The real fight is to come between Labor and Capital combined, against
the private ownership of money. "Money is as absolutely necessary to
civilization as oxygen is to animal life."—Monetary Report, page 50.
Neither labor nor capital can ignore money. I often hear people say:
"Money is the root of all evil." This is incorrect. The true saying
is: "The love of money is the root of all evil."
Money, of itself, cannot be taken out of this discussion. The only
question in regard to money to be settled is its ownership. When this
is settled right all conflicts between labor and capital will come to an
end, for capital, in its true sense, is but the surplus wealth produced
by labor. As a matter of undisputed fact, the money owners are on
top of the heap. The price of labor's wages and its products are made
and unmade by the owners of money. The price of the capitalist's
stock of goods, his plant, is made and unmade by the same power, and
that power consists of the owners and managers of between five and six
thousand national banking institutions. They virtually dictate the
price of every commodity in this nation of over 85 millions of people.
When you stop and consider the power thus wielded by comparatively
so few, is it any wonder there is discontent and unrest? The money
owners are robbing the wealth producers through the employing capi¬
talists, hence the labor and capitalists should unite and stand shoulder
to shoulder against the so-called money owners. This might be called
harsh and some might say revolutionary language, but truth will bear
its weight.
"Right wrongs no man." By what right, either moral or legal,
do these money owners own this money? Did they create it? Did they
produce it? Government alone has the power and light to create
39
money. In the sense of production of wealth money is not produced,
it is created by law. So that money, as money, has no relation what¬
ever to labor or capital. By the same rule labor produces all wealth,
which naturally belongs to, and is owned by the producer, labor, and
the surplus, not necessary for present use, is stored up labor or capital,
and belongs to labor. As money is not produced by labor, but by law,
and as law is made by the people and for the people, (that is, it should
be) the money should belong to and be owned by the whole people col¬
lectively. This is the meaning of a Democracy. A representative
government is not a Democracy. This government for 114 years has
been run under the method of a few to govern the many for the benefit
of the few.
The Constitution was framed, "ordained" and "established" by
"We, the people of the United States," for the "People" of the United
States for all time. The intention was that the people should govern
themselves. I sometimes think the people have become hypnotized
into believing that anything is right if it only comes from high official
authority. Then again, when I stop and think, and realize that all
their education on this question has been from the standpoint of the
"conspirators," I do not wonder at it so much.
Is The Deception Intentional?
Now you, Mr. Farmer, what would you do if, after you had har¬
vested your crops and put them under cover, you should discover that
someone, or somebody, was visiting your granery every day and tak¬
ing a little each time of yonr wheat, corn, cotton or other products?
It is said that "When ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise." Would
it be folly for you to know that you were being robbed every day of
more or less of the products of your labor? Would you, Mr. Working-
man, not try and defend yourself if you were met on the road by some
stranger as you were returning from your labor with your wages in
your pocket, if he demanded that you should give him a portion, a
large portion of what belonged to you? There is no doubt but that you
would. But do you know you are doing the very thing you say you
would not do? You are told by the very ones who are doing this to
you, through their mouthpieces and the press, that your bread and
butter depends upon them and their methods of stealing from you. It
hardly seems possible that there can be so much ignorance as appears
on the surface of editorials published in the papers over the elections at
all times. Is it ignorance or is it intentional deception? Well, the fol¬
lowing is what I read. I give it to you as I found it.
4°
"He'd Knock 'Em Oct.
Buncomb rats too much of a figure in most political campaigns. To be cry¬
ing out against corporations is the popular political trick in all parts of the coun¬
try today. The whole pretense is savored with folly—it is fishing for votes with
abare hook. The Xew York Sun in its hotel gossip column opens this pretense to
the view of the every day mind as follows: 'Were I an untrammelled spell binder
in this campaign,' said a republican at the Fifth Avenue Hotel last night, 'I would
get upon the stump and advocate the busting of all corporations in this state, and in
all other states, and then I would turn to the working men in my audience and say:
"When we have busted all the corporations, knocked 'em out, sent 'em into bank-
ruptcj', driven'em to the financial bone yard, who's going to employ you? ^Vbo's
going to give you work? Where are you to get your bread and butter for yourselves
and your families? Don't you know that these corporations pay hundreds of mil¬
lions of dollars into the treasury of the United States every year? Don't you know
that the government couldn't pay its expenses without the duties paid by these cor¬
porations on their imports? Don't you know that the government would have to
go into bankruptcy without the hundreds of millions paid into the United States
treasury by these corporations? But never mind that, let's bust the corporations
and then you go out and hunt for bread." '
This reveals the false pretense and shows that labor could not do a worse
thing for itself than to do what it is being advised to do."—Norwich (Conn. ) Bulle¬
tin, ( )ctober 25, 190(1.
If there isn't wisdom for you laboring men, in big chunks! Poor
fellows! They must be in desperate deep water. And to think that
the workingmen and their families are dependent upon these outgrown
corporations for their bread and butter. To ponder over the questions
asked by this "Solomon" is a very deep study. If someone had asked
him who built up these corporations, supported their families and saved
out of their wages $58.65 a j'ear, the workingmen would have got but
little credit, if any, from him. The workingmen's welfare is a very
solicitous subject—just about—election time. "Who's going to employ
you? Who's going to give you work?" Very serious questions the.se
—for the workingmen, the producers of all wealth.
"Don't you know that these corporations pay hundreds of millions
of dollars into the treasury of the United States every year?" Yes, the
workingmen know this, and they know who they get the millions from
too. It would appear that this would-be spell binder, including the
Bulletin and New York Sun did not know that Eabor pays all the bills.
"Don't 5'ou know that the government would have to go into
bankruptcy without the hundreds of millions * * paid by
these corporations?" Away back in 1861 a New York banker had the
check to say to the Secretary of the Treasury, "But for the banks the
government could not pay at all. It would have been bankrupt six
weeks ago. This assertion in the face of the declaration that "Congress
41
shall have povcr to coin money;" and a further phrase: "To provide
for the common defense."
As a matter of fact this government was established by the people,
for the people. Our laws today are enacted by class legislation. As
far as financial legislation is concerned, this nation for the past 40 years
has been divided into two classes, by those sitting in both houses of
Congress, and the laws have been made in conformity theievviLh. The
great producing class, which includes what is called the capitalists, and
the income class. Two classes, Producing Class and Income Class.
The law makers, a greater part of them, have been the tools of the
money owners, and have made the laws against one class, the producers-
(business and labor), in favor of the other, the Income class.
Having the special privilege of owning and controlling what should
be the people's money which gave them the power they have, through
a subsidized press, almost convinced the people that the money owners
own the government. They have so far succeeded in legislating
against the producers, and enlisting the producers to assist them. The
producers are "very intelligent people" just before and at election time,
provided they vote one or the other of the old party tickets, but if they
take a notion to vote independently, then they become "anarchists."
There is no vital conflict as a rule between the employers and employ¬
ees. Both are made the target of the money owners. Let me illus¬
trate. A capitalist owns a piece of land or house lot. He wishes to
build a house. He goes to the money loaner and borrows, say three
thousand dollars, at say six per cent interest. He builds the house,
say two tenements. He rents the two tenements to two workingmen's
families. He will charge the tenants the interest on the money bor¬
rowed, $180, the interest on the price of the lot, for wear and tear of
the house, repairs, etc., and a little something for himself. Now who
pays all this expense? The tenant. Six per cent goes to the money
loaner, through the capitalist. Now it is for you to figure out how
long it would take you to own a home of your own provided you could
save the money you pay for rent. The average rent for 2,567 working-
men's families each is $99.49. This is not all the interest you pay for
there is a tax; true it is indirect, but you pay it just the same on all
your food and clothing. And at least from 6 to 10 per cent of this tax
goes to the money loaner through the capitalist. The men who build
railroads borrow money and then add it to the freight and the work-
ingman pays the freight which is added to the articles he consumes
or uses. Labor, human eflbrt, pays the whole bill. Then insult those
workingmen by asking them "Where will you get your bread and but-
42
ter?" It is possible the man who asked that question never did at
honest day's work in his life.
On this question I quote from a speeeh of James G. Blaine in New
York in 1888, and it is as true today as it was then: "From first to last,
■from beginning to end, from skin to core and from core back to skin
again the question is Labor." So much for labor. Now for what
Abraham Lincoln said in regard to money: "If a government contracted
•a debt with a certain amount of money in circulation, and then con¬
tracted ihe volume of money before the debt was paid, it is the most
heipons crime a government could commit against the people." It is
just .sim¡'!y worse than highway robbery for it was done without the
kno.viedgeof the people. They knew nothing of it until it was con¬
summated, although some of the "stand pat" papers were running then
as now and apologizing for the theft.
Here is another from one of the G. O. P.'s idols. It is a rather
bitter pill for the gold standard yawpers to masticate. It rather takes
the "ragged edge" off of the intrinsic value argument; "I wonder sil¬
ver is not coming into the nrarket to supply the deficiency in the circu¬
lating medium. I want to see the hoarding of .something that has a
standard of value the world over. Silver has that."—U. S. Grant.
Here was a President of the United States. His belief differs slightly
from the G. O. P. of 1896. Here follows another from another of the
Presidents of the United States: "Whoever controls the volume of
money of any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
—James A. Garfield.
Well, the six thousand national bankers not only "control" but
practically own the money of this country, so, according to this evi¬
dence, about six thousand bankers are absolute masters of all industry
and commerce." Just think of it! A free(?) nation of 80 or 90 mil¬
lions of people with six thousand "masters." Forfour years war was
waged to free four million slaves, and now there are nearly twenty five
times as many slaves, both black and white, and yet our great(?)
Press is shouting itself hoarse over prosperity(?).
Still one more: "The cause of our depression is money famine, and
nothing else."—John A. Logan. Is there a man so insane as to call
these men anarchists? As James G. Blaine said, "Labor" is the foun¬
dation stone of a Republic, and money the life and support of civiliza¬
tion, the future political battles will be waged between Labor and
Money Owners. It is easy to prophesy which will win out, but not
until Labor knows what its vote is for. One of the strangest freaks, or
inconsistencies, of labor unions, is the organization of unions, which it
43.
has a perfect right to do, for self jireservation, go into the union and
stand shoulder to shoulder for each other, as one man, against any
encroachments upon their rights by their supposed enemy, their em¬
ployer, and he takes advantage of a law made in the interest of the
enemy of both capital and labor, the money owner, in fact the law was
dictated by the money owners themselves. This law is made or sanc¬
tioned by the votes of the union members, not in a body as one man,
but against each other. The moment they step out from the union
meetings into the voting booth the Union tie is broken and disunion
takes its place, for it is a fact that the union members divide at the
ballot box, one voting the ticket marked D. and the other R. and I
challenge any union man to find any difference between the two so far
as the interests of labor are concerned. Are not the interests of the
members of the union identical, while in the union? Can you tell why
they are not identical at the ballot box? It is the only place where you
can make your power felt, and if you know how to get what you want,
viz. : that which belongs to you in a government such as this was in¬
tended to be, as laid down in the Constitution, you will and can get it
quietly and peaceably; but to be united in the Union and divided at the
ballot box. Never.
But this much will I say to you one and all, you have got to under¬
stand what you are doing and why you are doing it. You must learn
that the laws placed on your statute books were placed there by your
assistance at the ballot box. You must learn that when you went to
the ballot box and voted for a republican candidate that you voted, not
only against the interests of your Brother member of the Union, that
voted the Democratic ticket, but you voted against your own interests
and the welfare of your own wife and children, and this same thing ap¬
plies just as surely and as severely to your brother in the union that
voted for the democratic candidate. What was your vote given to you
for? Do you want more wages and less hours of labor? Do you need
them? Are you in justice entitled to them? If you are why don't you
vote for them? Do you property owners object to paying excessive
taxes? If not, why do you find fault? Why don't you vote to decrease
instead of to increase them? Two property owners in the same town or
city both own the same amount of property; one pays taxes, the other
does not. Are you satisfied to be the one to pay and let the other go
scot free? If you are not, why do you vote for it? Do you know that
there are a few who own great fortunes and pay not a cent of tax?
Does a government bond holder pay any taxes? Do the national bank¬
ers pay any taxes? Do not the national bankers draw interest on the
44
bonds deposited as security for their bills, with the government, and
then draw.interest on the bills when loaned to the "capitalists," all of
whicli comes out of labor? Do you know these facts? If you do
not it is high time you did. Did you know the government is paying
interest on a debt that has been paid in full, and taxing the labor and
capital of free(?) America? Do you know that the amount of that debt
is o^■ev 000,000,000 dollars, and that you workingnien, farmers, manu¬
facturers, storekeepers, in fact all forms of labor are pajdng interest on
that dc4)t, through taxation, while the beneficiaries go scot free from
taxe^? Is there in this nation one man with any responsibility that
wouM willingly and knowingly continue to pay interest for a term of
years, on a debt he owed, and which he has paid in full? Do you
beliex e - uch a man can be found?
To what cause can you attribute such a condition of affairs? The
Monc'rry Commission in their report said; '"The cause at work to pro¬
duce this state of things was so subtle, and its advance so silent, that
Ihe masses were entirely ignorant of its nature." A fair question is, if
this be true as stated above, and the people were entirely ignorant of
this cau.se, owing to its being so secretly and quietly framed into law,
was it not a conspiracy against the liberty of 80 or 90 millions of people?
And if it be a conspiracj^ is it legal? Is it not a crime? Are the Amer¬
ican voters, the American people, bound to fulfill this illicit compact?
Are the people of this govenrment compelled to endorse treason? The
dictionary defines "conspiracy" as follows: "The act of conspiring; a
combination of persons for an evil purpose; aplotting; a plot;—especially
a plot against a government, or a concerted treason." The meaning of
the word "subtle" is "sly; artful; cunning; crafty; wily." The ser¬
pent, subtlest beast of the field."—Milton. Will not this condition of
affairs lead up to justifiable repudiation of all unjust laws, and a con¬
viction of the conspirators, the traitors? Just so long as the people
can be kept in ignorance this "conspiracy" will continue. The gov¬
ernment continues to issue bonds, to borrow(?) money to build the Pan¬
ama canal. The purchasers of the bonds take them to the treasury
and the government forthwith makes national bank bills called monej^
and pays for the bonds, and then gathers the interest from the people
and pays it to the bankers who have already been paid in full for the
bonds. "An endless chain" of conspiracy.
This question has got to be settled and settled right. To trust its
settlement to the ones who have inaugurated it, is to turn the lion and
the lamb together. These men have settled it many times in the last
forty years, but it doesn't stay settled.
CHAPTER V.
Reai< Estate Mortgage Debt Per Capita.
In connection with the previous chapter I wish to call the atten¬
tion of farmers and real estate owners to the government report on real
estate mortgage indebtedness in the United States, taken from the cen¬
sus report of 1890. On page 163 we find the debt to be per capita,
(that is for each man, woman and child on the average) for the 48
states and territories on the first day of January, 1886, $57.00. On
January ist, 1890. it had increased to $96.00; an increase in four years
$39-oo per capita, equal to a yearly increase of $9.75. It is 16 years
from January ist 1890 to January ist 1906. At the same rate of in¬
crease as the four years the increase would amount to $156. To this
add the $96.00, the debt on Januar}- ist, 1890 and you have the aver¬
age per capita debt on real estate mortgage of $252.00. New York's in¬
crease in one year from $252.00 to $268.00, or $16.00. California
increased from$ii4.oo to $200 in four years, $86.00, or $21.50 per year.
Colorado's increase from $i 13.00 to $206.00 in four years, $93.00 or
:$23.25 per year.
According to these figures on January ist, 1906, the per capita real
estate mortgage debt was $252.00 in the United States and Territories.
The total amount of debt $20,160,000,000 on real estate alone. On
page 160 we find the average per capita debt for every individual 21
years old and over to be $185. On page 289 is given the average rate
of interest of over 7)4 per cent. Figure the interest at 7)^ per cent
and it amounts to $1,512,000,000 each year. As interest isa debt un¬
payable with money this amount must be added to the twenty billions.
Compound interest commences at the end of each year.
The above debt is on real estate alone. Of the other debts. Gov¬
ernment bonds. State, County, Town, Cit}-, Individual, Corporation,
bonds and debts, is not and cannot be readily known, but they must be
very large. There may be perhaps one state, and once in a long while
SL county or town that is not in debt, but they are about as scarce as
"hen's teeth."
This information is taken from government stati.stics. The Census
■of 1900 did not treat on this real estate mortgage and debt subject.
Would it be too radical to say that all other debts on which interest is
46
reckoned will amount to another 20 billion dollars? Forty billion dol¬
lars of debt! The average rate of interest on this 20 billion cannot be
less than 5 per cent. Add this to the mortgage interest and you have
the tidy little sum of two billion five hundred and twelve millions, of
interest each year. It may be interesting for you farmers to figure out
how manj' bushels of wheat, rye, corn and oats, how many pounds of
cotton, wool, beef, pork or mutton, how many tons of hay it will take
to pay this interest for one year at the market price fixed by the money
owners. You farmers and real estate owners(?) that have been voting
for "protective tariff, free trade and tariff for revenue only," don't
you feel proud of the record of your G. O. P. that have had the reins
of government in their hands for 46 years, excepting 8 years when the
twin "D. O. P." held the ribbons and G. C. made a distribution of 262
millions of bonds to help you along towards our great "Prosperous"
condition and prevent your having an "over production." There are
so many of the "stand pat" prosperity howlers that are so proud of
its "record,,' I didn't know but all you farmers that are toting mort¬
gages on your shoulders are proud of this record. The D. O. P. are
constantly telling you that if you will give them the reins they cau
"go the G. O. P. one better." Some workingmen are inclined to poke
fun at the "Old Hayseeds," but my dear workingman, it is a very good
idea "not to crow until you are out of the woods," for you have got to
help the "Old Hayseed" pay that two billion dollars of interest. No?
Well I guess yes. When you use any of the products of the "Old
Hayseeds" you cantaste that interest. But any observer would decide
that yon "like it that way." And that puts me in mind of a story. A
number of fellows were camping out, hunting and fishing. They
wanted a cook. So they drew cuts, and they agreed that the first oue
that complained of the food should take the cook's berth. The cook
went to work cooking and the others hunted and fished, came in, ate
and went out. This was a little bit monotonous for the cook. Being
shrewd, he concluded to stir up a complaint. He took a small quantity
of meal and a large quantity of salt and made some bread. The others
came in.hungry as wolves; one of them took a mouthful of bread and
soon commenced to sputter and spit it out, remarking at the same time,
"that is pretty d d salty,"—hesitated a moment,—"but I like it
that way." Perhaps the voters "like it that way."
David Harum said: "It is necessary for a dog to have a certain
amount of fieas so he will remember that he is a dog." It may be
necessary to have this amount of interest to pay so you may remember-
that you must work in order to help pay it and not "waste your time
47
talking politics at the corner grocery."
Here is another thing in which I think you will agree with me,
and that is that pay day 'vtfill come along some time. When a man has
got a debt to pay at a specified time, he would naturally make some
provision for paying it. It is expected that it will be paid with money,
a kind of money the creditor is willing to accept, or is compelled to ac¬
cept, when tendered by the debtor. What provision have the men
made that you voted for to do this, your law-makers. Congress? They
have provided by law (at the request of the creditor) that you shall
have but one kind of money, stamped on one material only, viz.: Gold,
and the creditor can refuse any other if he chooses, and in lieu of it,
can take your property, with the aid of the Sheriff. Well, this might
he better than it appears, provided there is enough of this gold money.
You need keep in mind the amount of the debt and interest to be paid in
order to understand. From another Government document we find the
amount of this gold at various dates in the United States, also in the
■whole world, also how much has been found, coined, etc. Circular
No. 72, on pages 34 and 35 is a table showing figures for 1902. Popu¬
lation of the United States, 79,800,000; stock of gold, $1,248,000,000,
$15.64 per capita. Now all this vast debt of 40 billion dollars is pay¬
able in gold, as that is the only legal tender money with which debts
can be paid. Besides the big debt, every other form of money is to be
redeemed in gold. There !s of silver, national bank bills, old green¬
backs and certificates, about $1,446,000,000. You may add this redeem¬
able debt to the big debt, making about 42 billions of debt, and one
billion, two hundred forty eight million dollars of money to pay it with.
Now if you will divide the number of dollars of money by the number
of dollars of debt, you will find that you have less than 3 cents of
money (gold) to pay 100 cents of debt. You have ample provision
made for paying your debts, haven't you? You hired those men to do
this, didn't you? You pay them $5,000 a year, don't you? They do
their work well, don't they? If they didn't you wouldn't hire them
over again every two years, would you? Or, peihaps you don't know
enough to know whether the work is done right or wrong. And now
there is talk of doubling their pay to $10,000 a year.
I very often hear some workiugman or business man "poll parrot¬
ing, ' ' repeating the phrase of some one of the tools of the conspirators,
in excusing the scarcity of money. They say that $10 of money will
pay $100 of debt by A paying B and B paying C and so on down to J,
and J pays it to A from whence it started. This is true as far as it
goes. If you don't begin right you are liable to come out wrong. No
48
amount of reasoning can make a wrong right. You must start right at
the beginning. The trouble with the above assertion is it starts wrong.
The people of this country are divided into two classes as to the raoi ey
question, viz: Debtor and Creditor, the producing class and the income
class. There must be in the beginning an owner of the money after
it is made. If one man alone out of loo or looo has the power lo make
the money, naturally he would be the owner of it. If he should make
$i,ooo it would be his own, would it not? Say that ii men in the
community wanted it to use, the loor ii, or any other numle!, would
have to make terms with the owner. There is one point o;: which
they both agree, tacitly at least, though neither one may mention it,
and that is that the borrower agrees to return more money than he re¬
ceives, and the lender demands more than he lends. So tliey both
start from the beginning with an "impossible to execute" agreement.
The agreement on its face apparently is strictly between the two but
from its very nature will and does include all the others of tl.e com¬
munity except the lender. It is plain that the lender is the one income
class while the many are the producers. One is the creditor; one hun¬
dred are the debtors. It must be plain that the first man that borrowed
was the first debtor; then another borrowed and became the second
debtor, and so on indefinitely. As you will observe, the debtors in¬
crease in numbers while the one creditor remains, until more lenders,
are necessary. So that from this you can see that there are many times
more borrowers or debtors, and that in the final settlement all debts of
all the community are payable to the few creditors. The first creditor
being the owner of all the money, and he parts with it on the agree¬
ment of a secuied promise from the borrower that he will return it, it
must follow that the borrowed money must always be owned by the
lender. If the lender takes from the borrower his secured promise to-
return $ioo at the end of the year, the lender does not let the borrower
have but $90, (reckoning interest at 10 per cent). Here, then, is the
laying of the cornerstone of a permanent perpetual debt. This ccments-
the dividing line between the producing and the income classes. The
binding bond between them is debt. Under this system this bond can¬
not be broken. No matter how many dollars go into circulation it has
no effect on this bond except to strengthen it, under this system. This
bond that divides the debtor from the creditor is termed inteiest, and
interest defined is perpetual debt. If every man could make his own
money there would be no debtors, no creditors.
Somebody must have the power to select the material on which ta
impress the money stamp. In a democracy it is agreed by all that the
49
power to make the money is inherently vested in the people, which
they call the government. If the people, the government, delegates
this power to one or one hundred it will not change the debt-creating
system. It will not dissolve the bond between debtor and creditor. It
will continue it and enlarge its own powers. The present system is the
result of the private or corporate ownership and control of all money in
the United States.
Private ownership of money makes compulsory and perpetual debt.
Public ownership of money would abolish compulsory debt, but would
not prevent one person from borrowing fiom another, but would through
the volume of it, prevent the necessity of all the people becoming a
debtor to an exclusive private owner. As it is said, or was said, ' 'All
roads lead to Rome," so all money now in circulation in the hands of
the producers, is all the time on the road to its owners, the national
bankers. And this money on its journey is carrying with it a certain
per cent of the producers' wealth.
There cannot be found in the history of the world such another
conspiracy as the false assertion that has been so persistently taught by
the conspirators through what is called a "free press," owned or subsi¬
dized by the conspirators themselves, as the doctrine that money must
have an intrinsic value in the material on which the stamp is placed,
equal to the face of the stamp. That is, a dollar must have a dollar's
worth of inherent value in it in order to be money. This conspiracy
did not originate in the United States, but was engrafted or brought
over from England. For years and years it has been taught to the
people of the United States, until the people had come to believe it, not
from any reasoning of their own, but just by force of habit. Had the
system of chattel slavery been eliminated when the government was
formed, there is no doubt this money system would have still been un¬
disturbed, at least to the extent that it is today. But circumstances
over which there was no control stepped in and brought about the great
fratricidal war of the Rebellion.
From 1792 up to this ueriod, 1861, the money was owned by the
old state banking institutions. What was called money consisted of
gold and silver and state bank bills, promises to pay. It must be evi¬
dent to the careful reader that the government did not own any money.
It mu.st be evident also that the government could not prosecute the war
without men and money. It is also plain that the government could
not borrow money from th^ ;>ei ;>h. from the fact that the people had
no money of their own to lend. The money used by the people was
owned by the bankers, made by the government, especially for them.
5°
It is true the people had but little real money to use, being obliged to
use the bank's bills, the promises to pay, of the bankers. Their char¬
ters gave them the privilege of issuing about three promises to pay for
one dollar of real money, a bare-faced fraud, and robbery on the face of
it. At that time this was called the "specie basis." It was not called
the single gold standard then, it was the double standard of gold and
silver, with silver as the principal base. There was no other course for
the government to pursue, apparently, except to make terms with the
money owners. The government had no option; it must have men and
money. The men could enlist or the government could compel them
to serve by draft, but the government could not hold them-without
paying them. The men must be fed, clothed and equipped with arms
and ammunition, all of which the government must buy and pay for or
the Union would be broken up. So that money was an absolute neces¬
sity. As there was only about 250 millions of gold and silver in 1861
in the United States, the government did borrow about 150 millions
of this coin, for which it issued its bonds, and this was all the govern¬
ment borrowed.
On page 62 of Circular No. 72 of the Treasury Department is a
table giving the amount of coin money from i860 to 1904 both inclus¬
ive. This information comes from the government, and cannot be dis¬
puted. There is an explanation or foot note at the bottom of this page
as follows: "Note 1. Specie payments were suspended from January ist,
1862 to January ist 1879. During the greater part of that period gold
and silver coins were not in circulation except on the Pacific coast
where, it is estimated, the specie circulation was generally about $25,-
000,000. This estimated amount is the only coin included in the above
statement from 1862 to 1875 inclusive."
Now let us reason on this question and prove that the money owners
are deceiving the people now as they always have been. You may ask
every person you meet this question, "What were government bonds
issued for?" From nine out of ten the answer will be, "To borrow
money to pay its expenses." The persons so answering sincerely be¬
lieve it because they have read it in the papers. The papers insist on
repeating it, notwithstanding the fact that the law passed by Congress
proves the opposite to be the fact. There is no disputing the fact that
after borrowing the 150 millions in 1861, of gold and silver, the remain¬
ing 100 millions must have been hoarded as it was not in circulation,
only the 25 million on the Pacific coast. The bonds issued after 1861
could not have been issued to borrow gold and silver, because there was
none to borrow. The 150 million that was borrowed and immediately
51
paid out to soldiers and for supplies had been so scattered over the
country that it was impossible to collect and loan it again for the next
payment. Now you who believe that our government bonds (over two
billion) were issued to borrow money, it is for you to inform the pub¬
lic through the "press" what kind of money the government received
for the bonds. The soldiers received this money for their , pay, which
you say the government borrowed. You ask any old soldier what kind
of money he received after the three months men were paid. The an¬
swer will invariably be "Greenbacks."
Now if you care to prove that the newspaper lied, you ask and
answer these questions: Who made the Greenback? The Govern¬
ment. If the Government made the Greenback and paid the soldier
who did it borrow it of? If it did not issue the bond to borrow money
what was the bond issued for?
Another feature of this bond question I would like to call your at¬
tention to for fear you might overlook it. Today every bond is payable
in gold. The question arises, why should they be made payable in
gold? Did the government receive gold for them when it sold them?
If the government received paper for them, why not pay them with
paper? If paper was good enough to buy them with, why not good
enough to pay them with? Should the bond holder be paid with a bet¬
ter money than he bought them with? Watch for the proof. Proof by
the law and by government official documents.
CHAPTER VI.
Paper Money Worth More Than Gold.
There was no getting away from the fact that the government
must have money, must have it at once, and a further fact was, it could
not borrow it of the bankers, for they had nothing to loan the govern¬
ment except state bank bills, promises to pay, which the government
refused to take as money, and which Salmon P. Chase, then Secretary
of the Treasury said: "Were not worth the paper on which they were
printed." After the government had borrowed the 150 millions of
gold and silver money from the banks and paid it out, the banks had
no specie for a basis for their promises to pay, they suspended specie
payments. The war expenses continued and pay day was coming on
again, and no money in the treasury to pay with. This was in the
summer of 1861. On July 17, 1861 Congress authorized and issued 5a
52
million dollars of notes payable on demand in coin at the government
Treasury. This was a foolish move for the government had no gold
nor silver to redeem them with and they depreciated to about 80 cents
on the dollar, because the government had suspended specie payments.
Ten million more of these notes were authorized February 12, 1862,
and on March 17, 1862 made the whole 60 millions a full legal tender
for all debts of all kinds and description in the United States.
When gold was at its highest premium 285^ the full legal tender
demand notes were 286^. They were worth more than gold for the
reason they were more convenient. By July i, 1863 out of the 60 mil¬
lion dollars, there was only $3,770,000 left, the balance having been
burned up by the government, and nearly $3,000,000 of this amount
was retired and destroyed within the next year. From Circular No.
72, page 16.
According to the Secretary of the Treasury's report for 1872 there
was but $88,296.25 of them left. According to government statistics
$59,912,704.75 of full legal tender paper money as good as gold, was
burned up by Act of Congress in one year, three months and fourteen
days from the day they were made a legal tender. Can you conceive
of any reason why the government should destroy so much money, that
was as good as gold, while the government was so much in need of
money? Uet me tell you. It was ordered or dictated to be done by
bankers and would be bond holders. These to be bond holders took
their cue from what is known as the "Hazzard Circular," sent from the
bankers of England to the bankers of America. That our system is
patterned after the British system cannot be denied by any well in¬
formed person. Our financial system is copied after the English pat¬
tern. Mr. Spaulding, Chairman of the sub-committee of ways and
means, in his "Financial History of the Eegal Tender Greenback,"
said: "The British government is the great pioneer in providing a paper
national currency." The Hazzard Circular, 1862: "Slavery is likely
to be abolished by the wâr power and chattel slavery destroyed. This
I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the own¬
ing of labor, and carries with it the care for the laborers; while the
European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labor by
controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The
great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war, must be
used as a measure to control the volume of money. To accomplish
this, the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting
to get the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to
Congress. It will not do to allow the Greenback, as it is called, to
53
circulate as money for any length of time, for we cannot control that."
No V let us see how nicely this fits into our present system, and the
lawi on our statute books, copied and dictated by the "great pioneer
paper national currency" manufacturers of England which Mr. Spauld-
ing says is over 175 years old. Sie (England) has succeeded in ac¬
complishing since 1861, through conspiracy, wh.it she failed to accom¬
plish in 1776, viz: to make slaves of labor, with the aid and assistance
of the descendants of tho.se who drove her armies from this land; :i cl
this under the guise of law in the halls of an American (?) Congiv--
Eet us see how true was their prophecy. "Chat'^el slavery was '
ished." "Capital to control labor." Eo ik a ound you and observe.
"The great debt,"—have we got it? "Cap.talists" did "see to it" tbat
the "debt" was "made out of the war." It was not made out of tho
war, bút was made by a conspiracy of English and American Bankt . =
through an ignorant, imbecile or vicious Congress, as the following
laws amply prove. "The bonds must be used as a banking basi.'-. '
You answer the question, x\re they used as a base for bank circulationi*
Did the Secretary of the Treasury recommend to Congress the present
banking system? Yes, and before he died he regretted it as the wor.^t
feature of his political career. You all know there is and has been a
National Bankers'Association, a sort of "bankers' union," sort of a
Eederation of Bankers. This (trades union of bankers) was organized
'away back in war time, presumablv for protection, but more probably
to carry out the scheme of robbing the wealth producers.
Close upon the heels of the Hazzard circular came the Amerii ¿.-i
Bankers' circular, to the banks of America. This is good reading for
thinkers in connection with the Hazzard circular. I place these ' wo
together, in this place, that you may know just how closely these ci. cu-
lars and the laws that follow are related.
American Bank'^'rs' Circular.
"Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain . ich
•daily and prominent weekly newspapers, especially the agricul; lal
and religious press, as will oppose the issuing of greenback j .per
money, and that you withhold patronage or favors from all applic mts
who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. IvH
the government issue the coin and thé banks issue the paper moue ef
the country for then we can better protect each other. To repeal the
law creating national banks, or to restore to circulation the government
issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will
therefore seriousl}* affect your individual profits as banker and lender.
See your member of Congress at once and tngage (hire) him to support
54
our interest that we may control legislation. "—James Buell, No. 147
Broadway, (Room 4) New York.
Any man (without second sight) can read between the lines and.
understand its meaning. Can you not see the reasons why your farm
journals are so dumb over the financial question, and why farmers or¬
ganizations are warned to not "discuss politics" in their organizations?
This applies as readily to the Knights of Labor, and Federations of
Labor as to the farmers, and it also applies to you business men.
You labor union men and business men know the meaning of the
word "boycott," do you not? Patronage and boycott are both used
as weapons. Labor unions use boycott and national banks use non-
"patronage." In the eyes of the law (judges) boycott by labor is
"unlawful," while boycott used by bankers is O. K. "Withhold patron¬
age or favors," what is this but a boycott? "Let the government issue
the coin and the banks issue the paper money," and why? Is it because
it is right, because it is constitutional? Oh no! Because "we," (who
are we?) "can better protect each other," and "protect" from whom?
To repeal the bank law and restore the circulation "to the people to
whom it belongs," "will be to provide the people with money," and
they might have added "without having to pay two rates of interest."
But no, that will not do, for it will stop this English system from steal¬
ing the products of the American slaves, profits as banker and lender.
My dear "old hayseed," did they "see" the Congressman in your
district? Did they ' 'engage' ' (hire) him to help them make themselves
the controllers of all the money of the country and "absolute masters
of all industry and commerce."—Garfield. Will the stand pat papers
of this 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, tell their readers which
one of the Congressmen, from 1862 up to now, was not "seen" by the
"walking delegates" of this close federation of would-be "masters of
industry and commerce"? How many of them were not "engaged"
to do their bidding? I don't ask you to tell who or how many were
"seen" and "engaged", but how many were not. Perhaps the labor
organization members would like to know. Perhaps they would like
some proof of the friendship of those ' 'once in two or four years
friends, when their "anarchistic, guerilla" votes are wanted to bolster
up this "best" robber "system the world ever knew," on one side or
the other. Whether the members of Congress have been ' 'seen' ' or
not, we know the laws are on the statute books, that stand as proof
positive that their demands or requests have been granted.
I believe there is a law on the statute books of the United States
that forbids a stockholder in a bank from having a seat in Congress,
55
"but perhaps it is outlawed or ignored as is the Constitution. From the
Congressional Record of the 59tli Congress, Tuesday April 17th, 1906,
page 5519, I copy the following.
This is the third one. This was the one put out, when the leaders
of both old parties were trying to befriend the workingmen, by pre¬
venting a 50 cent dollar being palmed off on them for 100 cents, thus
cheating them out of 50 cents, and posing as the "father of the father¬
less and the widow's God," by protecting their deposits in savings(?)
hanks and their huge pile of (watered) railroad stocks and insurance
policies. I guess(?) the savings of some of them are being taken care
of for life, and no doubt the depositors, at least some of them, would be
glad to get even a 25 cent dollar. Since that escapade of 1896 the
G. O. P. has been making (in 1902) some (intrinsic value) silver dol¬
lars with 13)^ cents worth of silver. "It must have been a mistake."
The boss must have lost his glasses when he weighed the silver.
But the circular: "The American Bankers' Association No. 2
Wall Street, New York, March 23, 1896. To the Bankers of the United
States: At a meeting of the executive council of the American Bankers'
Association, held in this city on March nth, 1896, the following
declaration was made by unanimous vote:" Union labor men take
notice—democratic and republican bankers voting "unanimously."
"The executive council of the American(?) Bankers' Asfociation de-
dare unequivocally in favor of the maintenance of the existing gold
standard of value, and recommend to all bankers and to the customers-
of all banks the exercise of all of their influence as citizens in their
various States to select delegates to the political conventions of both
great parties who will declare unequivocally in favor of the maintenance
of the existing standard of value.' Your influence is earnestly request¬
ed to give practical effect to this action. Fugene H. Pullen, President;
James R. Branch, Secretary; Joseph C. Hendrix, Chairman Executive
Committee. ' '
In that campaign it took about 16 million dollars to convince, or I
should say to "influence" the business and labor voters that a i3já cent
silver dollar would bring greater prosperity than a 50 cent dollar. The
"practical effect influence" amounted to about 16 million dollars.
"Safe and sane" legislation comes high, but "embalmed beef," Stand¬
ard Oil, Insurance graft can stand it, even if we do have a few bank
failures now and then, to attract "them asses." You farmers, business
and laboring men please take notice that the federation of bankers
"talk and act politics" in their unions, and advise both great parties,
and then if the banks are in danger they both vote for the same party,
56
while you "union" men, farmers' organizations, business men's leagues,
boards of trade, etc., vote against each other at the polls. Result;—the
bankers get what they want; they succeed every time. So do the far¬
mers, working men and business men succeed, and get what they don t
want. Keep these three circulars in your mind as you read the laws
on finance.
Referring back to the full legal tender demand notes the ' 'first
paper money" ever issued by the Government (Cir. No. 72, page 16)
and the only paper money (full legal tender), was made and paid out
Into circulation, and was returned to the Treasury throng' taxation
and did not cost the people one cent of interest. Needing more mon 7
the Congress passed another law on February 25, 1862, auth .rizing t ,
issue of 150 millions of United States notes, usually known as green¬
backs. On July II, 1862 another issue was authorized of 150 millions,
and on March 3, 1863 another issue of 150 millions, making a total of
450 millions of dollars in just one year and eight days. Now for a fair
question, and very simple: If the Government made them and paid
them for expenses it did not borrow them, did it? No bonds in that
tiansaction, were there? But there were 500 millions of dollars of bonds
authorized to be issued by the law of February 25, 1862. Do you a k
what those bonds, so many, were authorized for? Well, the law tells.
''Chapter XXXIII. An Act to authorize the issue of United States
notes, and for the redemption or funding thereof and for funding the
floating debt of the United States." The above is the title of the act.
(Page 9—Loans and Currency).
Get your dictionary and leam the meaning of the word "funding."
"Funding, Placing in the funds. Funding system, (Pol. Economy) a
scheme or plan for paying off the annual interest on a public debt."
The greenbacks were not a debt. If they were a debt then the Govern¬
ment paid the soldiers and other creditors with a debt, a promise to pay
money. A promise to pay money is not money; it is a debt. If this be
true, then the soldiers and other creditors have never been paid. An¬
other point, if the greenbacks were a debt, a promise to pay money,
then the 600 millions of national bank bills in circulation today are a
debt. They are certainly a promise to pay money. We have shown
that the sixty millions of demand notes were absolute money, as good
as gold money. You can find the Acts relating to them on pages 4,
July 17, 1861; p. 9, February 12, 1862; p. 13, March 17, 1862, Chapter
XEV., 2nd section, when they were made a full legal tender money.
The national bank bills, if a debt, are the debts of the banks, and the
bankers are drawing interest on the debts they owe—drawing it from
57
the industries, commerce and laborers of the country. The one func¬
tion that made the demand notes absolute money was "legal tender."
If it can be proven that the greenbacks were money then they were not
a debt, not even a floating debt, then it is evident the title of this act
was purposely deceptive; to carry out the plan of the Hazzard circular,
that "thecapitalists would see to it that a debt be created." The
bonds would be a debt to draw interest. The greenbacks did not draw
interc.st. Some way must be devised to get the non-interest bearing
greenbacks changed into an untaxable gold interest bearing bonds. As
this could not be accomplished without the people knowing it, they
resorted to deception, in order to keep the people in ignorance so they
called the greenback a debt. The bankers were getting no profits
under this method, for the government owned the greenbacks, whether
they were debt or money.
The Hazzard circular; "It will not do to allow the greenback to
circulate as money, * * for we cannot control that." What they
labored to do was to change the ownership of paper money from the
government to the bankers.
Read the Buell circular again: "Let the banks issue the paper
money." Again, the "Congress has the power to coin (make or
create) money." The "Congress had power to levy and collect taxes"
did it not then as it does now? Would it have been a diflBcult task for
the government to create paper money, pay it to its creditors, and then
levy a tax and call this same money back into the Treasury again, and
could not the government have regulated the volume of it? Who would
have been injured by this process? Certainly not the people for they
would have had no taxes to pay to the government, to pay interest to
would be bond holders, while they went scot free of taxes. Was the
greenback money? In order to prove that the notes (greenbacks) were
not a debt, but money, I will quote from Spaulding's Financial History
of the War, Legal tender. Mr. Spaulding'.s business was that of a bank¬
er, and he was a Congressman from the Buffalo district of New York and
chairman of the Sub-Committee of Ways and Means. He was the one
man that framed the financial laws to raise the funds to carry on the
war. He was a republican. In reading his History you can come to
no other conclusion, but that he was sincere and holding the responsi¬
ble position he did was thoroughly in earne.=t. One of his faults was,
if it be a fault, that he was a gold standard advocate. It might be
llnough ignorance that he believed it. Any way, in many of his say¬
ings in Congress he refuted his belief. On page 29 he says: "I know it
i-- insisted by some persons that the only money is coined metal, and
58
that paper mone}* as its substitute is only credit." A word or this; If
it were true that paper monej', as some insist, is "credit, " then it must
be true that the greenback was a debt, not money, for debts can be
canceled only with money. Money must take the place of debt. Mr.
S. said: "This may be true in a certain sense, but at thesametime both
coined money and paper money are the creation of law, and it is equally
true that credit underlies the whole financial operation of the Govern¬
ment and people, and if that credit is broken down, the Government
and people will become bankrupt, business paralyzed and revenues
largely diminished. ' '
You can see b}'' the above admission that both metal and paper
money are the creation of law. The phrase "The government and the
people will become bankrupt, ' ' is far-fetched. As both metal and paper
money are created b}' law, the law comes from the government, the
people, and the people having the power to create money (Congress
shall have the power to coin money) the government could not become
bankrupt unless it were destroyed. It is the power of the government
that underlies the whole financial operations of the government and
people; it is not credit.
Further he said, "Coined money, like paper money, is made in
pursuance of statute law and has impressed upon it the Government
stamp, indicating its weight and purity. This stamp does not, how¬
ever, give the metal its value; the value is in the metal independent of
the stamp, but gold * * so coined into eagles ($io) under the laws
of the United States does determine the rate * at which the metal
thus coined shall be a legal tender. " Had he stopped there it would
have saved an error, viz: "and the standard of value in all exchanges
and payments, and this makes it by law money."
There is no such thing as a "standard of value" contemplated in
the Constitution. All have to agree that there can be no money with¬
out the law. The only function that law can confer upon any material
is legal tender. It is then money in every sense of the word. It is
admitted by every political economist of any importance, that the gov¬
ernment can take the amount of gold in one dollar now, and make two
dollars, as it has done by silver. The law says so many grains of gold
shall be one dollar. The law says one half that number shall be a dol¬
lar. It is purely arbitrary. The government makes the price of bullion
whether it be coined or uncoined.
Now for the law making the greenback dollars, and whether they
were a debt or were money. The Secretary of the Treasury was author¬
ized to issue 150 millions of dollars of United States notes, not bear-
59
ing interest * * Provided, however, that 50 millions of said notes
shall be in lieu of the demand treasury notes ; * * which said
demand notes shall be taken up as rapidly as practicable, and the notes
herein provided for substituted for them." The demand notes (50
million) were to be taken up, and 50 million of the following kind to
be put in their place. ' '* * And such notes herein authorized shall
be receivable in payment of all taxes, internal duties, excises, debts and
demands of every kind due to the United States, except duties on im¬
ports, and of all claims and demands against the United States of every
kind whatsoever, except for interest upon bonds and notes, which shall
be paid in coin, and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender in
payment of all debts public and private, within the United States, except
duties on imports and interest as aforesaid. And any holders of said
United States notes depositing any sum not less than $50, or some
multiple of $50, with the Treasurer of the United States * * shall
receive in exchange * * an equal amount of bonds of the United
States * * bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum,
payable semi-annually and redeemable at the pleasure of the United
States after five years, and payable twenty years from the date thereof."
Now for a few words in Section 2 of this same Act: "That, to
enable the Secretary of the Treasury to fund the Treasury notes and
floating debt of the United States, he is hereby authorized to issue on
the credit of the United States * * to an amount not exceeding five
hundred millions of dollars. * * And the Secretary of the Treasury
may dispo.se of such bonds at any time, at the market value thereof
* * for any of the Treasury notes that have been or may hereafter
be issued under any former Act of Congress or for United States notes
that may be issued under the provisions of this Act; and all stocks and
bonds and other securities of the United States held by individuals,
corporations, or associations within the United States, shall be exempt
from taxation by or under State authority. ' '
There is the law. Study it and see if you can leam where the is¬
suing of bonds to borrow money comes in. Observe what the law de¬
clared regarding the greenbacks: "Shall be receivable in payment of
all taxes, étc., * * except duties on imports," and of claims
against the United States of every kind whatsoever except for interest
upon bonds and notes, which shall be paid in coin, and shall also be
lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts public and
private within the United States except duties on imports and interest
on the public debt. The law declares the greenback to be a lawful
money. If it is money it is not a debt. The bonds were created by this
6o
same law. They were declared to be an interest bearing non-taxable
debt bylaw. Why were 500 millions of debt authorized and only I5<^
millions of money. Do you understand why? There must have been
a reason. Then analyze the word "except. " The law said through
the words "legal tender" that everybody was obliged to take them in
payment of every form of debt except the bond holder for this interest
on his bond. That must be paid with coin. (Coin at that time meant
gold and silver. ) Now why should the holder of a bond have coin,,
while all others were obliged to take paper? The government paid the
soldiers with ihe greenbacks, and then refused to take them back for
duties on imports. Why? Because it agreed to pay the interest on
the bond in coin. Why pay it in coin? It was a part of the scheme of
the Hazzard Circular "tu create a great debt."
You will observe that the greenback was a legal tender, lawful
money that would pay all debts, public and private, except the interest.
The greenbacks were funded into an interest bearing bonded debt. B}-
this law the bonds were bought and paid for with the greenbacks. B3-
this law the}^ were payable in greenbacks. Whj- are all the govern¬
ment bonds payable in gold today? It was a part of the scheme of the
Hazzard Circular. Before this bill was passed Mr. Spaulding had
framed a bill to issue these greenbacks without any "except" on them
at all. As soon as Mr. Spaulding introduced thi.-, bill, one that com¬
pelled anybody and everybody to accept them for any debt, on page 18,
his Historj^, he said, "opposition to it manifested itself in various ways.
* * Delegates from some of the banks in New York, Boston and
Philadelphia appeared in Washington to oppose the bill." There were
ten bankers that formed a committee to oppose the bill and have it
amended. The bill passed the house, making t)ie greenbacks a full
legal tender, lawful mone\' of the United States, without the word ex¬
cept. Any debt could be paid with them, even duties on imports and
interest on the public debt. It passed the House by 93 for, to 59-
against it. It then went to the Senate, and the schemers of the Haz¬
zard Circular got in their work. The word "except" was placed in the
law by an amendment of the Senate. When it came back to the House
the fight began. I cannot do better than to quote from thq remarks of
those who were opposed to the "except" amendment. That old Com¬
moner, Hon. Thad Stevens, fairly lifted the scalps of those conspirators.
Mr. Stevens, in the closing debate in the house said in part as follows:
"I have a very few words to say. I approach the subject with more
depression of spirits than I ever before approached anj^ question. * *
I have a melancholy foreboding that we are about to consummate a
6r
cunningly devised scheme, which will carry great injury and great loss
to all classes of people throughout this Union except one. With my
colleague, I believe that no actof legislation of this government was ever
hailed with so much delight throughout the whole length and breadth of
this Union by every class of people, without any exception, ?s the bill
which we passed and sent to the Senate." (That was a full legal ten¬
der greenback. ) ' 'Congratulations from all classes—merchants, traders,
manufacturers, mechanics and laborers—poured in upon us from all
quarters. The Boards of Trade from Boston. New York, Philadelphia
Cincinnati, Uouisville, St. Louis, Chicago, and Milwaukee approved its-
provisions, and urged its passage as it was. I have a despatch from
the Chamber of Commerce of Cincinnati, sent to the Secretary of the
Treasurj', and by him to me, urging the speedy pa.ssage of the bill as it
passed the House. It is true there was a doleful sound came up from
the caverns of bullion brokers, and from the saloons of the associated
banks. Their cashiers and agents were soon on the ground and per¬
suaded the Senate, with but little deliberation, to mangle and destroy
what it had cost the House months to digest, consider and pass. " (See
your Congressman and engage him to work for our interests.—Buell
Circular.) "They fell upon the bill in hot haste, and so disfigured and
deformed it that its very father would not know it. , Instead of being a
beneficent and invigorating measure, it is now positively mischievous.
It has all the bad qualities which its enemies charged on the original
bill, and none of its benefits. It now creates money and by its very
terms declares it a depreciated currency. It makes two classes of
money—one for the banks and brokers and another for the people. It
discriminates between the rights of different classes of creditors, allow¬
ing the rich capitalist" (bond holder) "to demand gold, and compelling
the ordinary lender of mone}- on individual security to receive notes
which the government had purpo.sely discredited (depreciated). Let us
examine the principal amendments separately and'see their effect. The
first important one (being the 5th) makes the notes issued under the
laws of July 17th, a legal tender, equally with those authorized by this
bill. There can be but little wisdom in putting these two classes on an
equalit}'. The notes of July bear 7.3 per cent interest, and are payable
in 3 years. This gives them a sufficient advantage over notes bearing
no interest" (greenbacks) "and payable virtually in 20 years bonds,
with 6 per cent interest. Why give them this additional advantage?"
(Legal tender advantage.) "Simply because the $100,000,000 issued
are all held by the associated banks, and this is their amended bill.
They would displace $100,000,000 of this money in the circulation, and
62
render it impossible to use any considerable amount of these United
States notes" (7.3 treasury notes) "asa currency. These notes have
served their piirp>ose. Why allow them to block up the market against
further relief to the government? The banks took $50,000,000 of 6 per
cent bonds, and shaved the government $5,500,000" (the 3d house) "on
them, and now ask to shave the government 15 or 20 per cent, half
yearly, to pay themselves the interest on these very bonds." (The
great debt was being made. H. Cir.) "They paid for the $50,000,000
(bonds) in ji^demand notes, not specie, and now demand the specie
for them. Yet gentlemen talk about our making other loans in these
time. They are crazy or sleeping, one or the other, I do not know
which." (It was legislation of the bank's 3d house behind the Senate.)
"When this question was discussed before Mr. Crittenden asked
me whether it was the intention or expectation of the House to go on
and issue more than $150 millions of dollars of legal tender notes—a
pertinent question, which I saw the whole force of at the time. I told
him that it was my expectation that no more would be issued by the
government; that they would be received and funded in the 20 year
bonds. ' '
Mr. Lovejoy—' 'I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether
$150,000,000 of gold could not be put into circulation as well as $150,-
000,000 Treasury notes?"
Mr. Stevens.—"If this $150,000,000 would come out of the bank¬
ers' and misers' hoards; but they have suspended specie payment, and
would not give out a dollar. They say pay us a discount (stand and
deliver) and then when these notes are made a legal tender we will be
again in the clutches of these harpies. I do not want to use hard
names. I suppose these men act from instinct." (Thieves have an
instinct to steal.) "If I were now to answer the question of the gen¬
tleman from Kentucky, Mr. Crittenden, I would not give that answer.
I do not expect one dollar of the $150,000,000 of legal tender notes ever
to be invested in the 20 year bonds. I infer from the amendment that
before we adjourn $150,000,000 will be asked for, (July 11, 1862, 150
millions authorized) "which will never be funded in those bonds, and
so on, as they are needed, as no bonds will be funded until our circula¬
tion will become frightfully inflated. But now comes the main clause.
All classes of people shall take these legal tender notes at par for every
article of trade or contract, unless they have money enough to buy
United States bonds, and then they shall be paid in gold" (^Interest).
"Who is that favored class? The banks and brokers, and nobody else.
They have already'''$250,ooo,ooo of State debt, and their commissioners
63
would soon take all the rest that might be issued. But how is this gold
to be raised? The duties and public lands are to be paid for in United
States notes, and they (G. B.'s) or bonds are to be put up at auction to
get coin for those very brokers who would furnish the coin to pay
themselves by getting 20 per cent discount on the notes thus bought.
* * I have proposed an amendment to the Senate amendment upon
the principle of legitimate parliamentary rules, that you may make as
palatable as you can an amendment which you do not like, before the
vote is taken upon it? My amendment is offered for the purpose of
curing a little the evils and hardships of the original amendment of the
Senate. And, though it may be adopted, I shall vote against the whole
as amended. My amendment is to except from the operation of the
legal tender clause the ofi&cers and soldiers of the army and navy, and
those who supply them with provisions, and thus put them upon the
same footing with the government creditors who hold their bonds. I
hope they will not be thought less meritorious than the money changers.
I trust it will be adopted as an amendment to to the Senate amendment
so that if this pernicious system is to be adopted, if the beauty of the
original bill is to be entirely impaired, those who are fighting our bat¬
tles, and the widows and children of those who are lying in their graves
in every part of the country, killed in defense of the government, may
be placed upon no worse footing than those who hold the bonds of the
government and the coin of the country."
Mr. Stevens amendment was defeated by 67 for and 72 against..
The word "except" was adopted by 88 for and 56 against it.
CHAPTER VH.
Paper Money Issued to Carry on the War.
It is plainly evident the 3rd House behind the Senate was the dom¬
inating factor in the financial legislation of Congress. The steering
committee of 10 bankers that went to Washington to oppose the full
legal tender greenback, that constituted the 3d House, did not leave
their posts until they had established the principles of the Hazzard Cir¬
cular. Mr. Stevens as much as said that the bankers bribed the United
States senators; "persuaded" is an easier word, as the word "engage"
in the "Buel Circular." Speaking of the 3rd House, it still keeps up
its organization and is as active as ever, under the title of the "Execu¬
tivecouncil of the American Bankers' Association" and is busy formu-
64
lating laws to be introduced into Congress "by request." The latest
scheme is to manufacture counterfeit money, secretly, to palm off
onto the people as Government secured national bank bills, with the
security eliminated, left out.
Mr. Hooper, of Massachusetts, said: "If the opponents of this bill
have proved anything, they have proved too much in reference to the
question now before the Hou.se, which is to make a distinction in favor
of the holders of government securities, and pay what may be due to
them in coined money, while all other creditors of the government shall
be paid in what they have denounced to the country from the high
places they occupy here as the meanest paper trash."
About as great an act of repudiation as ever was enacted by law,
was when an American Congress passed the act by a vote of 88 to repu¬
diate the government obligations, to 56 against repudiation. A govern¬
ment of, by and for the people, refusing to accept its own money for
taxes due it, which it compels its soldiers, its defenders, to accept, at
about one half of what it promised to p-i}- them. "Purposely depre¬
ciated" in order to give afewwealthy people the opportunity to legally (?)
rob the producers, of billions of dollars. Are such laws Constitutional?
Mr. Spaulding, in favor of the full legal tender greenback and op¬
posed to the interest on bonds in coin, in opposition to government
repudiation, used language that ought to set men to thinking in the
following, taken from his History of the War, page 128. Read and
ponder. "Who, then, are they that ask to have a preference given to
thei 1 over other creditors of the government? Sir, it is a very respec-
tablei?) class of gentlemen, but a class of men who are very sharp in
all money transactions. They are not generally among the producing
cla.s.ses—not among those who, by their labor and skill, make the wealth
of the country, but a class of men that have accumulated wealth—men
who are williug to lend money to the government if you will make the
security beyond all question, give them a high rate of interest, and
make it payable in coin." Mr. Spaulding says "a very respectable
cla.-s of gentlemen." I have heard of respectability among thieves,
and al ^o honor, perhaps th.at was his meaning. Not being among the
producing cla.sses, those who make the wealth of the country, they
must be in a class by themselves, a class that accumulates wealth and
does nut produce anything, tiie question arises. In what way did they
be.come so wealthy? The}' are accumulators, not producers. There
mast have been some special privilege given them, which dates back to
th it old law of Aoril 2nd, 1792, when tne government transferred to
them the owner-hip of all money in the United States and they and their
65
successors have owned it ever since and have accumulated the wealth
in their possession by fixing the price of the products of the producing
class. Think of it ! The government has made all the money from
1792 up to 1861, and handed it over to this "respectable class of gen¬
tlemen," and when the Government muat have money to save the nation
this class of respectable "brigands" rise up and say, "you cannot make
any money for your ow n use, even to save the nation unless you get it
through us. We own all the gold and silver money in the United
States, and you know it, for you made it for us, from our gold and sil¬
ver bullion, into money, and if you want it you have got to agree to
our terms. You cannot get it from us, for we own it, and will hide it
away until you submit to our terms, as follows:
Mr. Spaulding very graphically describes the terms of those respec¬
table gentlemen of the "road" in these words: "Yes sir, the men who
are asking these extravagant terms, who want to be (and are) preferred
creditors, are perfectly willing to lend money to the government in her
present embarrassment, if you will only make them perfectly secure,
give them extra interest and put your bonds on the market at the
'market price' to purchase gold and silver to pay them interest every
six months." All of which was done in the House by a vote of 88for,
56 against, a majority of 32, and in the Senate by a vote 30 for, 7
against, a majority of 23. By the vote you can see where the 3d House
got in its influence.
Mr. Spaulding again said: "Yes sir, entirely willing to loan
money on these terms! Safe, no hazard, secure, and the interest pay¬
able in coin." Who would not be willing to loan money on such
terms? Sir, the legal tender treasury note bill was intended to avoid
all such finauciering and protect the government and people, who pay
the taxes, from all such hard bargains. It was intended as a shield in
the hands of the people of the country against all forced sales of bonds,
and all extravagant rates of interest.
The legal tender note bill is a great measure of equality. It pro-
roses a currency for the people which is based upon the good faith of
the people and all their taxable property. All are obliged to receive
and pass it as money, (because it is money for the law saysso) "and aU
are obliged to submit to heavy taxation" (except the bondholder; he
pays no tax on his bonds) "to provide for its ultimate redemption in
gold or silver. Every attempt on the part of any class of citizens to
create distinctions and secure a legal preference, mars the simplicity
and success of the whole plan." (Any law that makes a legal prefer¬
ence possible is unconstitutional.) The very discrimination proposed
66
cái'ríes un its face notice to everybody that although the notes are de-
blared to be" (andaré) "lawful money and a legal tender in payment
of dëbts, yet that there is something of higher value, that must be
sought after at a sacrifice to the government to pay a peculiar class of
creditors to whom it owes money-^a kind of absurdity and self-stultifi¬
cation which does not appear well on the face of the bill. It is an
unjust discrimination which does not appear well now, and will not
look well in history. You will, if the Senate's amendment is adopted,
depreciate by your own acts, your own bonds and notes, and effectually
destroy the symmetry and harmonious working of the whole plan."
The fatal error of Mr. Spaulding's condemnation of the "class" he
describes is owing mainly, if he sincerely believed his own assertions,
his own ignorance of the results of a specie basis money, gold and silver
at that time, now a single metal, gold, as the only one. Mr. Spaulding
was not the only man that was in Congress that professed to believe in
an intrinsic value money at that time. It is doubtful if there was one
man out of the 144 that voted for or against the payment of interest on
bonds and notes "in coin" in the House but that believed in a "gold
and silver standard" of money. On Mr. Stevens' amendment to pay
the officers, soldiers, and sailors and for supplies in coin, there were 139
votes cast, for and against, (67 for and 72 against) and of this 139, it
is doubtful if there was one but that believed that gold and silver were
the only materials of which money could be made. Mr. Spaulding and
Mr. Stevens both voiced the belief of every other member of Congress.
The plea made by the men who voted for the legal tender bill, on the
6th of February, 1862, (93) and those voting against it (59), total vot¬
ing 152, a majority of 34 in favor of, or a total of 93 in favor of the gov¬
ernment issuing and making 150 millions of United States notes, a full
legal tender for any and every debt in the United States, as follows:
^'and shall also be lawful money and a legal tender, in payment of all
debts, public and private, within the United States." This phrase was
taken from the bill as published in Spaulding's History, page 97. I
repeat the plea was that it was only "a temporary measure." If the
law means anything, it must mean what it reads, in plain English.
The notes thus issued were money. There was no debt in the United
States but what the creditor was obliged to take them or nothing,
whether it be an individual or government debt, "public or private."
And now comes the absurdity, the overlooking of what had been said,
that any debt could be paid with this "lawful money" in the 2nd Sec¬
tion of the law, viz: That any holder of these notes amounting to $50
or any multiple of $50, could take them to the Government Treasury
67
and exchange them for an equal number of dollars of government bonds
bearing 6 per cent interest, and those bonds constitute a debt. "All
debts public and private are payable with the legal tender, lawful
money," greenbacks.
What was the belief of the men who voted for that law? The
belief of every one of them was that gold and silver were the only
materials on which the money function can constitutionally be placed.
Had they not believed so, they would not have authorized the Secretary
to issue 500 millions of interest bearing bonded debt. It looks very in¬
consistent.
As .said before, Mr. Spaulding voiced the belief of all the others,
when he said, "Who asks to have one class of creditors placed on a
better footing than another class? Does the soldier, the fanner or the
mechanic, or the merchant ask to have any such discrimination made
in his favor? No, sir; no such unjust preference is asked for by this
class of men. They ask for the legal tender note bill pure and simple.
They ask for a national currency which shall be of equal value in all
parts of the country. They want a currency that shall pass from hand
to hand among all the people in every state, county, city, town and
village in the United States. They want a currency, secured by ade¬
quate taxation upon the whole property of the country, which will pay
the soldier, the farmer, the mechanic, and the banker alike for all debts
due. They ask that the government shall stand on its own responsi¬
bility, its own rights, and exert its vast powers, preserve its own credit,
and carry us" (who is us?) "safely through this gigantic rebellion, in
the shortest time and with the least possible sacrifice. They intend to
foot the bills and ultimately pay the whole amount, principal and inter¬
est, in gold and silver."
There is the belief of the whole Congress, that the final payment
must be made in gold and silver, and before the debt is paid Congress
takes away the right to pay in silver, in 1873.
Mr. Spaulding and Mr. Stevens both divide the people into two
classes: First and foremost, the Producers of wealth on one side, and
the brokers, jobbers and money changers on the other.
Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, in the course of his remarks,
said: "Passing by the question of Constitutional powers, and coming to
it simply as a practical question, it is a contest between brokers and
jobbers and money changers on the one side and the people of the
United States on the other." I would call the attention of the reader
to this point particularly—who was the umpire, the balance of power
in this contest, to decide the case for right or wrong, unless it was
68
Congress? Congress was chosen by the soldier, the fanner, the me¬
chanic, the merchant and laborer, as we are told, paid by this "class" to
look after their interests and demands, and yet the umpires decided
against their employers. And why did they so decide? Simply because
every man in Congress believed the very same thing as did the ' 'jobbers,
brokers and money changers, ' ' that there could be no money unless
made of gold and silver. How are you to decide upon the sincerity, to
say nothing of the honesty of the members who voted that the law
made money of paper? The simplicity of the whole thing was that
Congress passed a law declaring that money could be, and "shall be
lawful money for all debts," pay it out to the employees of the govern¬
ment, that it would go into and remain in the channels of trade, passing
from hand to hand until a demand for taxes was presented by the gov¬
ernment, when it would flow into the Treasury, to be again paid out
for expenses and so on, an endless chain. This was the simplicity that
Mr. Spaulding referred to. There would be no necessity for any public
debts for the producing class to pay interest to an idle, predatory income
class. It is not surprising that Mr. Spaulding said, "It is a kind of
absurdity and stultification which does not appear well now and will
not look well in history."
The contest that Senator Wilson spoke of was a contest for the
ownership and control of all money by the brokers, jobbers and money
changers, which they had enjoyed since 1792, uninterrupted, until this
time, 1862. They knew if the precedent were established and put in
practice that the government could make paper money that would do all
that gold and silver money could do, their occupation would be gone,
and they would have to earn their money as the producing class do,
and why not? Hence the contest.
"The very discrimination proposed carries on its face notice to
everybody that * * the notes are declared to be lawful money and
a legal tender in payment of debts yet * * there is something of
higher value that is sought after at a sacrifice to the government, to pay
a peculiar class of creditors to whom it owes money."—"Higher value."
Of what? It at first looks diSicult to answer, but by a little thought
and investigation it is simple and plain. The "higher value" in; this
case was self. T le highest value that can be conferred by the people
is money by law. The people are first, the law is second, and money,
third. The people are greater than the law because the people are the
creators of the law, and money is created through the law by the people.
There is no authority given to Congress to use any specified material on
which toimpress the money stamp. The Constitution does not even
69
mention the word "money," nor do the articles following it, which are
only the methods and rules to carry the principles of the Constitution
into effect, give any order that gold, silver, copper, or any other mater¬
ial shall be stamped and declared to be money. During the war there
were issued 30 different kinds of so-called money, and the framers of the
acts, authorizing them, never lost sight of a bond that was placed as a
foundation for all future transactions that the "great debt" be made,
as suggested by the Hazzard Circular.
Congress knew, the money owners knew, and any man knows,
that knows anything about this question, that there is not gold and
silver enough in the world to do the world's business with, and that
some other material must be resorted to and that paper now is and has
been resorted to as the best and most convenient material on which to
place the money stamp. The greater part of the population of this
country is composed of the producing class, and if they "ask for a
legal tender note bill, pure and simple," being in a majority, why
did not Congress give them what they asked for? They ask for a full
legal tender paper money that is just as good for one man as for another.
They want a money for the purpose of changing the ownership
■of the products of their labor, without having to contribute from
10 to 50 per cent of their products through interest to a few idle
drones, the income class, and to pay their debts if they have any.
There is no denying the fact that the people ot this country are com¬
pelled to use some other material than gold and silver, as there is not
•enough of both metals, on which to place the money stamp. Mr. Doo-
little. Senator from Wisconsin, said in the Senate; "The truth is, while
in theory the only money of our people is gold and silver, the fact is
otherwise. It is almost exclusively of paper. Aye, sir, at this moment
it is the irredeemable paper of suspended bank corporations. Most
unfortunately, paper money does now exist, and has existed so many
years in this country, i.ssued under the sanction of State authorities in
violation, as I admit, of the spirit and intention of those who framed
the Constitution, that a man must be blind, indeed, who would not
now, in time of war, in a measure of practical legislation, recognize the
stubborn fact that these banking corporations, created by the States, so
long acquiesced in by this government, have become great and powerful
institutions, and have practically displaced the currency of the Constitu¬
tion, by substituting in its stead their own paper money. At all times
it is much the greater part of our circulating medium, and when, iu
times of panic and disaster, comes suspension of specie payments, it
becomes our only currency. Such is our condition now. What shall
70
we do now? We must have deeds, not words; facts, not theories. We
cannot sell our bonds abroad. The paper money issued by banking
corporations is all, or nearly all, the money our own people have. Shall
we sell our bonds for the paper money of suspended banks? No, Sir!
no man will advocate that."
"One mistake of Mr. Doolittle in the above is in calling the bank
bills money, for they haven't the first function of money; they are only
a promise 1o pay money. No one wants a promise to pay. They want
the pay. There is no doubt but what men can be found that would be
willing to go back to the old state bank system, but they would be
found only in that class that hardly ever produces anything except
panics and disaster.
A fair question; Isnota$i,ooo government bond good? What
makes it good? Isn't all the taxable wealth of the country behind it^
Well, everyone will agree that a government bond printed cn paper
the face of which calls for $i,ooo, and the government says is good, is.
good.
Suppose the government takes loo pieces of the same kind of paper
and stamps on each one, "This piece of paperis worth Sio."' Is itnot
worth just as much, the loo pieces as the one piece? If not, why not?"
If you insist on the value being in the material, the ico pieces would
certainly be intrinsically more valuable than the one piece, for the
too pieces would weigh more than the one piece and would sell for
more as old paper stock. To simplify this down to an understand¬
able point we will .say the one piece draws lo per cent interest from
the government to the holder of it. The too pieces do not. The one
piece draws $ioo, or ten pieces, into the bondholders possession each
year, and in ten \ ears draws in the whole loo pieces. What is to hin¬
der the holder of the loo pieces from getting another $i,ooo piece; then,
he will have two pieces of one thousand each, and he can draw $200-
per year or 20 of the $io pieces each year. This is interest upon a debt,
forced upon the whole of the producing class, by law, and the interest
is the income of these very "respectable gentlemen." Interest is more
powerful than the most powerful suction pump ever made, and the
power furnished by the 1 10 t powerful gasoline or steam engine ever
invented. It destro\ ed liie Roman Empire, and ushered in the Dark
Ages, and will destroy any nation, only give it time. The worst fea¬
ture of this system in fact is the private ownership of money which,
forces the people into debt that cannot be paid with money. It can,
only be paid by transferring the wealth into the possession of those law-
CHAPTER VIII.
Thk "Eittle Joker" the Word "Except."
In the preceding çhapter I have dwelt o:i the act of'*]FebrUEry 25,
1862, in regard to the issuing of the money to carry on the war, and the
issuing of bonds to fund them into. You remember Mr. Stevens in his
speech in reply to Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, that he did not expect
one dollar of that 150 millions would be invested in government bond -,
and that another 150 million would be asked for, and that would not be
funded into bonds, and it was not, for we have now outstanding, or did
have on June 30, 1904, $346,681,016. The "harpies" have induced
every president to recommend to Congress the calling them in and de¬
stroying them. At least from 1864 it has been the recommendation of
about every president from that lime until now (1908). The prophecy
so far of Mr. Stevens has proven true.
I dwelt on this one act because it was the first law that commenced
the wholesale issue of greenbacks and government bonds. The founda¬
tion was laid in this act, that fixed the character of the greenbacks and
5-20 bonds and all subsequent acts based their issues on this one. I
should think by this time that you would have reached the conclusion
that the government did not issue bonds to borrow money to carry on
the war, not gold and silver at least, except the 150 millions borrowed
in 1861.
In this chapter I propose to show the method and working of the
word "except" on the greenbacks. You will call to mind the words in
the law, "except duties on imports and interest on the public debt."
Duties on imports is a tax on goods brought from some foreign country
by what is called an importer. This tax is levied by the government
and the money goes into the United States treasury, same as any other
tax collected by the government. I am going to show or illustrate it
by an importer of crockery in the city of Providence, State of Rhode
Island. I was personally acquainted with him. By this law the gov¬
ernment had agreed to pay the bond holder's interest in coin. It must
in some way get the coin. So Congress said every importer should
have to pay his duties in coin. The importer bought a cargo of crock¬
ery or other goods, and the duty or tax on them we will say was one
thousaod doilars. Being; in business selling at wholesale and retail,
was taking, greenbacks in pay for his goods, greenbacks that had
word "except' * printed on them, as they were about the only mo
there was in the channels of trade. So when his imported goods
rived they were unloaded aa 1 put into what is called the governn:
bonded ware house. The importer takes looo dollars of thegreenba
and goes to the government office and offers his i,ooo dollars to pay
duties, not knowing anything about, "the Lttle game they hadplaye
The clerk shoved the bills back to him with the remark, "We do
take those." Says the importer, "Why not, they are government 1
are they not?" "Yes, but the law forbids the government takingtl
for duties on imported goods." "Well," says the importer, "wl
am I to get the 'coin' to pay this tax? ' Says the government emploj
"Mr. Skinem, the broker, on Rob'em Street, is a dealer in 'coin j
securities, ' and you can get it there ' '
The government employed men to keep posted on this gold or c
premium game, and on page 62, circular number 72 is a table giv
the average value of a gold dollar measured by the legal tender gre
back, or to make it absolutely plain to every one, how much or 1:
many greenbacks it took to buy $1,000 in gold or coin. You will
doubt hear some "parrot mouthed" chap remark, either through igr
ance or by repeating what his master has taught him, especially
editors(?) of the Press, (Bue! Circular) that "greenbacks deprecia
because there were too many of them issued," but I would suggest
you to ask him how many would be too many. This table gives
average each year from 1862 up to 1879, the year that the bogus
sumption fraud was put, or said to be put upon the pede.-tal for idolatt
It could not have been too many of them in 1862, when 150 mill
was authorized in February and 50 millions of this was to take
place of 50 millions of demand notes and the demand notes w
destroyed. In July 1862 another 150 million were authorized, mak:
300 million in all and yet it took $1,133.00 cf greenbacks to buy $i,(
of gold or coin. The premium on coin was $133.00 on $1,000. 1
$133 must be added to the cost of the goods, and the consumer m
pay that much more, which goes to the broker, just simply because '
government would not take the greenback for the tax, and it cc
pelled the soldiers to take them at their face value, while at this ti
a greenback dollar would buy only 88.3 cents. In other words 1
government was compelling the soldier to take 88.3 cents for wh
the government promised him $1.00. The premium on coin, the av
age was for 1863, 45 2 cents on the dollar, that is, it took $1,452 of 1
73
importer's greenbacks to buy the$i,ooo of coin. In 1864 the premium
had risen, on the average, to $1,033. it took of the importer's green
backs $2,033 to buy the $1,000. Remember this was the average for
the whole year, every day. Some days it would be higher and some
lower. The highest point reached in any one day was $2,855. On that
day it cost the importer $2,855 i" greenbacks to get the $1,000 of coin,
>855 going to the broker, while the soldier on the battlefield, with
the canopy of heaven over him for shelter was receiving about $4.55
for what the government promised him $13.00 per month.
In Spaulding's history, page 199, Mr. Spaulding said, "July ir,
1864, gold reached its highest premium 285^^, or more accurately
speaking, the United States notes continued to decline until they were
worth in gold 35 cents on the dollar at the Board of Brokers in the city
of New York." That day the soldier's months wages, $13, was worth
just $4.55. How is this for a record of the G. O. P.? You notice the
difference between the $13.00 promised and the $4.55 is $8.45. This
represents the differeuce'between the price of products consumed by the
soldier's family, whether the soldier sent home $13 in gold or $13 in
greenbacks. This $8.45 represents the high price of products, which
was owing to the premium on gold that went into the gold broker's
pocket. In other words the soldier would have paid only $4.55 out of
his $13 had he been paid $13 in gold and he would have had $8.45 left.
Simply because the soldier was obliged to accept dollars worth only 35
cents each, while the gold gambler's gold was made worth 100 cents by
law of Congress.
The main cause of the high war price.? of commodities was owing
to the word "except" placed on the greenback, by law. Hon. Wm. P.
Fes.'^enden was Secretary of the Treasury in 1S64. In his report of the
Treasury he said, speaking of the premium on gold: "The experiences
of the past few months cannot have failed to convince the most careless
observer that whatever may be the effect of a redundant (too much)
circulation upon the price of coin, other causes have exercised a greater
and more deleterious (hurtful) influence. In the course of a few days
the price of this article (gold) rose from $1.50 to $2.85 in pápcr for
$1.00 in specie, and subsequently fell, in as short a period, to $1.87 and
then again rose, as rapidly, to $2.50; and all without any assignable
cause, traceable to an increa.se or decrease in the circulation of paper
money, or an expansion or contraction of credit, or other similar influ¬
ence on the market, tending to occasion a fluctuation ; o violent. It is
•quite apparent that the solution of the problem may be found in the
unpatriotic and criminal efforts of speculators, and probably of secret
74
enemies, to raise the price of coin, regardless of the injury inflicted up¬
on the country—or, desiring to inflict it."
The word "except" put the money sharks, gold gamblers, in full
control of the flnances of the nation. It was put in this position by thfc
government, under the republican administration. Wm. P. Fessenden
was a United States Senator in 1862, and was Secretary of the Treasury
in 1864 when he wrote the above. When Mr. Fessenden was United.
States Senator he was chairman of the finance committee, and presented,
this amendment to the Senate, and in doing so he made some remarks
in relation to the word "except" or the payment of interest in "coin"
to the bondholders. These remarks I find on page 102 of Spaulding's
history from which are taken a few extracts: "It was proposed in the
committee—and it struck me favorably at first—to set aside, specifically,
the public duties by providing that the duties on imports should be
paid in coin; but on consideration it was deemed by the committee that
that would be hardly fair. The result would be to make a distinctiou
between different classes of the community, and to impose a very heavy
burden upon those who are engaged in trade, and who would be called
upon to pay duties. If we provide a paper currency the natural and
inevitable effect of it is that coin increases in price." Mr. Fessendea
might have forgotten all about the 60 millions of full legal tender
demand notes that would pay duties as readily and as well as gold,
though it is hardly possible. Mr. Fessenden ought to have known and
perhaps he did, but further on the demand notes will be brought up
again.
Mr. Fessenden further said: "Necessarily, if coin appreciates, if it
becomes worth more than the ordinary currency, and duties are to be
paid in coin, the effect of such a provision would be to increase the
duties, which are already very high, and in some cases almost prohibi¬
tory."
I now turn to page 124, where the vote in the Senate is recorded
and I find the names of 30 Senators who voted yes, to pay duties in
coin, and 7 voting no. Among the names voting yes I find the name
of "Fessenden." From this it appears that Mr. Fessenden knew as.
Senator, in 1862, and voted to make-it possible for "speculators and
probably secret enemies, to raise the price of coin," and thus to reduce
the purchasing power of the greenbacks paid to the soldier and all other
creditors except the "secret enemies," from 100 cents to 35 cents, com¬
pelling the soldiers, the people who furnished arms, ammunition, food,
clothing, etc., and all other creditors except, (as Mr. Stevens says,
' 'the harpies' ' ) the bond holders, to take for their services what pur-
75
ports on its face to be loo cents, and which in reality will purchase
ooly 35 cents worth of produce, the balance 65 cents going into the
vaults of the "respectable non-producing gentlemen," and this done by
Congress, by law,and some, if not all, knowing this. Do you doubt
it? Listen to this: "The consequences would be, unquestionably, that
those obliged to pay duties on imports might be compelled to make a
severe sacrifice in order to raise the coin to pay the duties." Isn't or
wasn't it quite a severe sacrifice to compel the importer, and through
liim the people to pay $2,855 $ii000 of gold or coin? It did turn
out as Mr. Fessenden prophesied, and he and 29 other Senators voted
for it Isn't it a noble record on which to "stand pat"?
If the solution of the problem lies in the "unpatriotic and criminal
efforts of speculators and probably secret enemies' ' to raise the price of
coin, they did nothing contrary to the law that was on the statute books
of the government. The solution of the problem lies deeper than re¬
sults. It must go down to the cause of the "effect," viz: the law that
made it possible, a law that a majority of Senators and Representatives
voted for. The most absurd excuse ever undertaken by any set of men
was put forth by Mr. Spaulding in his financial history and many par¬
rot mouthed editors have "yawped" it since and are now when they
are driven into a hole on this financial legislation, that the reason why
the soldier's money, greenbacks, depreciated (Mr. Stevens said they
were purposely discredited) to about 35c on the dollar, was because
•they were inflated, too many of them. The Hon. John Sherman, Sen¬
ator from Ohio, said: "They were purposely depreciated in order to
enable the government to sell its bonds." That was another of the G.
O. P.'s record breaking statesmen, who on a salary of $5,000 a year
died a millionaire.
On page 198 S. History is a statement showing the amount of total
inflating paper issued June 30, 1864, was $1,125,877,034.53. The
items were as follows:
TJnited States notes, greenbacks $431,178,670.84
Postal fractional currency 22,894,877.25
Interest bearing legal tender Treasury notes . . . . 168,571,450.00
Certificates of indebtedness 160,720,000.00
National Bank notes 25,825,695.00
State Bank circulation not less than 135,000,000.00
7-30 Treasury notes
Temporary deposits for which cer¬
tificates were issued
$944,190,693.09
$109,356,150.00
. 72,330,191.44 $181,686,341.44
$1,125,877,034.53
76
"This great inflation, * * * caused gold to advance.
I now turn to page 201 and find "a statement of the public debt.'^
Note the items that are called debts, and those not called debts.
STATEMENT OF THE PUBEIC HEBT OCTOBER 3I, 1865.
Bonds, io-40's, 5 per cent due 1904 $172,770,100.00
" Pacific R. R., 6 per cent due 1895 1,258,000.00
" 5-20's, 6 per cent, due 1882, 1884, 1885, . . . 659,259,600.00
" 6 per cent, due in 1881 265,347,400.00
" 5 " " " " 1880 18,415,ooo.oo.
" 5 " " " " 1874 20,000,000.00-
" 5 " " " " 1871 ' 7,022,000.00-
$1,144,072, lOO.OO
" 6 " " " " 1868 . . . $8,908,341.80
" 6 " " " " 1867 . . • 9,415,250.00
Comp. int. notes due 1867-68. . . . 173,012,141.00
7-30 Treasury notes due 186768. . 830,000,000.00 $1,021,335,732.80
Tex bonds indemnity part due . . . 760,000.00
Bonds, Treas. notes, etc. part due . 613,920.09 1,373,920.09
Temp, loans, 10 days notice .... 99,107,745.46
Certif. of indebt. due 1866 . • " . . 55,905,000.00
Treas. notes, 5 percent, Dec. i, 1865 32,536,901.00 187,549,646.46
United States notes (debt?) .... 428,160,569.00
Fractional currency (debt?) .... 26,057,469.20 454,218,038.20-
Total debt Oct. 31, 1865 $2,808,549,437.55,
National Bank notes issued .... $185,000,000.00-
State Bank notes issued 65.000,000.00-
Total bank circulation $250,000,000.00-
If you will notice the two statements you will see that National
bank notes increased from 25 millions June 3c, 1864 to October 31,
1865, one year and four months to 185 millions, or exact figures $159,-
174,305. The greenbacks were decreased in the same time $3,018,-
101.84. Taking out the decrease of greenbacks from the increase in
national bank notes and we find the volume of circulating medium was
"inflated" $156,156,203.16. "This great inflation caused gold to go to
s highest quotation $2.85)^ on July 11, 1864," said Mr. Spaulding.
They increaseJ this "inflating paper" of national bank bills $159,174,-
305 and decreased the greenbacks $3,018,101.84, making a total
increase of $156,156,203.16 and the state bank notes issued of $65,000,-
77
ooo should be added, making a total inflation of $221,156,203.16, and
yet the price of gold fell from $2.85 on July 11, 1864, down to an
average of $1,573 in 1865, a fall of $1,282. So much for the statement
of inflation. "Oh! My Countrymen, what a fall was there!" A fall
of$i .282 with an increased "inflating paper" bank bills, of over 200
million dollars. Very good argument for bank inflation? Perhaps thf<
is why Sec. Shaw works so hard to get his "asset currency" into circu¬
lation, fearing gold will rise again and soar heavenward. Perhaps this
is why all the Presidents since 1864 have recommended the calling in
of the $346,681,016 of these old greenbacks, and send them where that
other "swad" of face value of money was sent in ten yçars from 1862
to 1872 $1,808,000,000 and over, into the fiery furnace. ¿.Great heads.
Very solicitous for the people. "Poor old greenbacks." i --The Hazzard
circular said: It will not do. We cannot control them. -They don't
bring us any income—no interest. We want something thatjvill bring
us a double rate of interest. Something that costs us nothing and
which we can get something from, and then we can get the 4)roducts
of the American wage slaves and not have to take care of them.
"Brutus was an honorable man;" they are "all honorable men."
It is said that "when rogues fall out honest men get their dues."
Doesn't it look inconsistent that there should be. áu'ch a difference of
opinion between such men as Senator Fessenden and Congressman
Spaulding as to the cause of the rise in the price of gold or the cause of
the depreciation of the greenback 100 cent dollar, down to 35 cent dol¬
lar paid to the soldier, while the gold dollar rises from a 100 cent dollar
up to a 285 cent dollar. Mr. Spaulding sayS the cause of this was on
account of being "inflated," too many of them.,' Senator Fessenden
said the cause was not traceable to an increaseor decrease in the circu¬
lation of paper money. Mr. Wilson said it was a "contest between
brokers and jobbers and money changers on one side and the people of
the United States on the other. I venture to express the opinion that
99 of every hundred of the loyal people of the United States are for
this legal tender clause. I do not believe that there are ^one thousand
persons in the State I represent (Mass.) who are not im-íavon. of it.
* * What is true of Mass. is, in my judgment, true to a consid¬
erable extent of New England, and true to some extent of the Central
States and the West.''
Now remember that the bill that passed the House first was a legal
tender pure and simple, the only millstone about its neck was the fund¬
ing oi' them into a perpetual bonded debt. Knowing that bonds would
be a debt drawing interest, the contest was o/er the point of what kind
78
of money the interest should be paid with. Here the Senate amended
the House bill by saying that interest on bonds should be paid with
coin, and the government having created a demand for coin, must pro¬
duce the supply, so the most round about way to accomplish this was
to compelí the importer to pay his duties in coin, thus making the
innocent importer the cat's paw to ("haul the chestnuts from the fire
for the monkeys") gather in the wealth produced by labor. But the
saddest part of this is that those Senators who protested the loudest
against this injustice, this discrimination should cast their votes for it,
thirty for it and only seven against it in the Senate.
Taking up the subject of premiums and depreciation I will say
there was a premium on gold and a corresponding depreciation on
greenbacks from 1862 to 1878. There was no time during this period
but what the importer had to pay more for $1,000 in gold than $1,000
in greenbacks.
In regard to the importer that I knew personally in Providence, R.
I., he paid his duties, practically, with the purposely depreciated green¬
backs. At that time there were a few of the old demand notes in the
channels of trade that had not been destroyed. This friend of mine
had learned the little trick that Congress and the 3d House had played.
He had learned the little clause in the law which can be found on page
13—loans and currency enacted March 17, 1862, in Sec. 2: "That the
demand notes authorized by the act of July 17, 1861 * * Shall in
addition to being receivable in payment of duties on imports, be receiv¬
able and shall be lawful money and a legal tender. ' ' He took advan¬
tage of this provision and exchanged the depreciated greenbacks for
the demand notes, with his commercial neighbors, dollar for dollar,
through the ignorance of his commercial friends. After exchanging
the two kinds of notes, dollar for dollar, until he had, say $1,000 of
demand notes, he would go to the government, tender his $1,000 of
paper money and get his goods, and no questions asked, while the
importer, ignorant of this law, went to the gold gambler and gave him
$2,855 of greenbacks for $1,000 of gold. While one importer lost
$1)855 through his ignorance of the law, the other saved $1855 by his
knowledge of the law, and the gold gambler failed to make the extra
$^7^55- To prevent this the demand notes were retired and destroyed.
Now we will tiy and explain the method of funding the greenbacks
into untaxable, interest bearing bonds. I have asserted, and again
assert, without the least fear of successful contradiction, that there was
no necessity for issuing, nor did the government issue bonds to borrow
money, except the issue for 150 millions, in 1861, and this was not
79
necessary. Having the power of creation and the power of taxation,
the necessity for borrowing ceases to exist entirely. Congress passed
the law "That any person having a sum of $50 (and no less) or any
number of $50 could exchange them for an equal amount of bonds, 1
with the government. Comparatively speaking there were no bonds,
no war bonds at least, when the 150 millions were issued on February
25, 1862, or on July 11, 1862, or on March 3, 1863, when there were
issued $450,000,000.
Once more I submit the question. Was this amount borrowed of
anybody? One way to get the bonds into existence was by holding or
possessing the greenbacks, and exchanging (funding) them into bonds,
under the law. The importer with his greenbacks, received in his
business, goes to the gold broker and pays him $2,855 of greenbacks,
for $i ,000 in gold. The importer goes to the government and pays him
$1,000 and takes his gcKx^. The broker holds the $2,855 of green¬
backs; the government has the $1,000 of gold, and the importer has his
goods. This is the situation. Remember the government refused to-
take the greenbacks from the importer at their face value. Under the
"funding act" the broker takes his $2,855 of greenbacks to the govern¬
ment and the government hands him a government bond, the face value
of which is $2,855. This bond cost the broker only $1,000 in coin.
You remember the law read: "This note (the greenback) is a legal
tender at its face value for all debts public and private except interest
on the bonds, which must be paid in coin." If the law means or
meant anything it meant that that bond was payable, when due, in
legal tender greenbacks, and until paid the interest was payable in
coin. This cannot be disputed. Now let us analyze this transaction.
The now, bondholder, takes his bond, and the interest on it for six ¡
months in advance, which amounts to $85.65 which is paid in coin. ^
He then takes this bond to another department of the government and
deposits it, and he is at once furnished with 90 per cent of the face of
the bond, that is, he gets $90 in national bank bills for every $100 of
the face of the bond, or $2,569.50. This continued at 90 per cent until
March 14, 1900, when Congress ordered that they be paid 100 per cent,,
or the full face value of the bond. This was done principally under
the administrations of the G. O. P. The D. O. P. followed along
behind, within hearing distance, ready to assist if necessary.
Some one may say, why do you go back 40 years? I will tell you
why, because it will take you a long time to get out, if you do not
know how you got in. Besides you are in a worse shape now than
you were then. This process of forcing the importers to pay a premium
8o
on gold commenced in 1862 and continued until 1878, both inclusive.
The lowest premium was in 1878 on the average of 8 mills on the dol¬
lar. In 1877 the average was 4 cents and 8 mills. Before this the low¬
est was 11 cents and 2 mills, but the gold gamblers gathered their
harvest from 1862 to 1869 inclusive. The brokers commenced the con¬
test in 1862, of funding greenbacks into bonds, but very lightly as the
premium on gold was only 13.3 cents, but in 1863 and 1864 it soared.
Here follows a table showing the amount of bonds each year from
1862 until i858 both inclusive. These amounts were taken from the
reports of the Treasury. The average premium on gold or coin will be
taken from the table on page 60, circular 72 as follows:
»
YEAR
AVERAGE PREMIUM ON GOLD
AMOUNT
1862
$r-i33
$ 60,982,450
1863
1-452
160,987,550
1864
2.033
381,292,250
1865
1-573
279,646,150
1866
1.409
124,914,400
1867
1.382
421,469,550
1868
1-397
425.443.800
$
1,854.736,150
I want to call your attention to two or three things relating to
these bonds. One of the things is that the bonds were bought and
paid for with greenbacks. Another thing is to notice that the war
closed in the spring of 1865; the soldiers were paid, discharged and sent
home, and supplies that had been purchased and not used were disposed
of at auction or otherwise, as a matter of course. You will irotice that
in Che two years 1867-1868, there was issued, two years after the war
closed, $846,913,350. Will someone point out very plainly what those
bonds were issued for? In the previous five j-ears there were issued
only $1,007,822,800. There was only $160,909,450 more bonds issued
during the five years than were issued in the two years of peace.
The "producing classes" ought to know and have a right to know
what those nearly one billion dollars of bonds were issued for, two
years after peace was declared, and why they have been compelled to
labor and produce, and from those products are compelled to pay inter¬
est on nearly one billion dollars of untaxed bonds, issued two years
after the war was over. The "class" that are paying the bills have a
right to know. I believe there can not one of the producing class be
found that will say they have no right to know. There are so many
people who have been led to believe that the government issued some-
8i
thing like about two billions of dollars of bonds to borrow the money
to prosecute the war, that a large portion have believed it and do believe
it now, simply because they have never, some of them, even given it a
thought.
I now turn to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1872,
and I find on page 297 a table entitled, "'Destruction Account. State¬
ment of face value of money destroyed since 1861." I have been told
by men who thought they knew that the government never issued over
450 millions of legal tender notes (greenbacks). It is a known fact to
anj'one that cares to know, that there are today, that have not been
called in and destroyed $34.6,681,016 of the old greenbacks, legal ten¬
ders. The first in the "Destruction Account"'is Old Demand Notes,
$59>943.832.5o. The next two items are Degal tender notes $559,020,-
970.50 destroyed. As a matter of fact they could not have been
destroyed without first being issued. The fractional currency destroyed
was $214,923,492.69. This added to the greenbacks destroyed makes
$773i944i463-19- Now add the demand notes destroyed and we have
$833,888,295.69. This was the amount of money that was issued and
destroyed in ten years time, that was in the hands of the great "pro¬
ducing classes." To this amount add those outstanding and we find
that the government issued $1,180,569,311.69 of money.
I have been told that the government never issued but 40 millions
of fractional currency. You can see that more than five times that
amount was destroyed. The question now naturally arises, "What took
the place of that money that was destroyed? If you are interested as
you should be, there is no necessity for me repeating that untaxed, gold
interest bearing bonds, which you are paying taxes on all the necessar¬
ies of life, to the government, in order that it may pay the interest to
the holders of those bonds.
The following table gives the amount paid for the bonds in gold or
coin; also the profit for each year;
YEAR
COST IN GOED
PROFIT
I 562
$53>823,875
$ 7,158,575
1863
110,873,382
50,114,168
1864
187,595.787
I93,696,<63
1865
167,854,951
111,791,199
1866
88,689,224
36,225,176
1867
305.143,954
116,325,596
1868
304,606,761
120,837,039
$1,218,587,934
$636,148,216
82
The holders of the above bonds drew 6 per cent interest on their"
face value, viz; $1,854,736,150 equals $111,284,169 at simple interest,
but they draw their interest six months in advance and in gold. The
interest they actually received on the face of the bonds was$iii,284,16^
and the interest they cou'.d get on the amount of gold they saved $636,-
148,216 equals $38,168,893 which added to III millions equals $149,-
453,062, the amount of interest they would receive on the gold they
actually paid for the bonds, viz: $1,218,587,934, that is to say if they
had loaned $1,218,587,934, at 6 per cent they would have received
$73,115,276, but they actually drew from the face of the bond $iir,-
284,169. Here was an actual gain in interest of $38,168,893 by the
premium on gold created by the word "except." The interest they
actually received on the gold they invested in greenbacks, and then
put the greenbacks into bonds, gave them over 12 per cent interest and
in gold and you that thought the government was paying only 6 per
cent were being taxed to pay over 12 per cent. No deception there ta^
put on record? Then they saved all the taxes on their millions. Pat¬
riot-ism ! Pa-tem-al ism? That is not all.
And did the government issue those bonds to borrow the money?
If the bonds were issued to borrow money then the government bor¬
rowed money to burn up, and you are paying interest on the ashes of
that money destroyed. The table (page 80) giving the amount of
bonds issued from 1862 to 1868 inclusive, giving the face value of the
debt as $1,854,736,150, were bought and paid for with greenbacks.
"A young man afraid to shoot a gun went to general training;,
loaded his gun every time the others did, but did not shoot. Went,
home, told his grandmother. She took the gun, went to the door, fired
the gun; it kicked her over, which caused the young man to remark,,
"Lay still Granny, seven more to come.' " A story.
CHAPTER IX.
Changing the Contract(?)
You can now understand Mr. Stevens' speech if you have carefully
considered the law and the transactions noted in the last chapter. You
need to study the figures in the latter part of the last chapter relating
to the bonds issued in seven years.
I know that the "parrot-mouthed" gentry that sit in the editorial
•chairs of the press, owned by the "money changers," and write public
•opinion at so much "per diem" have claimed and do now, that the
"government bond is a solemn contract, a sacred(?) contract, between
the bondholders and the government, and binding on the people."
This might be agreed to but for one reason. If it should be proven
that this "solemn, sacred contract(?)" was a "fraudulent transaction"
to obtain money under "false pretenses" for this monied gentry it
"would be a question for the Gentlemen in Ermine to "honestly decide,"
"whether a "fraud" could be legalized under the Constitution. If it
should be proven by the law that it was a premeditated plan, a conspir¬
acy, so much the worse for the perpetrators.
I would first ask if Congress has the right to make a contract. It
is generally believed that it is elected to make laws. Another question,
Can one Congress make a law that a subsequent Congress cannot repeal?
It must be that Congress can make and repeal laws, else why the appeal
in the Buel bank circular to not have the National Bank law repealed?
But suppose we admit that Congress has the right to make con¬
tracts. Let us refer to the law of February 25, 1862, when 500 million
dollars of 5-20 bonds were authorized to be issued. These bonds were,
when i.ssued, an interest bearing debt. They were called a public debt.
When a debt is contracted, it is the expectation that it is to be paid
some time. Congress, knowing this, made a time, after which the gov¬
ernment could pay them at its "pleasure." Any time after five years,
the government had that right, and the government must pay them
within twenty years. Congress also provided the money to pay them
with; not only them, but "alldebts, public and private," and pronounced
it to be a legal tender for all debts except the interest on the bonds,
and that must be paid in coin. Coin meant gold or silver. One part
of the contract(?) was that the 500 millions of 5-20 bonds should be paid
within the twenty years. If this was not done the contract (?) was cer¬
tainly broken. Did the government pay them within the twenty years
84
and thus relieve the people from the tax to pay ^30,000,000 of interest
per year in coin for twenty years, amounting to ^6000,000,000? If not.
why not? A "sacred contract" should be fulfilled. It was not be¬
cause the government did not have the money for the records show that
the government "had money to burn," to the amount of ^1,808,314-
475-69-
If it be proven by the law that the 5-20 bonds were not paid at the
end of 20 years, then the contract was broken. To prove that the gov¬
ernment had monej' to burn I will quote from the law of April 12, 1866
page 29, Loans and Currency: "Provided, That of United States notes
(greenbacks) not more than ten millions of dollars may be retired and
canceled within six months from the passage of this act, and thereafter
not more than four millions of dollars in any one month." Would this
naturally be called "issuing bonds to borrow money?" Would you sa
call it? This act was an act to amend an act passed March 3, 1865,
just about one year before? This act can be found on page 27. The
title of this act is, "An act to provide ways and means for the support
of the government." By this act the Secretary of the Treasury was
authorized to borrow $600,000,000 and to issue bonds or treasury notes
therefor. The Treasury notes in this case were what were called 7-30-
Treasury notes, drew interest and were made a legal tender, and were
used to pay off the army and other debts.
The amendment to this is as above. This was April 12, 1866. On
February 4, 1868, nearly two years at 4 millions per month. Congress
called a halt and stopped the destruction of the greenbacks. This was
in 1868, when over 400 millions of bonds were issued. Yet people, ig¬
norant of this fact, believe the government issued the bonds to borrow
money.
To return to the "contract." All, or nearly all, the bonds issued
from 1862 to 1868 both included amounted to nearly two billions of
dollars, were paid for with paper money. Now turn to page 30, Loans
and Currency, and you may find "An act to strengthen the public
credit." This act was passed March i8th, 1869. U. S. Grant signed
the law just 14 days from the day he took his seat. This was another
one of the "record breaking acts" of the G. O. P. with the D. O. P.
leaders and newspapers pushing at the tail end of the band wagon.
Here is where the two old parties got in one of their deeds of kindness,
showing their appreciation of and love for the workingmen and produc¬
ers by passing this act. There is no doubt(?) about the sincerity(?) of
both old parties, for the welfare of the "labor voters," on election day.
You will find in the previous chapter the table giving the amount
85
of bonds issued in seven years. They were paid for with depreciated'
greenbacks, dollar for dollar, amounting to $1,854,736,150 on which
they were drawing interest at 6 per cent in gold, amounting to " $111,-
284,169, and this interest was paid $55,642,084.50 every six months in
advance. These bonds cost the holders $1,218,587,934 in coin. The
credit strengthening act(?), passed March 18, 1869, changed the con-
tract(?) and agreed to pay the bondholders in coin, when paid(?)
$1,854,736,150, thus putting into the vaults of the men holding the
bonds $636,148,416 more than the contract(?) called for.
And you workingmen and wealth producers, you men who have
helped your friends(??) on election days, you working men who, out
of all you produce, save $58.65 per year, where do you think this over
600 million dollars comes from? Have you any idea? Do you know
that it comes from the difference between what you produce and what
you receive for producing it? (A little over $800.) Which one of your
friends(?) do you think the most of?
On the face it appears that you think more of your political friends(?)
than j ou do of your helpless wife and little innocent children. And
what of the future for those innocent children, when you lie under the
"silent clods of the valley," and they come face to face with this con¬
dition, only ten times worse? How much, think you, will they be able
to save, from what they produce?
Your votes intelligently put in the ballot box and honestly counted,
will and can remedy this condition. But perhaps you "like it that
way," even if it is "pretty D— salty."
This "contract" story is no "yellow journalism," no yellow dog
yelps or howls, but burning, bitter facts. They are serious forerunners
of what this great free America wjll come to, as was the downfall of
the Roman Empire when the Dark Ages were ushered in. The laws
can be found on the statute books and are free for the asking. Any
man may read them and judge for himself.
In changing this contract there is a little bit of history involving
both the Democratic and Republican party leaders. During the session
of Congress preceding the seating of U. S. Grant on March 4, 1869,
the question had arisen in Congress and among the managers of both
old parties over the question. Shall the 5-20 bonds be paid in accordance
with the laws authorizing their issue, or shall they be paid with coin?
A President was to be elected in 1868. U. S. Grant was nominated by
the Republican party and Horatio Seymour by the Democrat party.
The Democrat party had a plank in its platform declaring the 5-20
bonds should be paid in lawful money. August Belmont, American
86
■agent of the Rothchilds, was chairman of the National Democrat Com¬
mittee. The New York World was the ofl&cial organ of the Democrat
party, edited by Mantón Marble and was (said to be) owned by Bel¬
mont. This plank in the platform was by some method placed there
unbeknown to Belmont. A little while before election the New York
World came out with a long editorial saying that "Seymour and Blair
were too heavy for the Democrat party to carry." This disrupted the
Democrat party and U. S Grant was elected. He took his seat March
4, 1S69, called Congress in extra session and in just 14 days from the
day he took his seat he signed the law that changed the contract!,?)
that took from the American wealth producers and business $636,148,-
216, and gave it "free gratis" to the bondholders with one stroke of
•the pen
In passing this act, through Congress, there was some very strong
language used of both Democrats and Republicans, of which I will give
a few extracts. Oliver P. Morton said in Congress: "We would do
foul injustice to the government and to the people of the United States
after we have sold these bonds, on an average of not more than 60 cents
-on the dollar, now to propose a new contract(?) for the benefit of the
bondholder." Hon. Thad Stevens said: "We were foolish enough to
grant them gold interest, (instead of gold the word 'coin' was used in
the law.—Author.) and now they unblushingly demand further advan¬
tages; the truth is, we can never satisfy their appetite for money."
Hon. Benj. Wade, of Ohio, said, "We never agreed to pay the 5-20's
in gold; no man can find it in the bond," (and he might have truly said
that it cannot be found in the law. Author.) "and I will never consent
to have one payment for the bondholder and another for the people. It
will sink any party and it ought to." The Hon. John Sherman said:
"I say that equality and justice are amply satisfied if we redeem these
bonds at the end of five years iu the same kind of money of the same
intrinsic value it bore at the time they were issued." The above was in
1867. In 1868 he said, "I think the bondholder violates his promise
when he refuses to take the same kind of money he paid for the bonds.
The bondholder can demand only the kind of money he paid, and he is
a repudiator and extortioner to demand money more valuable than he
gave. "
Do you recall the Buel circular? The phrase, "See your Congress¬
man at once and engage him, etc." A question at once arises; had John
Sherman been "seen and engaged" when in 1879 he said, "To refuse
to pay the bonds in gold would be repudiation and extortion and would
ie scoflfing at the blessings of Almighty God. ' '
87"
The one thing I wish to impress on the mind of my readers is, that
the government was not obliged to issue bonds to raise money to carry
on the war; that the government did not borrow the money, but made
it, and that the bonds were issued for the express purpose of furnishing
a safe investment for the monied interests of the country, and for keep¬
ing the ownership of all the money in the possession of the bankers.
I turn to page 202, Mr. Spaulding's History. I quote: "Secretary
McCulloch * * December 4, 1865, expressed the opinion that the
legal tender acts were war measures, * * that they ought not to
remain in force a day longer than would be necessary to enable the peo¬
ple to prepare for a return to the gold standard; and that the work of
^ retiring the notes which have been issued should be commenced without
delay, and carefully and persistently continued until all are retired."
On December 18, 1865, the House of Representatives passed the follow¬
ing resolution by 144 yeas to 6 nays. Who was Hugh McCulloch? He
was a banker, and was a banker from England at the same time he was.
Secretary of the Treasury. The following is the resolution that was
passed almost unanimously by an American(?) Congress: "Resolved,
That this House cordially concurs in the views of the Secretary of the
Treasury in relation to the necessity of a contraction of the currency,
with a view to as early a resumption (?) of specie payments as the busi¬
ness interests of the country will permit; and we hereby pledge co-oper¬
ative action to this end as speedily as possible. ' '
Congress did not delay for on March 12, 1866, Congress ordered"
the 10 millions and 4 millions per month destroyed as noted before..
There were not very many known Greenbackers or Peoples Party mett
at that time but there were kickers against this damnable policy of
burning up money by the millions and issuing bonds in the place of the
money.
Here is the evidence from Mr. Spaulding on page 203: "Under the
provisions of this act the Secretary commenced retiring and canceling
legal tender notes (greenbacks) but contraction very soon began to
affect speculators and the debtor class of the community who raised a,
cry against * * contraction." Just notice how ingeniously that
was put in, "the debtor class," not one word that the "creditor class,"
the bond holder and bankers were receiving the benefits of this destruc¬
tion of money. "As contraction gradually went on money became
more in demand and it soon became unpopular with a large class of the
community." What a plain explanation from a "banker," that as fast
as the 4 millions per month was burned up, that it would be natural
that the demand for money should increase. Taking money needed
88
and demanded in business, out of circulation, burning it up and putting
an untaxed, interest-bearing bonded debt in its place, and yet intelligent
people insist that the "bonds were issued to borrow money." To bum
up?
The object and aim of the perpetrators of this "crime," as Lin¬
coln called it, was not that it was or would be an injuiy to the "com¬
munity at large" oh that they wanted to return to specie payments,
which had never existed in this country since it became a government
in 17«7 and does not exist töday. Oh no, that was not their object.
Their main object and aim was to own and control all money, both coin
and paper. They had not at this time (1869) lost the ownership of
gold and silver money. Their paper promises to pay, which they had
owned and controlled (State bank bills) from 1792 up to i86iand 1862,
had taken wings and flown never to return. The problem to solve was
how to regain the ownership and control of the paper circulation of the
country which nearly all of them, if not all, admit is absolutely neces¬
sary to the welfare of the nation. The ownership of it was the issue
with them. They were preparing for what followed. The present
national bank system is what they were working for. This subject was
broached early in the war but was not enacted and passed until Febru¬
ary 12, 1863. It was prepared by Mr. Spaulding in December, 1861.
Mr. John Sherman reported it to the Senate February 9, 1863. It
passed the Senate by a vote of yeas 23, nays 21. A pretty close shave.
I hereby give the names of those for and against it, that you, readers,
may know how you were represented.
"Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle,
Fes.senden, Foster, Harding, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane (of
Kansas), Morrill, Nesmith, Pomero}', Sherman, Sumner, Tea Eyck,
Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot and Wilson (of Mass.)—23. Nays—Messrs.
Carlisle, Colamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Foot, Grimes, Henderson,
Hicks, Kennedy, King, Latham, McDougal, Powell, Rice, Richardson,
Saulsbury, Trumbull, Turpie, Wall and Wilson (of Missouri)—21."
I make room for these names so you ma}^ find, if you wish, how
many Democrats and Republicans voted for and against it. The bill
went to the House on February 13, and passed without amendment
February 20, 1863, by a vote of yeas 78; nays 64. Another very close
shave. For want of space I omit the names, which can be found in
Spaulding's History, page 187. Mr. Spaulding delivered a lengthy
sppech in favor of the bill, which I quote nearly verbatim. Mr. Lin¬
coln signed the bill March 25, 1863.
Mr. Spaulding said further, "No 'national bank currency' was
89
issued until about January ist, 1864. After that time it was gradu¬
ally issued. On the first of July, 1864, the sum of $25,825,695 had
been issued; and on the 22nd of April, 1865, shortly after the surren¬
der of General Lee, the whole amount of national bank circulation issued
to that time was only $146,927,975. It will therefore be seen that
comparatively little direct aid was realized from this currency until after
the close of the war. All the channels of circulation were well filled
up with the greenback notes, compound interest notes and certificates,
of indebtedness to the amount of over $700,000,000 before the National
Bank act got fairly into operation. This bank issue was in fact an
additional inflation of the currency." You will recall that under the
law of February 25, 1862, Congress authorized the issue of $500,000,000
of 5-20 bonds Well, now, you read the evidence following, from Mr.
Spaulding, on page 189 of his History, you people who believed the}-
were issued to borrow money.
"In April and May it became apparent that the paper currency
was sufficiently expanded to enable the Secretary to float the 5-20 bonds,
authorized to the amount of $500,000,000 by the first legal tender act,
which, up to that time, had been taken only to a very limited amount."
So you see that the government issued its greenbacks and put
them into circulation, by paying the soldiers, and other creditors, until
the channels of trade were filled with them. When they had depre¬
ciated so the bankers could buy a dollar of greeiib.icks with 35 cents in
coin, then they bought the bonds.
Spaulding's speech on the national bank bill, hh-bruary 19, 1863:
"Legal tender notes issued direct from the Treasury, without the
agency of a bank, constitute a national currency, uniform in value, in
all parts of the United States, and bearing no interest, is an advanta-
geous(?) loan to the government by the people who receive and circu¬
late this kind of currency. These legal tender notes are based solely
on the faith of the government and all the taxable property under the
jurisdiction of the United States. If Congress performs its duty by
imposing taxes on this property, and the Executive enforces the collec¬
tion thereof, all these notes will be ultimately redeemed and retired
from circulation. These notes are declared by law to be money, and
they circulate as money in all parts of the United State.s. The free(?)
banking law is proposed by the Executive for the purpose of combining
private capital with the credit of the government in the issue of bank
bills, similar in all respects to legal tender notes. The only difference
between them will be that the legal tender notes have only the United
States Government to provide for their redemption, while the bank bilks.
90
when issued will have, in addition to the liability of the government,
the direct promise(?) of the banking associations issuing them that they
will redeem them on presentation at the bank, not in specie, certainly,
but in legal tender notes, and after a general resumption of specie pay¬
ments by the banks and the government, then to be redeemed in coin.
I<egal tender notes issued direct from the Treasury constitute a loan(?)
to the government without interest. Bank notes, under this bill, would
be loaned to the government and the people at 6 and 7 percent interest.
We give to the banking associations the interest on the national curren¬
cy issued by them, as an inducement to them to form these associations
and become liable for its redemption. Instead of the government issu¬
ing this national currency direct to the soldiers and other creditors
without interest, it sells its own six per cent bonds to the banking asso- ,
ciations and takes its pay in legal tender notes; the banking associations
take the six per cent bonds from the Secretary of the Treasury and
deposit them with the Treasurer, and thereupon the Comptroller of the
Currency furnishes to such banking associations the national currency,
the Treasurer holding the bonds as security for their redemption. This
national circulation is, then, money owned by such associations, like
any other bank bills. They may be loaned to the people or the gov¬
ernment, like any other money belonging to a bank; and when loaned,
the banking associations get six or seven per cent interest for its use.
The associations also draw the interest on the bonds deposited with the
Treasurer. By this operation the associations gain, first, six per cent
interest on its loans; and second, six per cent interest on the bonds de¬
posited with the Treasurer. In this way the banking associations get
10 or 12 per cent gross interest per annum, and the government pays
6 of it on the bonds sold to the associations, and which are deposited
with the Treasurer. ' '
How will that do for "paternalism"?
Can you see anything in this law except class legislation?
The gfeenbacks were issued by the government without the aid or
assistance of any bank, uniform in value, and no interest. They are
not a loan. They are perfectly secure, being based on the entire wealth
of the nation. Can you see any reason for destroying such a money?
Do you believe it is for the best interests of business and labor of this
country to be compelled to pay interest on the bonds and on the bank
bills besides?
He says the greenbacks are money. One excuse is to combine
private capital with government credit. Government has, it is supposed,
entire jurisdiction for taxation over all property. He says, "the direct
9r
premise of the banks to redeem them." That was the old game playeJ
by the old state banks, a promise to pay: The national bank bills are-
secured by the government only. The plea of private capital combined,
with the government credit is just a humbug. The government is.
greater than all the private capital of the country.
Now you people who claim the government issued bonds to borrow
money note what Mr. Spaulding said, and he knew for he was a banker.
"It sells its bonds and takes Its pay in greenbacks." I ask, is there
any justice in this law? Is it any wonder the bankers don't want this,
law repealed? The makers of these laws appeared to have much fear
that the government would be unable to redeem its greenbacks and so
took in the private capital to help it out. No such fear worried them
about the redemption of the national bank bills. Let Mr. Spaulding
tell how he would redeem them.
On page lo Mr. Spaulding said, "In the first place it is not neces¬
sary to assort and send home this currency for redemption so long as it
is required by the people to carry on the business operations of the
country. Every time a hundred dollar bill passes from one person to.
another it is a practical redemption of it by the person who takes it.
Every time a merchant at Chicago pays to a farmer $500 in national
currency for a carload of wheat, the farmer by the operation redeems,
such national currency, not in greenbacks, not in gold, but in a com¬
modity better than either, namely wheat, a staple article useful to all.
So every merchant in New York that sells abale of cotton goods and.
receives his pay for it in currency, redeems such currency, not in the
way that banks redeem it, but in cotton goods, which is far better
because it performs the true functions of money by facilitating the legit¬
imate sale of commodities. So every time that a merchant or manu¬
facturer pays his internal revenue tax to the United States Collector in
national currency, the government redeems such currency by receiving
and discharging such tax. So every mechanic or laborer that receives
national currency for his services redeems such currency by the labor
performed. So it will be seen that just so long as the national currency
is practically redeemed every day in its passage from hand to hand in
the payment of commodities and services and in the ramified operations,
of trade and business both with the government and the people, * *
there is not the slightest necessity for resorting to the expensive and
risky operation of assorting and sending it home for redemption."
Now, my dear reader, you just apply this same principle to the
government greenbacks, and what fault can be found with it by any
person, except the class that is robbing the producers of wealth, and.
2
ilx- "business of thecountr}' through a double rate of interest?
I will now call your attention to one of the most inconsistent propo¬
sitions that, as to results, far outreaches anything ever placed on the
statutes of the United States, since the Constitution was adopted, and
the men who placed those laws on the statutes were as inconsistent as
the laws, and cannot in the light of reason and common sense defend
them; neither can any of the apologists of the present day defend them.
Mr. Spaulding himself, in writing the "History of the legal tender
paper money issued during the great rebellion, being a loan(?) without
interest and a national currency," proves beyond a particle of doubt
that these laws are inconsistent and he contradicts his own words many
times in writing this history. One strange thing regarding this history
is that there were but a few copies ever published. "Were there not
such inconsistencies in its pages it would have, no doubt, been more
extensively circulated. It is next to impossible to find one of these
books for sale in the United States.
I shall note only a few of these inconsistencies, and a few of Mr.
Spaulding's contradictions, and group them together for convenience of
■comparison. We must give him credit for stating some facts, which
make the inconsistencies self-contradictory. His first statement, in the
commencement of this history, in fact his very first words, was a fact,
viz: "The United States, at the breaking out of the rebellion, had no
national bank currency, and no gold or available means * * to carry
on the war for the Union." He could have said consistently that the
government owned no money. Another fact might go in here, "The
government must have money." There was money in the United
States at the time. The government had made it, but did not own it.
The means to obtain money to prosecute the war must be through gov¬
ernment credit, or in other words, the government must borrow the
money, and go in debt. How do you suppose this was to be done? The
government was to issue legal tender currency and make it fundable
into "bond.s. " He said it was a loan to the government without inter¬
est. Who "loaned" it to the government? He says, "the people."
Who made it? He says, "the government." If the government and
the people were two separate bodies this might work, but as the people
are the government, it cannot work. Congress, being the servant of
the people, was authorized to make money for the people, so when
Congress authorized the issue of legal tender paper money, it was not a
loan, not a debt, but money. True, the words, "promise to pay to
bearer" was a mere matter of form. The words "prouise to pay"
were annihilated by the words "lawful money, legal tender." The
93
greenbacks were reckoned in when the debt was made up. When the
greenbacks were exchanged for bonds, and the greenbacks destroyed it
was recorded as so much debt paid. The legal tender greenbacks (if
they were a debt?) drew no interest. The government bonds drew in¬
terest and paid no taxes. This was simply robbing the people by and
through interest. Just for a moment we will admit that greenbacks
are a debt but cost the people nothing for interest. Is not a national
bank bill also a debt, and it cannot get into circulation without drawing
interest from the people on the bills themselves, besides drawing interest
from the people, on the bonds, that are used as security to make the
bills safe. The bonds are safe. Who makes the bond safe? The gov¬
ernment. If the government makes the bonds safe, and the bonds
make the bills safe, isn't it the government that stands behind the whole
business? This must be admitted by any reasonable person.
Here is a nut for you to crack. It being admitted that govern¬
ment stands behind and makes the bonds, and the N. B. bills based on
them perfectly safe and good, and also pays the interest on the bonds,
and also an interest on the bills, two rates of interest, let me ask, would
it weaken the government to stand behind its own legal tender paper,
and not pay any interest at all? Answer that question.
The greenbacks are safer today than the bank bills, and the law
recognizes them as being better, for it commands the banks to redeem
their bills in legal tender greenbacks.
As to the redemption of legal tender greenbacks, Mr. Spaulding
as well as all the other bankers, were very solicitous that they should
be redeemable on demand, in coin or gold, and the government has in
its vaults today 150 millions of gold with which to redeem the 346 milr
lion dollars (and over) ot legal tender greenbacks. Yet there are over
600 million dollars of national bank bills, over which those men give
themselves no uneasiness. Mr. Spaulding told them how to redeem
bank bills. This legislation, the laws on the statute baoks, is one long
chain of fraud, deception and conspiracy, against the wealth producers
of the country.
CHAPTER X.
BinJíing the Changed Contract.
That it was intended to create a permanent bonded debt to fasten
upon the American people, there is not the least particle of doubt. It
is evident to any one who will study the laws enacted from 1862 up to
1900.
94
In the last chapter was related the changing of the contract(?). la
order to make sure and cover up their tracks, the ink was hardly dry
from the signature of President Grant to the "Credit Strengthening^
Act," on March i8, 1869, when they had another bill framed and intro¬
duced into Congress and passed. It was just one year, three months
and twenty-six days, when the bill was approved and became a law.
The title of this bill is, "An Act to Authorize the Refunding of the
National Debt." Approved July 14, 1870. I want to take you back
to February 25, 1862, and then step by step to follow up to this act of
1870.
The act of February 25, 1862, was for funding the floating debt»
and for redeeming the 150 millions of legal tender greenbacks, and
authorized the issue of 500 million dollars of bonds. They put the.
word "except" on the legal tender greenbacks, to "purposely depre¬
ciate them in order to sell the bonds."—[John Sherman.]
July II, 1862, another 150 million dollars of legal tenders was.
issued, making 300 millions; on March 3, 1863, 150 million more, mak¬
ing 450 million. In this act is a provision that the "holders of United
States notes issued" as above "shall present the èame for the purpose
of exchanging the same for bonds * * on or before the first day of
Jul}', 1863, and thereafter the right so to exchange the same shall cease
and determine. " This was one of the processes of issuing bonds to
borrow (?) money. Up to this time there were issued 450 million dol¬
lars of legal tenders, and the bankers had the privilege of exchanging
them under the funding scheme for untaxed bonds, drawing interest.
This provision reads "shall present them and get their bonds," and doit
in just four months, from March 3rd to July ist. The law of 1862,
February 25, authorized 500 million dollars of bonds. This act, March
3. 1863, authorized the issue of 900 millions of bonds, 300 million for
that year and 600 millions the next. It looks as though Congress,
could not dispose of bonds fast enough in any ordinary way, so they set
the printing presses at work turning out legal tenders, putting them
into the banks, and then the banks took them back to the government
and obtained the bonds. By 1868 they had gathered up nearly two
billion dollars of bonds, which they had bought mostly with depreciated
paper. In 1869 the contract(?) was changed and all bends were to be
payable in coin. Then came the law of July 14, 1870, to Re-fund the
bonded debt. The 5-20 bonds issued in 1862 would not be payable
before 1882 at the earliest, but they were anxious to hurry the scheme
along before the people caught onto their game. So they authorized,
the Secretary to issue 200 million dollars of bonds, redeemable in coia
95
of the present standard value, after lo years at 5 per cent interest.
The "present standard value" was gold 25.8 grains, and of silver 412^
grains, both to be nine tenths fine. You want to keep in your mind
that the refunded bonds were contracted to be paid in gold or silver or
both. The Secretary was authorized further to issue 300 million dol¬
lars, the same as the others, but payable after 15 years at 4^ per cent
interest; also 1,000 million dollars, like the others, payable after 30
years at 4 per cent interest. He was to sell or exchange these bonds
for the old bonds. On account of some dissatisfaction. Congress on
January 20, 1871, changed the law so that there should be 500 millions
of 5 per cent bonds instead of 200 millions, and to pay the interest
«very three months. This was the second contract(?).
The law enacted July 14, 1870 explicitly reads, "redeemable in
coin of the present standard value. ' ' This was one of their ' 'sacred
contracts," to pay in gold and silver at the option of the government.
This "sacred contract" stood on the books just 2 years, 4 months and
28 days, or up to February 12. 1873. Somebody all at once discovered
that the coinage laws needed "revising," so Congress, being obliging,
commenced the "revising" business, and one Ernest Seyed, an English
•expert, from London, sort of helped Congress, or Congress helped him,
to "revise" the coinage laws. It is said that this "coinage revising"
■expert wrote the bill that Congress enacted, that took away the "free
-coinage of silver" privilege, and it was done so slick that the President
when he signed the bill did not know it, and he was not the only one
that did not know." The Hazzard Circular was making good speed
on a smooth sea with a stiff breeze. But taking away the "free coinage
privilege" from silver did not change the "sacred contract" completely,
but drove in the entering wedge. The one object and aim was to get
rid of silver as a money of final settlement of debts. It would not an¬
swer to come out openly and above board, and make the declaration
because the owners of silver bullion and silver money had enjoyed this
privilege equally with the owners of gold bullion and gold money. As
a matter of fact there is more of both metals than there is of either one;
it must follow that to own and control one alone would be less difl&cult
than to own the two, and both have the privilege of free coinage. The
owners of gold, stealthily, underhandedly, took advantage of the ignor¬
ance of the silver owners, through the aid and assistance of the gold
owners of England, France and Germany, and got this law on the stat¬
ute books of the United States unbeknown to the silver owners.
This act of February 12, 1873. is a very long one containing 67 sec¬
tions, and can be found in full in "Laws of the United States relating
96
to coinage," from 1792 to 1904, and can be had from the Record Divr
sion, Treasury Department, Washington, D. C., by sending a reques
on a postal card.
In Section 14 on page 54, the game begins in the following words
"That the gold coins of the United States shall be a one dollar piece
which, at the .standard weight of 25.8 grains shall be the unit of value;'
Then it enumerates all other gold coins, such as eagles, .etc., and it
this same section reads: "Which coins shall be a legal tender in al
payments at their nominal value," etc.
We will now take Section 15, relating to silver coins. Please com
pare the language of the two and see if you can see "the cat under th(
meal" or the "N in the woodpile."
"vSec. 15. That the silver coins of the United States shall be s
trade dollar, a half dollar, a quarter dollar and a dime. * * Th<
weight of the trade dollar shall be 420 grains troy; the weight of thi
half dollar shall be 12 grams (grammes) and ^4 oí a gram (gramme);'
The quarter and the dime to be in proportion, "and said coins shall b
a legal tender at their nominal (face) value for any amount not'exceed
ing five dollars in any one payment."
If you analyze the above closely and compare the meaning of th(
language you will see the cat's paw sticking through the meal a little
The "gold dollar shall be the unit of value;" and all other gold ' coin:
shall be a legal tender in all payments at their nominal (face) value.'
If you get this circular search it carefully from 1792 up to 187;
and find, if you can, a silver coin called a trade dollar, authorized o
made by this government. What for and why was this trade dolla
made, coined? One of the apologists shouts "For Chinee trade." Th
lawreads, "coins of the United States." The word "gram (gramme)'
is a new word invented or used for this occasion.
There is one thing you can see in the dim distance, that is conspic¬
uous by its absence, and that is the 412)^ grain "dollar of our daddies.'
No doubt you have heard of the "sins of omission," and this is one
Nothing was said about the "unit, or standard, of value" of th
"silver coins of the United States," and nothing about legal tender ex
cept in sums of $5, and no more, in one payment. The smallest gov
ernment bond was not less than $50.
We now conié to Section 17 and read: "That no coins, either c
gold, silver, or minor coinage, shall hereafter be issued from the mir
other than those of the denominations, standards and weights herei
set forth." No 412)^ grain silver dollar "of the present standar
value,'' (of July 14, 1870, page 31, Uoans and Currency) is mentione
97
in this section.
Next is Section 20. "That any owner of gold bullion may deposit
the same at any mint to be formed into coin or bars for his benefit."
Section 21. That any owner of silver bullion may deposit the
same at any mint to be formed into bars, or into dollars of the weight
of 420 grains, Troy, designated in this act as trade dollars, and no
deposit of silver for other coinage shall be received. This is the sec¬
tion wherein the free coinage privilege was taken from silver by law.
It is true there had been millions of dollars of them coined previous tO'
this date, but by refusing to take or receive any more bullion (silver)
to coin into the "standard" silver dollars, no more could be issued,,
unless the government bought the silver bullion and coined them.
Had there been any serious danger to the country from the ' 'free
and unlimited coinage of silver" at the "ratio of 16 to i" it would
have been more manly, more patriotic, more honorable, to have come
out openly and declared that unless this law of free coinage was repealed
the country would surely go to the ' 'demnition bow wows. ' ' The same
reasoning would apply as well before 1873 as it did in 1896. It makes
it no more honorable to do it in a sneak thief manner. The "great hue
and cry" raised in 1896 over the danger of free coinage must have
existed before 1873, not one word of complaint was heard from
those single standard ' 'Solomons' ' of today.
History records that away back in 1848 and '49 something was said
about the demonetizing of gold. The legal tender quality of the
"standard" silver dollar was not disturbed directly in this law. No
more were to be issued under free coinage, that was all. The standard
silver dollar was cut off from coinage in the future by section 17. It
took 16 pages, 67 sections, to accomplish what was intended to be done,
viz: stop the free coinage of silver. Had it been an honest motive and
had it been necessary for the well-being of the country it could have
been all placed in a dozen lines. They were simply changing the "con-
tract"(?) of July 14, 1870. It was done to prevent the bonds from
being paid in silver, as contracted(?) in 1870, July 14.
Here is another of those good things nearly hidden from view. In
Section 25 of this coinage law, which reads, "That the charge for con¬
verting standard gold bullion into coin shall be one fifth of one per
centum;" and for converting all the other metals, (viz: silver, copper,
nickel, tin and zinc) into coins the cost shall be ascertained by the
director of the mint.
In the second section of the act of January 14, 1875, "An act to
provide for the resumption of specie payments, " the law charging one-
98
fith of one per cent for converting gold bullion into coin is repealed,
"and hereafter no charge shall be made for that service." It is evident
that the government makes no charge for coining gold bullion into
money.
By the act of January 29, 1874, our government goes into the busi¬
ness of coining of money for foreign countries, and charges them just
what it costs and no more. Just why this is done would be a puzzle
for any one to solve. It is about on a parallel with free coinage of
silver previous to 1873, the only difference being that the government
charges the foreigner the cost of coinage, while it charges the silver
miners nothing. The probability is that Congress wants to keep the
employees of the mint busy. You can find this law on pages 66 and 67
of the Coinage Laws, and if you can give any reason for such a law,
you are the first and can go to the head of your class.
Of course every one knows, or ought to know, that this govem-
ment(?) resumed specie payments on January i, 1879. This act of
January 14, 1875, made provisions for doing this at that time. It took
them just four years and then it wasn't done; not for the people at
least, but for the accommodation of the gold gamblers of Wall Street,
some place near New York where they make it a business to make great
fortunes by cheating and gambling with money, stocks, bonds, etc.
I will give you the phrase in full, so you may be able to find the
"kitten under the meal." "And on and after the first day of January,
Anno Domini, 1879, the Secretary of the Treasury shall redeem, in
coin, the United States legal tender notes then outstanding, on their
presentation for redemption at the office of the Assistant Treasurer of
the United States in the City of New York, in sums of not less than
fifty dollars. ' '
There is the law. There are two points in this law that will bear
inspection. One is the amount to be redeemed, and no less than $50,
and the other is the place to get it redeemed, viz: at the Assistant
Treasurer's office in the City of New York. This law was passed on
on January 14, 1875, to go into effect on and after January i, 1879.
I now turn to page 20 of Circular No. 72, and find the following
words: "United States notes are redeemable in United States gold coin
in any amount by the Treasurer and all the Assistant Treasurers of the
United States." This is under the heading of Information on Redemp¬
tion. I have not been able to find any law changing or repealing the
law of January 14, 1875. So I wrote a letter to the Treasury Depart¬
ment, asking when this law was changed, and the reply was that it
was the "interpretation of the law of March 14th, 1900." I have so
99
far been unable to find any law that has changed the words in the law
of January 14, 1875, making it possible to get any less than $50 re¬
deemed, and any other place than the city of New Yoik. It may be
the Treasurer interprets the law to suit his own convenience, as John
Sherman did when Secretary of the Treasury. A little while before
the first of January 1879, while greenbacks were still at a discount John
Sherman took the greenbacks at their face value, and so Mr. Sherman
"resumed specie payments" before the law did, which establishes our
contention, that if the government had taken the greenbacks for all
debts and taxes due the government there would have been no need of
coin for the government. Individuals might need gold or silver bullion
in trading with foreigners, but that is no concern of this government.
As was said before, the gold reserve of 150 million dollars, is only for
the convenience and accommodation of the gold gamblers, and stock
and bond jobbers of Wall St., New York, State St., Boston, Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia and other financial centers in this country, and
Lombard St., London, and other foreign financial gambling centers,
and any man with ordinary intelligence with a little thought if he will
but read the financial laws on the statute books since 1861, he will
readily comprehend the truth of this statement. Of course there is no
law compelling a man to know anything if he doesn't choose to, unless
it be a law of necessity.
If the government has "resumed specie payments" the banks have
not. There is no law that compels a national bank to redeem its notes
in coin. As the law now stands (the law of January 14, 1875) no man
can get less than $50 of greenbacks redeemed in gold, and at only one
place, and that the Assistant Treasurer's office in New York City. If
this is not proof.enough that the "government redemption" is for the
gold gamblers, then there can none be produced.
Next comes the law of February 28, 1878, the title of which is, "An
act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar, and to restore
its legal tender character." Now watch the "pure cussedness" of this
law. As a matter of fact the silver dollar had not been demonetized
or its "legal tender character" taken from it except by indirection or
lomission, by the law of February 12, 1873. law the standard
silver dollar of 412 grains was not mentioned. The law of 1873 did
not have anything to do with the silver dollars that had been coined
previous to this law of 1873. Those dollars were a legal tender for any
amount, after this law as they were before it. The privilege of free
coinage of them was stopped by law.
This law of February 28, 1878, implies that the law of February
lOO
12, 1873, had taken away the "legal tender character" of the silver
dollar and that they had repented of their mistake and hastened to rec¬
tify the error. If this were a fact (which it is not) why did Congress
not put it back to the same status it occupied before? This law reads,
"that there shall be coined * * silver dollars of the weight of 412)^
grains Troy * * as provided in the act of January 18, 1837 * *
which coins * * with all silver dollars heretofore coined by the
United States, * * shall be a legal tender at their nominal (face)
value, for all debts and dues public and private, except where other¬
wise expressly stipulated in the contract. " This act referred to the
act of January 18, 1837.
We turn to this act and read regarding the "legal tender character"
of the silver dollar; "And that dollars * * shall be legal tender of
payment according to their nominal (face) value, for any sums what¬
ever." Was the restoring act an honest one? If it were not to give the
gold gamblers the advantage, why were the words, ' 'except where other¬
wise expressly stipulated in the contract," added? Will some one
answer? This act was called the "Bland-Allison" act. The president
refused to sign this act and it was passed over his veto by a vote of both
Houses. These were the dollars that are in the Treasury to redeem the
silver certificates.
In the act of July 22, 1876, Section 2, it reads: "That the trade
dollar shall not hereafter be a legal tender for any amount," and the
"funny thing" is that a 420 grain dollar was not worth as much as 385
grain dollar ( two halves).
May 31, 1878 is another one of the proofs that the government
bonds were not issued to borrow money to prosecute the war. The title
of this act is "An act to forbid the further retirement of United States
legal tender notes." Forbidding any further destruction is proof posi¬
tive that the Secretary was destroying them up to this time, and issuing
bonds in their place. On July 14, 1890, is an act of much importance,
as to confirming a principle, contended for by the Populists. The Pop¬
ulists have contended, and do now, that Congress has as much right
and power to make and pay out legal tender paper money, in time of
peace, as in time of war. In this act that contention has been confirmed
by Congress into law. It is a point of vast importance to the American
people. This act knocks the theory of Mr. Spaulding and all the
bankers and metallic money advocates of a ' 'metallic standard' ' into a
cocked hat.
This act authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase four
million, five hundred thousand ounces of silver bullion per month at
lOI
the market price, and to issue and pay for this bullion, United States
paper money made a "legal tender in payment of all debts public and
private except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract."
Here is a great principle, enacted into a law of the land that reaches
down deeper than the silver question. It shows the power and the
right of Congress over the question of money, and also the choice of the
material on which the stamp shall be placed, and that power and that
right was given to Congress by the people, through the Constitution.
In order to make this more thoroughly understood, we will trace
this principle from the beginning to the present. In 1792 Congress se¬
lected the two metals gold and silver, on which to place the money
stamp. It not only selected the material, but it selected the quantity
of each metal, and its quality (fineness) as well, and then called it the
unit of account, and denominated it "a dollar." This condition con¬
tinued from April 2, 1792 up to June 28, 1834. By the law of 1792
Congress decided that the quantity of gold metal in the gold eagle
should "be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain 247
grains of pure gold;" the silver dollar to contain 37iX grains of pure
silver. On June 28, 1834, Congress decided a mistake had been made
in putting 247 grains of gold into the gold eagle, and then and there
took out grains, leaving only 232 giains of pure gold in the gold
•eagle. The quantity of silver has never been changed. The same
•quantity of silver is in the silver dollar that was put in, in 1792. No
more trouble arose until 1849. At thnt time gold was being produced
in such quantities that it became alarming to the metallic basis men,
and the question of demonetizing gold was agitated in this and foreign
-countries, but nothing came of it until in 1873 Congress took away the
free coinage of silver, and thought they had deprived it of its legal
tender character, as per the law of February 28, 1878. But this law
•did not restore the free coinage privilege to silver, nor did it restore its
^'legal tender character," provided it was a fact that Congress did
deprive it of its "legal tender character," by the act of 1873, for the
reason that silver dollars were a full legal tender for any amount with¬
out any word "except" attached to them. So that Congress was
densely ignorant or wilfully intended to deceive.
The laws of Congress made no discrimination between gold dollars
and silver dollars from 1792 up to 1873, as to the free coinage ¡civilege
or the legal tender qualities. The law of 1834 gave the gold bullion
owner, after this act, the advantage over the gold bullion owner before
the act of nearly one dollar in the gold eagle. This act virtually said
to the gold bullion owner, henceforth you need bring but 232 grains of
102
gold to the mint and have it coined into a ten dollar gold eagle instead
of 247^ grains as heretofore.
Now there is one of two things must be self-evident, that gold is-
changeable in value, (^taking the law away from it) the same as silver,
or Congress has over-ridden the laws of nature. If it be true that the,
value of gold never changes, then Congress must have made an awful
blunder either in 1792 or in 1834. If this be true, then the Congress
legislated an injustice into law, and kept that wrong on the statute
books for over 40 years. The law took from the gold bullion owner
1^)4 grains of the owner's gold which belonged to him, every time the
government coined a gold eagle for him, and the proof, the indisputable
proof, is the law of June 28, 1834. Yet, in the face of all this, the
gold eagle was $10, and no more or less, whether it contained 247)^
grains or 232 grains of pure gold. Strange, do you say? There is
nothing strange at all about it when you understand the fact that money
is a creation of law.
These two laws, 1792 and 1834, prove the fact that Congress has
the control over the entire question of money, and the choice of the
material. When Congress took away the free coinage privilege from
silver it had the right and power to do so. When it took away the le¬
gal tender quality from silver (if it did) it had the right and power to
do it.
On page 94 of the report of the Monetary Commission of 1876, is
the following: "The right to demonetize gold rests on the same founda¬
tion as the right to demonetize silver, and the right to demonetize both
is as well assured as the right to demonetize either. It is not disputed
that the United States may change at will either the weight or purity
of the metals in its coins. It might make its coins 7 tenths instead of
9 tenths fine, or might make the gold or silver dollar, or unit of value,
contain more or less gold and silver respectively than was contained in
the gold and silver dollar of the standard value of July 14, 1870."
In this statement quoted above the contention of the commission is
that the bonds issued under the act of July 14, 1870, are payable at the
option of the government in gold or silver dollars of the then existing
standard of 412)^ grains of silver or 25.8 grainsof gold. If this reason¬
ing be correct then the reasoning of the law of February 25, 1862 must
be correct, when that law declares that the United States legal tender
notes were lawful money and legal tender for all debts, except interest
and duties. ' The Commission takes no note of this fact. It does men¬
tion the credit strengthening act and says, "He cannot improve his
credit by promising to pay a larger amount of money, or money of
I03
•greater value, than the terms of the obligations held against him re¬
quire. The sufficient, best and only means of improving credit, public
or private, is an exact performance of contracts(?). The debtor that
insists upon all his rights and at the same time performs all his duties is
the one most confided in. Credit can be strengthened by fulfilling con¬
tracts but not by changing them; by performing old promises and not
by making new ones. The 5-20 bonds issued under the act of February
25, 1862 were made payable—the principal in dollars without specifying
the kind, and which might mean dollars in paper or coin and the inter¬
est in coin." The law of February 25, 1862, declares the 5-20 bonds
shall be paid in dollars. This same law in the first section authorizes
the Secretary of the Treasury to issue 150 million of dollars (of paper)
which shall be lawful money and a legal tender in payment of all debts
public and private. Was not this law as binding as any law that fol¬
lowed it. In this changing of contracts(?) or laws, it must be borne
in mind that Congress is the servant of the people, to make laws for
all the people, and not for a few, and when it makes or changes a law,
that takes from the producers over 600 millions of dollars and transfers it
into thepossession of a few money gamblers, it is time to call a halt and
time that an investigation be instituted and an explanation given why.
Congress in demonetizing silver had a perfect right to do it. It
has the same right to demonetize gold. There is one thing it has no
right to do. It has no right to deprive the people of money with which
to pay taxes and to do the business of the country. If the issue of
bonds was a lawful act, (not to borrow money for , under no construc¬
tion can that be proven) under the act of February 25, 1862, for the
purpose of "funding the fioating debt," (the greenbacks were called a
debt, but bore no interest) by what right, by what authority, could
Congress substitute an interest bearing debt for a non-interest bearing
debt? The greenbacks cost no interest and were used in the channels
of trade as money. This was no burden on the people. Had Congress
any right to change the law and compel the people to pay interest on
the bonds, which certainly was a burden, and destroy the greenbacks
without consulting the people?
It is true the interest bearing untaxed bond was a benefit to the
bondholder, but where does the people's benefit come in? Is that the
meaning of the Constitution? Does that have a tendency to "promote
the general welfare?" Is justice established by such legislation? Is
this one of the "blessings of liberty,"to tax seven eighthsof thepeople,
the wealth producers, to pay interest to pay interest to the one eighth,
and this one eighth to go scott free from taxation? Is this ancient or
I04
modern liberty? This legislation cannot be defended on any reasonable
commonsense ground. It is the ignorance of the people on this, the
greatest question of ancient or modern times.
It only requires reason and commonsense applied to this question
of money, and it is as easily understood as the A B C of the alphabet.
As to this law of July 14, 1890, it proves, first, that Congress has.
as much right to issue legal tender paper money in time of peace as in.
time of war. It also proves that when the government needs any arti¬
cle of commerce for which it has any use, it can buy it at the market
price and make paper dollars with which to pay for it.
The government bought 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion per
month at the market price, not to pay over one dollar for 371grains.
If the government bought this silver bullion for less than one dollar for
371grains, the government made a profitof just the difference. Now
if Congress will take away the free coinage privilege from gold, which
it can do and has a right to do, as it has from silver; and take away the
legal tender quality as it has from silver, the government can go into
the market and buy gold bullion, it it has any use for it, for less than
$1.00 for 23.22 grains, and whatever less than $1.00 it buys it for, will
be a profit to the government.
In France, years ago, in John Law's time, the King of France»
when he got short of money, would command the mint to put* in just
one half or three fourths of the amount of gold into the unit or franc»
and thus double or add one fourth to the number of francs or units.
The Congress of 1834 of the United States increased the number
of gold units or dollars by takipg 15^^ grains out of every gold eagle.
This is}4 grains was a surplus, and lacked only 7.72 grains of being
enough to make another dollar. Congress had as much right to take
100 grains out of the 247 grains as to takeout 15}^ grains and call it
$10.
As a matter of fact Congress has no right to coin money for indi¬
viduals, that is to say free coinage of gold, silver, or any other metal or
material on or for individual account. The people through Congress
have the right to select any material they choose on which to place the
money stamp. The government, the people as a whole, as one, are not
in the mining business, hence have no gold and silver. The people can
select either gold or silver or both on which to place the money stamp»
but the government must buy these materials and pay for them with
money of its own creation as it did for silver bullion in 1890. No man
can defend free coinage from a Constitutional standpoint. It is an im¬
possibility. Law and law alone makes money and gives it its value.
CHAPTER XI.
Results of the Single Gold Standard.
This law of July 14, 1890 stood on the statute books until Novem.
"ber 1,1893 a little over 3 years, when, under Mr. Cleveland's administra¬
tion, Congress repealed this purchasing act clause. The act of 1890 re¬
pealed the purchasing act of February 28, 1878, which was known as the
Bland-Allison Act. After repealing the 1890 purchasing act. Congress
said: "And it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to
continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money and to coin
both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable
value," and yet Congress did not make any provision to carry out this
"declared to be policy."
The would-be financiers are simply waiting for England and other
foreign nations to give their consent to allow us to put silver back to
the position it occupied previous to 1873, as witness: "Such equality to
be secured through international agreement. " If this is not waiting
for the consent of foreign nations, then the English language has no
meaning. That it was the intention at all hazards to bring this country
to the single gold standard, from the commencement of the Civil War,
by the owners of gold, is proven conclusively, by the financial legisla¬
tion which can be found on the statute books of the United States today.
Every law enacted since July 17, 1861, up to the present time, has
written between the lines, the "single gold standard". Do you realize
what the single gold standard means to the industries and wealth pro-
■ducers of this country? It means industrial slavery. It means the
constant gathering of the wealth produced into the possession of the
gold money owners until they practically own the entire wealth of the
nation. It means that gold is to be the only money that stands between
the sheriff and the producer that owes a debt. It means that every
debt in the United States is payable in gold money on demand. It
means that there is to be no other money of final settlement of debt, or
that a creditor is obliged to accept, or forfeit his debt. It means that
sdl other forms of a medium of exchange, properly called cnrrency, is
only a promise to pay gold. It means that all other forms of so-called
money are to be redeemed (?) in gold—redeemed as a promise, but not
-as a reality. Money is the only thing greater than debt. Money is the
io6
only thing that can cancel or kill debt. And gold is to be the only
material o£ which money is to be made under the "single gold standard"
as is the law of March 14, 1900, (which can be found on page 44 of
"Loans and Currency"). Do not take my word for it but get the law
and study it.
An absolute scientific money, of sufiicient amount to meet the ne¬
cessities and needs of the people of a nation, is the greatest blessing that
can be bestowed upon them because it is the very foundation, the cor¬
ner stone of civilization and liberty. Debt and interest are the greatest
curses of humanity and nations. They are the germs, the seeds, of
anarchy, murder, robbery, and the deadly enemies of civilization and
libert)'. Notwithstanding the fact of the deadly opposition between
the two. Money and Debt, and its auxiliaries (interest and usury), are
both created by human law. This, at first, may seem strange, but it is
absolutely true and susceptible of positive proof. All money must be
made by the government, no matter of what the material may consist.
Any other form of money made by anyone else will be a counterfeit.
This money is made by the government for the people, all the people.
Were this done the people collectively would own the money. The
people individually are obliged to pay taxes, to pay expenses of run¬
ning the government. The government, instead of doing this, selected
two materials, gold and silver,the quantity of each to be put in, also its
purity, (fineness) and says these two pieces are each $1.00 of money.
But who owned the two materials previous to this manufacture o£
them into money? Private individuals.
The government .selected so many grains of each material
and fixed the price (arbitrarily) and handed the money to ihe olvners
of the bullion. The owners of the bullion are the owners cf the money
with all the powers that go with the money, whether for good or evil.
In the meantime a tax has been levied against the people individually,
by the government, said tax to be paid with money. All the money is
in the hands of those whom the government made it for. One of the
expenses of the government is the making of this money for private
individuals, for which they pay r.othing, but which costs the govern¬
ment a neat sum, and to pay this expense the- people must be taxed.
It does look a little unfair, doesn't it? Well, the people must pay the
tax, and there is but one .source and only one method for the people to-
get this money, and the source is the money owners and the method is
to borrow or hire it from them, and on their own terms and agree to pay-
them interest for its use.
The process of borrowing and paying interest for its use is easily
I07
understood if you stop and think.' You may take it either way you
like, it will come out the same every time. If the loaner insists on
having his interest in advance, which is the rule and not the exception,
the borrower receives less money than he agrees to return. If he is to
pay the interest at the expiration of the time for which he borrowed it,
it makes no material difference. In either case he agrees to return
more money than he receives. This is simply an impossibilitj'. All
you have to do is to keep in mind the source and the method. The
difference between what the borrower receives and what he binds him¬
self to return is called interest, but is in fact an unpayable debt, with
money. It is an endless chain, that runs all the time, and carries back
to the money owner and loaner some of the wealth produced by labor.
As there is a steady, continuous stream of wealth flowing into the pos¬
session of the money loaner, and none flowing out, it is only a question
of time when the money loaner will own all of the wealth. This stream
increases in force and volume as the population and needs of money
increase, but while the volume of money changes, by increasing, the
sources and methods never change.
It can be mathematically demonstrated just how long it will take
for 3 per cent of the population to own 97 per cent of all the wealth of
this great "free(?) America!"
The reason for having but one metal (gold) as money is because it
can be owned and controlled more easily than the two (goldand silver).
By making gold the only money, the money owners are complete mas¬
ters of the situation. They have power to make money scarce and dear
and all other things the price named in money cheap, and the power to
make money plenty and cheap, while all other things are dear in price.
■When money is scarce and property cheap, they owning the money can
buy at their own price. By making money plenty and cheap, and all
property dear, high in price, then they can sell and gather a harvest.
That is what the single gold standard is doing and will do. The free
coinage of gold forces the people into a perpetual debt, by law. The
free coinage of both gold and silver, at any ratio, whether it be 16 to i
or 60 to I, will do the same thing only it will take a little longer to
do it.
The only thing that can get rid of debt is money and this is created
by law. The law, then, does create both a curse and a blessing, debt
and money. Only for the method of putting this money into circula¬
tion, there could not or would not be any compulsory debt.
Another proposition for your consideration: The advocates of this
Ävstem claim it is Constitutional. If this be true and it is right to use
io8
gold or silver or both, why not allow every one who produces any com¬
modity to take it to the government and let it fix a price on it, the
same as it does on gold? If it be Constitutional to put the price on any
one man's product or commodity, why not on all commodities of all
people?
And now in proof that gold is the only monej^ of final settlement
and that all other "forms of money" are to be redeemed with gold, the
following quotation from the law of March 14, 1900 amply proves bc^
yond contradiction. The title of this law is as follows:
"An act to define and fix the standard of value, to maintain the
parity of all forms of money issued or coined by the United States, to
refund the public debt and for other purposes." And it is for "other
purposes" that are not designated. "Be it enacted * * That the
dollar consisting of 25.8 grains of gold, nine tenths fine, * * shall
be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined
by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this
standard and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to
maintain such parity."
If you are in earnest in finding out t'ne pure "cussedness" of this
law, get this document and read it and ponder over it. Let us analj'ze
this first section and apply common sense and reason. "That the dol¬
lar * * shall be the standard unit of value," mind you, that this
25.8 grains of gold is declared to be money because there is a dollar's
worth of (gold or) value in it. This is the declaration of the gold
standard advocates and all their "dupes," that it is "a dollar worth a
dollar." You often hear that remark, yet it has been proven hundreds
of times that it is absolutely false. "And all forms of money issued
(paper) or coined (silver) by the United States shall be (mandatory)
maintained at a parity of value with this standard. ' ' What is the mean¬
ing of "parity of value"? It means equal in value to 25.8 grains of
gold nine tenths fine. There is no dodging that definition, is there?
"And it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Trersury to maintain
such parity." It means when the government issues in the form of
paper money, or coins silver in the form of money, the Secretary is
commanded to make them just as valuable as 25.8 grains of gold. The
question is, how can he do it? A man almost a fool would know there
is not a dollar s worth of "value" in a one or a ten dollar bill. Anyone
ought to know that 50 or 60 cents worth of silver "coined" into a dol¬
lar will not make it worth one dollar. There is but one way that Mr.
Secretary can maintain this parity of "value" and that is to redeem it
with a gold dollar. Can this be done? If there are gold dollars enough
I09
to redeem "all the other forms of money," it would look as though it
could be done. The question is, are there enough gold dollars to re¬
deem all other forms of mone}*? Statistics from the government docu¬
ments .show that there is not gold enough in the United States to pay 3
cents on the dollar of the demands upon it, by law. "But," sa5's some
man, "I can pay my debt or debts with silver dollars or national bank
bills." On one condition, and one only, and that is if your creditor
consents to take them. The law gives your creditor the option to take
them or not, not you. If your creditor demands the gold, the only
money there is, and j'ou do not hustle around and get it for him, the
law gives him the power to put the sheriff into your store, sell your
goods until enough is raised to pay your debt and the auctioneer, the
Sheriff, regardless of the price. That is what the single gold standard
means to every debtor in the United States today. Tomorrow it means
more for the debt increases every day.
It is not what the creditor, through courtesy, may do, but what he
has the power to do under the law. With a compulsory debt, forced
on the debtors, the creditor class owning all the money with which a
debt can be paid lawfully, is the worst form of class legislation that can
be conceived of. A debtor may have property enough to pay his debt
several times, and yet have no money that the creditor is obliged to
accept.
Is there any reason or sense why the government should make
money for private individuals, and not make it for the whole people?
"The Congress shall have power to coin money." Was this power
given to Congress to coin money for private individuals, and thus put
the whole of the rest of the people in the power of a few, to force them
into a compulsory debt and then exact tribute from them? A parallel
case would be for Congress "to coin," make postage stamps and put
them into the hands of private individuals, or call it "post office associ¬
ation," and furnish the stamps free, the same as it does the national
bank bills, to the banking association. Is there a sane man that would
approve of such an act? Yes, there are men that would, and it is the
same class of men that are standing for the private ownership of all the
money.
Yet there are millions of men today who call themselves intelligent
people, who goto the ballot box and vote every two years for Congress
men to make laws ten thousand times worse than to put the postoffice
into the hands of private corporations. These same men vote toputthe
power into the hands of individuals, to fix the price of all products,
give them the power to raise and lower wages, to make the price of all
no
products high, or low at their sweet will. Talk about discriminations
and rebates on the railroads, it does not begin with the rebates from
the government to the national banks. The great hue and cry of
Roosevelt and the 59th Congress over the Railroad rate bill is on a par
with "dipping the ocean dry with a clam shell." The national banks
furnish the money to build and run the railroads. They furnish the
money to run the Standard Oil Co,, the meat packers, the steel trust,
the leather trust and all the other trusts combined. But who furnishes
the money to the national banks? The Government of the United
States not only furnishes the banks with this currency, but furnishes it
free.
CHAPTER XII.
Remeijy.
In applying a remedy for present conditions we must first ascertain
whether it is a local or national remedy we are in need of. If the con¬
ditions are national then the remedy must be national. If present con¬
ditions are only local, then local remedies are onlj' applicable. But our
contention is that the disease is national, therefore the remedy must be
national.
After reading the previous chapters anyone can readily see that the
remedy must be national; that the disease originates with our financial
system; then the disease and remedy must both be in the Money
Question. Money is a national and not a local attribute. Money being
absolutely necessary to civilization and creatable onlj' by the nation,
the union of the whole people, the remedy must be national. As money
is a creation of law and the method of putting it into use is the result of
law it follows that to apply the remedy, recourse must be had through
the law. Just laws are the science of government. This, then, in the
true sense, is politics. As present conditions are the result of unjust
laws, these conditions can be changed only through political action.
The only hope for the people is through political action. There is but
one remedy for an unjust law and that is a just law, and that can be
brought about only by political action.
But this fact must be borne in mind. These unjust laws cannot be
remedied by political parties. This may strike some as being strange,
but we must bear in mind this fact that for 100 years the people have
been divided into political parties or factions, and if not the cause the
Ill
result is the present deplorable conditions existing in every part o£ this
great country. A division of the people into parties and factions and a
total disregard of the fundamental ; i.l basic principles of a government
of, by and for the people, a democracy, by the leaders (self-constituted)
of the different parties or factions, has resulted in present conditions,
and they are continually and persistently growing worse. Here is an
undisputed fact. The interests of the wealth producers are identical in
a national sense. A national law that is an injury to one class of pro¬
ducers must be an injury to all classes of producers. It must follow
that a just law will give equal opportunity to all.
This all the people want, an equal opportunity. The American
people are not asking for or demanding charity. They demand justice,
and have the inherent right to it and are cowards if they accept any¬
thing less. Hence the preamble to the Constitution, Union,Justice and
Liberty. The two latter. Justice and Liberty, cannot be obtained with¬
out the first. Union. The people united are all-powerful. Whatever
they desire, they can have, within the bounds of Reason, governed by
Justice and Liberty. Is there any question or doubt as to this right,
inherent right born in them? If there be any reasonable doubt as to this
inherent right, then your Constitution and your flag are delusions, to
say nothing of a harsher term.
To beg the question by saying that "a Union of the people means
centralized power" is false and deceiving on its face. There can be no
centralization of power in a majority rule, where the power is derived
from the consent of the governed. The danger lies in a minority rule.
Through party manipulation and a division of the people, the people
are fast drifting away from a majority to a minority rule—from a De¬
mocracy to a Monarchy.
It is high time the people awoke from this comatose state and saw
whither they are drifting. I can do no better than to recommend to
your study Washington's Farewell Address, especially that part relat¬
ing to Party and Partizanship and the danger to the republic. Wash¬
ington said, "To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a govern¬
ment for the whole is indispensable.
Just a word in regard to party: "The Spirit of party * * exists
under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, con¬
trolled or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its
greatest rankness and is truly its worst enemy. The alternate domina¬
tion of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge,
natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries, has
perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightfu 1 despotism.
112
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of
men to seek security and repose in tne absolute power of an Individual;
and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or
more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the pur¬
poses of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. * * *
However combinations or associations of the above description may
now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of
time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious
and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the peo¬
ple, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying
afterwards the very engines that have lifted them to unjust dominion."
You have only to look around you today, and observe the methods
used in order for one faction or party to gain the ascendency over the
other, to realize the truthfulness of Washington's prophecy. It is true
the climax has not been reached yet. but the machinery is being per¬
fected that will bring this prophecy about.
Another obstacle is being placed in the path of a People's Govern¬
ment, and that is that "the people are not capable of self-government."
This looks strange. A people capable of laying the foundations of a
republic, and living under such a form of government for over loo
years, to say they are not capable of governing themselves is not reflect¬
ing much credit on the managers and manipulators of the party factions.
Three millions of people capable of founding a republic, and 80 or 90
millions descending from the same stock are not capable(?) of perpetu¬
ating it? Bah! The present conditions are the result of the laws now
on the statute books of the nation. Those laws were placed there
through political action by political parties. To apply the remedy it
has got to be done by political action, hence the remedy must be through
politics, the science of government. No organization of producers
should hesitate to discuss the laws under which all the people must live.
This in its true sense is politics.
Money, being a creation of national law, becomes a national ¡ques¬
tion, affecting every American citizen in the United States. Being a
national question, it cannot be settled by any state or local law. The
whole and absolute ownership and control of all money is in the hands
of the people, through a Congress, truly representing the people, chosen
and elected to do the bidding of the people. How theu can Congress
make a law to make money and hand that money over to a small per
cent of the people for nothing, and thus compel all the balance of the
"3
thus pay tribute to the few unless it be through a conspiracy? Can a
conspiracy be legalized?
In 1862-63-64-65 a cry was raised that the "Government had no
right to make its own paper money with which to pay its expenses;
that it was unconstitutional,,' and yet today the government is making
national bank bill, called money, and giving it to banking institutions
free of expense to the banks. "Consistency, thou art a jewel," but m
this case not of the first water. Will some one point out just when the
Constitution was changed giving Congress the power to make money
for the banks and not for the people? Congress is even giving the
privilege to banks to issue their own promises to pay, as money, with¬
out even any security at all. (The Fowler or Aldrich bill, or law.)
This is getting back to the old state bank system that prevailed
from 1792 until 1861. This plan is more vicious even than the old
state bank system, for rheold state bank system did have a promise to
pay, one dollar, with 33)^ cents of specie to pay with while the present
law has only 5 cents behind the promised "asset or credit" paper
dollar. "Ohjno, this is no special privilege" granted to a class by Con-
gress(?). Now if Congress has the right(?) and power(?) to make a
paper dollar and based on a 5 cent piece of gold, and furnish it to the
banks, why has it not the same right and power to make its own paper
dollar based on the same 5 cents worth of gold, and pay those same
dollars out for expenses of the government? If not, why not? Do not
.all speak at once.
The one great secret of this "vicious" financial legislation since
1861 is the ownership of all the money of the United States now and
forever, the ownership by private and corporate institutions! While
not one dollar of legitimate money or currency can be made, stamped
or coined and put into circulation without the sanction of the govern¬
ment (all other being counterfeit) yet the government does not own the
money in the country.
If you will turn back to a previous chapter you will find three
circulars that were issued by the banks and banking associations.
After reading and studying those three circulars, the man that cannot
see "the cat under the meal" must be mentally blind. Observe, if you
please, in the Buel Circular, the words, "Uet the government issue the
•coin, and the banks issue the paper money of the country, for then we
•can better protect each other."
Now you will see for what purpose banks were established. The
-word "issue" is used instead of the word "made" or "stamped." "To
repeal the law creating national banks, or to restore to circulation the
114
government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money,,
and will therefore seriously affect your individual profits as banker and
lender." Here, then is the object, the motive, of those patriotic^
bankers— ' ' Profit. ' '
Is not this what is called "Paternalism"? "See your member of
Congress at once and engage him to support our interest, that we may
control legislation."
Do the scales begin to drop from your eyes?
At the time this circular was published there was an agitation
going on in and out of Congress to "repeal the national bank law," but
there were enough "Congressmen seen" to prevent the "repeal of the
national bank law" and the restoration of the Greenback money that
was destroyed. Think you any of the present Congressmen have been
"seen" to pass the Fowler or Aldrich law?
The only remedy is the repeal of the present vicious financial laws
on the statute books of the United States. Can this be done? If not,
then goodbye freedom, justice and liberty. There can be no compro¬
mise. The longer you wait the greater will be the agony. Changed,
it has got to be, or democracy is a myth. Mark this: if it is ever
changed, if these unjust laws are ever repealed, and just laws put in
their place, it will have to be done by a united people. A divided peot
pie can never do it. One hundred years of experience proves it.
Before laying down the pen on this question I shall make one mor-
appeal to the wealth producers of this countrj'. I have said these unjuse
laws must be repealed and just laws enacted, and that this has got to
be done by a United people, and that no party now in existence nor in
embryo can do it, for the moment a party is born, the people are divided
on this question, that is vital to every man, woman and child. The
question then arises. How are the people to do this?
There are hundreds, yes thousands, of organizations of the wealth
producers in every part of the nation, from Maine to California, and
from the Great Takes to the Gulf of Mexico. There is scarcely a trade
or occupation of any kind but what has its Union. The farmers are
organizing by hundreds of different names. Then conies your Ueagues,
the Monetary Leagues, Municipal Ownership, Government Ownership
Leagues, and numbers of other leagues and organizations. Even the
merchants and manufacturers have their associations and combinations,
some being secret and others open
What are all these things for—what is the object? One word tells
the story—"Self-Preservation." The members of these organizations,,
as well as the organizations, are scattered all over the country.
"5
A further object of all these organizations, or the members of them,
is, that they are not getting what belongs to them through their labor
or effort, or are afraid they will lose what little they have got. The
farmers demand higher prices for their products and less taxes. If the
farmer gets his higher prices, then he runs up against the labor union,
for the wage earners are the consumers of the farm products. The
wage earners then want more pay and less hours. Unless he can get
more pay he cannot buy the farmer's higher priced products. The
general interests of the farmer and the wage earner, are identical, and
still the two are divided.
Now comes in another necessary factor between the producer and
•consumer and that is the merchant, he who buys of the farmer and sells
to the consumer, and this is one class of labor, or you might call him
both producer and consumer in a sense. Now this class of labor is as
much entitled to a compensation for its labor as are the other two.
The interests, then, of all three are identical, and they should be and
must be in one union.
As said before, these laws can be repealed only by political action,
but this does not necessitate a political part}'. These laws were placed
there by political action and can be repealed by political action. The
Constitution was framed by political action, not by a party. The very
reading of the "Preamble" proves this: "We the People," etc. Today
it is "We the members of the Republican party or the Democrat party. "
The people are conspicuously left out. There is now an organization
started for the purpose of uniting the people into one compact body, to
be governed by the Initiative, Referendum and Imperative Mandate,
each enrolled member having a voice and a vote in the choosing and
electing of men to legislate for the whole people.
Under the present method and system the people have no voice in
the laws by which they are governed. Every one knows that nomina¬
tions are made by the few. "Slates" are made long before the nomina¬
ting caucus or primary meeting is called, and if the people object they
are defeated by the "slate" makers. The people are then divided into
two great armies of voters and vote against each other. This is a sad
fact, that every one of the producers'organizations and unions, while
they stand shoulder to shoulder inside their organizations and unions,
the farmers for higher prices and lower taxes; the wage workers for
higher wages and less hours, the farmers holding their products (if they
can) and the wage workers refusing to work; they strike and go out.
In fact both are "a strike," and this they do unitedly. When election
■day comes around the farmers walk up to the ballot box and vote a
IIb
Straight Republican ticket, and the other a straight Democrat ticket,
and both are brothers in the same organizations. The wage workers
do the very same thing. Now let me ask you as members of 3'our
organizations, What is the difference between the two parties you have
voted for? Answer this question for yourselves. If there be no differ¬
ence between the two parties whj' do not the two unite in one? Tariff?
Well, let us reason it this way: The Democrat wants "free trade or
tariff for revenue only," saj's the Republican orator. "The Republican
wants to "tax 3-ou very high," says the Democrat. The farmer wants
lower taxes and he votes the Republican ticket. The wage worker
wants higher wages and he votes the Democrat ticket. Now let us see
if the Democrats get in and have free trade the Republicans shout, "It
will ruin the country." Did it ever occur to you that if free trade will
ruin the countr3', and throw labor out of employment, will it not injure
and ruin the Democrat voter as well as the Republican voter? If a high
tariff robs the Democrat voter, will it not rob the Republican who voted
for it?
I submit for the consideration of 3'ou organized producers, the fol¬
lowing: Can, or do, the leaders of the two dominant parties ever agree
and unite? Not on an3' unimportant matter, but when it comes to that
which affects every man, woman and child, and "robs" the producers
of from I o to 50 percent of their product, the leaders are united.
Proof? Go back in 3'our mind to 1896. Were not the leaders united
on a single gold standard? Are not the leaders on both sides in favor
of the national banking system? Did not the Fowler-Aldrich asset cur¬
rency bill become a law without any great oratorical fight in Congress?
Was not that law signed by a "Square Deal" President? Away back
in the 80's when the first 20 year charters of the national banks were
about to expire the Senate voted to renew the charters for another 2a
years, you turn back to the records of Congress and 3'ou will find the
names of twenty Democrat Senators voting "Yes," with twenty Repub¬
lican Senators to continue this robber system which no man can stand
up and defend before an ordinarily intelligent audience of American
citizens.
Lincoln said, away back in the 6o's, that "Corporations have been
enthroned and an era of corruption will follow in high places." Is this
not true? Is it not generally conceded that "corporations" run the
government? It is commonly said that "Corporations have no soul."
Corporations own the party leaders of both old parties, hence two soul¬
less parties, and as parties control the government we have a soul-less,
government.
117
To be ruled by the will of one man is Monarchy. To be ruled by
the will of a majority is Democracy. To be ruled by the will of a
minority is an Aristocracy. Take your choice—Monarchy, Democracy,
Aristocracy, which? The power lies in the hands of the people. This
nation has tried all three, and is not satisfied now, as is evidenced by
the discontent of all classes. It commenced with a Monarchy, "King-
George;" it then in 1776 changed to a Democracy, and today it is
laboring under the throes of an Aristocracy. You have changed from
a government of a majority to a government of a miuorit}'. The people
have been calmed down by the word "Plurality," which is only a sub¬
stitute for "minority." The greatest part of your law makers today
are elected by a minority. Plurality and minority are one and the
same. To verify those statements get out your dictionaries.
This change from a Democracy to an Aristocracy has not been
done by a voice or vote of the people. It has been done without the
knowledge of the people. Experience and observation teach that there
are millions of voters that honestly believe that "Plurality is a Major¬
ity." Submit to this without a protest and the next step will be a
Monarchy. It is inevitable. (Study Washington's Farewell Address.)
And the lever by which this has been brought about is the ownership
and control of that indispeusible factor of civilization. Money, b}' "Cor¬
porations" instead of by its creator, the government.
I challenge and defy any other solution of this problem. Your
Remedy is to make laws to change the ownership and control of all
money from corporations to the government. There is no chance for
evading this. There can be no compromise. The Power and the Right
are in the hands of the people.
Either one or the other horn of the dilemma must be taken; either
the people have the right and the power to make or stamp and own
this money, or this is not a republican form of government, and the flag
and the Constitution stand for deception. The question is. Will the
people take this right and power into their own hands and make and
own their own money as was intended by the Constitution? There is
no doubt as to whether they can or not. It is "up to" every voter to
decide individually whether they will or not. It amounts to just this:
each one must decide for himself, or herself, whether they are more
interested in themselves, their families, their country and future gener¬
ations, than they are in political parties, and a system that has
been in existence for over one hundred years, by and through which
the "rich are growing richer" (without producing any wealth,) while
the "poor are growing poorer" (although they produce all the wealth")
ii8
Is not this country fast drifting to the conditions that brought on
the downfall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages? Is there
not intelligence enough, patriotism enough, in 90 millions of people to
act? Is not the heritage, which cost seven years of war to establish, of
importance enough to perpetuate? As that old and greatest of patriots.
Patrick Henry, said, "I consider it nothing less than a question of
freedom or slavery." It is the same thing today; it means freedom or
slavery. Again he said, "I know of no way of judging the future but
by the past." Look around you today and note present conditions, and
review the past, and then judge what the future holds in store for the
American Republic and its millions of occupants. It may well cause
every patriotic citizen to shudder.
The advocates of the present system care naught for petitions.
There is but one thing they actually fear and that is the independent
votes of an enlightened intelligent people. But do the advocates of
tVn'g system propose to meet us with argument and debate? Not at all
for the system cannot be defended. If the advocates of the proposed
change are in error they are willing to be set right. Why are the col¬
umns of a great free(?) press closed against the arguments of govern¬
ment ownership of money? Simply because the corporations own the
money, and also the press. Is there anything wrong about the govern¬
ment owning and controlling the money, which it alone has the right
and power to bring into existence through law? If there be any wrong
let the press point it out.
The Remedy, then, is to repeal the National Bank Law, and in its
place authorize full legal tender paper dollars, made by the government
and put in circulation among the people by paying its daily expenses,
until such time as there is a sufficient amount to enable the people of the
country to do their business on a cash basis. Until this is done and
under this "system," the wealth producers will have to contribute to
the non-producers. As to the "free coinage law," it too must be
repealed, if for no other reason, because it is a special privilege to the
owners of gold and silver bullion. Free coinage of gold and silver
is a special privilege, and neither of them can be dove-taled into the
Constitution of the United States. If the government or people need
any gold or silver money, let the government buy the bullion, and pay
for it with legal tender paper, as it did in the law of 1890. Free coin¬
age never!
As to the right to demonetize gold and stop the free coinage of it,
it is explained in the report of the Monetary Commission of 1876, page
94: "The right to demonetize gold rests on the same foundation as the
iig
right to demonetize silver, and the right to demonetize both is as welf
assured as the right to demonetize either." Congress has not only
stopped the free coinage of silver, but demonetized it as well. Con¬
gress repealed one part of a special privilege law in 1873, that was
placed on the statute books of the United States on April 2, 1792. An¬
other Congress can repeal the remainder of that law, and stop the free
coinage of gold and demonetize it as a previous Congress did by silver.
There is but one straight road out of this quagmire of finance, and
that is the government ownership, control and issue of all United States
mone5^ It is for the people to choose. Corporation ownership and
control of all the money, or the government, which?
The money question is the question before the American People to
be settled, and settled right. It overshadows all other questions com¬
bined. It is a duty incumbent on every American voter to study and
understand it. Itjs'a very simple question.
ADDENDUM.
Since the foregoing pages were put in type the 6oth Congress has
amended (?) the national banking laws. For over forty years there has
been on the statute books of the United States "The best banking sys¬
tem the world could know." If it was the "best," how could there be
any better? There can be nothing better than the best. Did Congress,
amend this best system for better or worse? Let us analyze the two.
National bank bills, under "the best system the world ever knew,"
were made safe and secure to the holdeis of them for the reason they
were based on and secured by United States government bonds. Abso¬
lutely safe because the government obligated itself to redeem the bills,
(promises to pay) in legal tender, lawful money of the United States,
provided the bank failed. So you can see that the bills, in and of
themselves, were absolutely safe, just so long as the government
endured. It could not be otherwise for the taxing power of the gov¬
ernment on the entire wealth of the nation was the base for the bonds,
as also the power of the government alone to say what shall be a legal
tender, lawful money.
A description of this "better system" is in order from the North
American Review, (as quoted) a widely circulated magazine, (politi¬
cally Republican):
"The Republican party is about to go before the people with the
mongrel, hybrid, cheating, swindling thing labeled the Aldrich-Cannon
currency bill, as its claim to the ballots of American workers and busi¬
ness men, already long suffering and embittered victims of the gamblers
of New York."
Rather strong language to put in the "Record" of the G. O. P.
This editorial was written after the bill had passed the House and
before it had passed the Senate. This is in explanation of what follows
from this same editorial:
"It has been whipped through the House to the shame of the men
who have stifled their own convictions and crouched cowards under the
lash of the vulgar tyrant in the speaker's chair for fear of his threat to
deprive them of their slices from "the pork barrel"—their appropria¬
tions in the omnibus building bill. It will be whipped (this word
should have been called gagged) through the Senate in like fashion, in
122
all likelihood (and it was) thanks to the feebleness of the Democratic
minority, playing the donkey's role as usual in their inability to see the
chance to gain favor by a filibuster that would be patriotic statesman¬
ship. Worst of all, we believe that Roosevelt will make the bill a law
by signing it."
Mr. Roosevelt did sign it and remained in the Capitol until 12
o'clock midnight. May 30th, for the purpose, without any doubt, of
.signing it. The editor of the magazine says:
"He will do this sin (sign it) because of lack of understanding. In
-giasp of finai'.cial questions he is an infant. He trusted Cortelyou.
That was excusable. * * * And now again with the best of mo-
tives(?) 1-e will commit one of those blunders which Tallyrand rightly
called 'worse than a crime ' It was only eighteen months or so ago
that Aldrich on the floor of the Senate made this declaration regarding
municipal and railroad bonds. Tn these days they are fluctuating
widely, and ;io prudent banker could afford to buy bonds other than
the bonds of the United States.' But that was before he had new
orders from 26 Broadway (Standard Oil) and the National City Bank,
and before J. P. Morgan's office boy in Washington received the mes¬
sage that illegal bond issues would be needed for Wall Street's conven¬
ience in addition to ^250,000,000 deposits of the people's money. * *
But Wall Street had bonds in plenty—railroad and municipal bonds,
unsalable, imacceptablfe by savings banks, and so speculative and un¬
stable that man}- of tbem fluctuated from ten to twenty per cent within
the year. "
I have quoted this much from the said magazine to show the differ¬
ence between the securities behind the national bank bills under the old
law, and the securities of this new '"hybrid" law. A man holding the
national bank bills knew they were safe, but the same man holding this
■emergency currency bills does not know whether they are safe or not.
I quoted this much for another reason, that all honest, sincere voters,
who care to know, may know what they are voting for, when they vote
for either of the two great(?) parties. It must be evident to any person
with reason and common sense that there is no difference between the
bos.ses of the two. Another thing is very evident and that is that the
money question has not been settled yet. In saying ' 'the national bank
bills were safe" does not mean that they are right. The main differ¬
ence is in the securities.
As positive evidence that the money question has not been settled I
will refer you to sections 17 and 18 of this new law. Section 17 ap¬
points a "National Monetary Commission to be composed of nine mem-
123
bers of the Senate, * * * and nine members of the House of
Representatives." Section i8 tells the duty of this Commission, viz;
"Shall inquire into and report to Congress * * * what changes
are necessary or desirable in the monetary system of the United States
or in the laws relating to banking and currency. ' ' Again another evi •
dence looms up that the money question is not settled, viz: this mon¬
grel law is to run for only six years. Either the government m;ist stop-
or another change must be made. Would you call that a settlement of
the money question? The very men who enacted this law admit in
section 18 that it is not settled. Here is the admission in their own
language, viz: "To inquire into." To inquire is "To seek for informa¬
tion."—Dictionary; thus admitting their ignorance by substituting an
inquir}'. "To inquire into and report to Congress * * what changes
are necessary or desirable in the monetary system * * or in the
laws relating to banking and currency." It is a self-evident fact that
if the question is settled there is no necessity for a change, thus admit¬
ting their own ignorance. There is an old saying, "set a thief to catch
a thief." The men of "self-convicted" ignorance, in their own lan¬
guage, have themselves, or appoint themselves on this Commission to
"inquire into what changes are necessary." What kind of a system of
money can any one expect from such ignorance?
Now for a few words as to money, lawful money. What is money?
"Money isa creation of law." I now turn to page 59, chapter 11, of
the National Bank Act as amended in 1905, to verify the above asser¬
tion that "Money is a creation of law." "The term 'lawful money' is.
understood to apply to every form of money which is endowed by law
with the legal tender quality." By the above it is plain that money is-
a creation of law. It says "every form of money," meaning any mater¬
ial on which the money stamp is placed, and "endowed by law with
the legal tender quality." What is legal tender? It is the fiat of gov¬
ernment. "Fiat, used as a noun to denote a peremptory decree or
order; a decree."—Dictionary. All money then must be "Fiat money."
Eegal tender is the term used in place of "Fiat," meaning the same
thing. Money, then, is a creation of law. To be money it must be a
legal tender, a decree of the government, regardless of the material.
Proof: On the same page (59) it reads, "Gold coin, standard silver
dollars, subsidiary silver, minor coins. United States notes and Treas¬
ury notes of 1890 have the legal tender quality." Here we have differ¬
ent materials on which the money stamp is placed, viz: gold, silver,
copper, tin, zinc, nickle and paper, every one of them money regardless
of the price of the material simply because the law "endows" each of
124
them with the "legal tender quality.*' The legal tender quality ap¬
plied to a piece of paper, by the law, makes it equal to a piece of gold
or silver, of the same denomination, notwithstanding the assertion that
"money must have an intrinsic value in itself in order to be genuine
money." The above assertion is false, and those who assert it know it
is false, if they know anything about it.
By the foregoing evidence it is proven beyond dispute that money
is created by the law, and that the value of the material has no relation
to the money quality. The people have been led to believe that gold is
the only material of which money can be made and be real money be¬
cause it has an intrinsic value. Intrinsic value means that the value is
in the material itself. Intrinsic and natural value both mean the same,
that is, whatever value it possesses is derived from nature. If this be
true, how does man learn the value that nature gave it? If men give
gold its value, then that value is artificial. Artificial value the diction¬
ary says, "Is not natural; fictitious; feigned; not genuine." The gold
advocates may take either horn of the dilemma. If they assert that the
ii6 grains of gold in a $5.00 coin is a natural value, they must show
how this value was made known to them. If they assert that the $5.00
value in the 116 grains of gold is an artificial value, then the value is
fictitious, not a genuine value. One thing is sure, it is not money
unless it is legal tender, and legal tender is a "fiat, " a decree of the
government: "It shall be money." Until this fact is fixed in the
minds of the people the money question can never be settled.
There are other important questions up for settlement, questions of
vital importance, especially the labor question, but these questions can
never be settled equitably until the money question is settled scientifi¬
cally. Of all the questions, the money question is the greatest,
yes, greater than all the others combined, from the fact that civilization
would not exist without money. The government would not go on for
a day if money was eliminated. The money question and the labor
question are one and inseparable in a civilized government.
The labor question involves more than the "wage workers," that
is, more than those who labor by the day, week, month or year, for
others for a stipulated amount of money. All artificial wealth is pro¬
duced by labor in some form. Uabor in any form is entitled to the
product it produces. Under an equitable system labor would produce
and have for itself an equivalent of $6 per day for a six hour day on the
average. This can be demonstrated with accuracy, basing the argu¬
ment on the facts and figures of the present and past. Labor produces
it all. Labor is entitled to its product. Labor does not get that which
125
it produces. Somebody gets it. Does labor know what becomes of the
surplus product it produces, ever and above a bare subsistence? Evi¬
dently not. Labor is its own greatest enemy.
It is the laboring men's votes that has put labor in its present con¬
dition. It is the wealth producers votes that give the privilege into a
few men's hands to take from them this surplus wealth under the guise
•of law. The laborers, the wealth producers, whether in or out of labor
unions, are divided at the only place where they should be united, viz:
At the brdlot box. Those to whom you give the privilege of exploiting
your surplus wealth are united at the ballot box. Their interests are
identical and they unite, not under one name it is true, but they unite
to divide your votes into the Democratic and Republican parties, and
uo matter which wins, as it is the game of Heads, the exploiters win.
Tails, the wealth producers lose. And this is because the exploiters
■select the candidates for both sides and furnish both parties with funds
to carry on the sham battle, and the funds are a part, a small part, of
the surplus wealth taken from you through the privilege you gave them
by your ballots. Have the wealth producers any greater enemy than
this, apparently a willing enemy? Are not the interests of the wealth
producers identical? If so then why not follow the example of the
•exploiters, and unite and cast your ballots for the wealth producers,
instead of for the wealth absorbers?
This statement may be put down as a prophetic fact: Never will
labor get any relief, to say nothing of a complete remedy, until the
wealth-producing voters unite at the ballot box and vote for the repeal
of that law which gives a special privilege to a few men, to furnish the
American people with that -ndiich the people are compelled to have, and
which the government alone has the right and power to create, viz:
Mouey. Never, never, never!
Here is another fact that is worth while to think about. Three
quarters of the wealth produced by labor is taken from labor by interest
on money loaned into circulation through special privilege. Interest is
a debt that can never be paid with money. When paid it will be by a
transfer of wealth to the privileged money loaners. Already there is a
debt (real estate mortgage and others) of over sixty billion dollars,
while the entire wealth of the whole nation is only about one hundred
and ten billion dollars, and the wealth producers of the nation are pay¬
ing the interest on the vast debt from the products of their labor. Does
not this look as though the interests of the wealth producers are identi¬
cal? This condition has been brought about by an unconstitutional
system of money, and laws relating to banking and currency.
126
In any civilized nation there are three indispensable primal factors
viz; Land, Labor and Money. As everyone must know, land was here
before labor (man). Labor applied to land produces wealth. The
surplus wealth is called capital ard belongs to the producers. The
wealth producers are by rights the Capitalists, and would be under a
just system, a scientific monetary system. With only the two factors,
land and labor, everyone must produce in order to live. As no one can
produce all he needs, it becomes necessary to exchange produc sof labor.
There are but two ways by which this may be done. One is the ex¬
changing of one commodity for some other. This is called barter and
is cumbersome and inconvenient. The other way is by money. We
now come to the third primal factor. Money. What is money? It is
not a product of nature; neither is it a product of labor. A piece of
gold dug from the earth is a product of nature, but it is not money any
more than a piece of iron is money, for, as Benjamin Franklin said,
"Iron is of greater intrinsic value than gold or silver." Money, then,
is a product of the law, for it is the decree, the fiat of law, "it shall be,
money." What is the function of money? It must have been created
or made for some specific purpose. Again, money is not capital for it.
has been shown that capital is the surplus wealth produced by labor„
while money is a product of law. As to the function of .money, it was.
created to take the place of the cumbersome system of barter, for facili¬
tating the exchange of products, of commodities, of wealth. Its func¬
tion is to transfer the ownership of commodities produced by labor from
one person to another. It can truly be said to be a means of transpor¬
tation of ownership of products. As we change the location of products
from one place to another, so we change the ownership from one person
to another.
If it were true that "money must have an intrin.sic valne within
the material" in order to not "cheat the producer" of any prc chrct, and
that the "value"must go with the exchange, then that would be simply
barter.
Now here is another fact. No man or combination of men know
the value of 116 grains of gold in a coined five dollar gold piece. Any
man or combination of men, a government, may fix the price of ii6
grains of pure gold, but price is one thing and value is another.
In the report of the Monetary Commission of 1876 on page 36, in
speaking of the value and cost of money it says: "The v.ilue of money,
of whatever kind, is measured by the cost of obtaining it, after it has
been produced, and not by the cost of its production, and this value is
indicated by the general tange of prices." So, by this we see money
127
is not a "measure of value," but is itself "measured" by the general
range of prices. The only determinable value of money is a represen¬
tative value and represents the cost or price of the product of labor.
But the danger to the government and its institutions is not so much in
the material on which the stamp is placed, as to who owns it after the
stamp is placed on it. The great danger is in the system or method,
of getting it into circulation from the government. This system is the
loaning it into circulation for interest, by banking laws instead of
the government creating it and paying it into circulation for labor (ser¬
vice) and labor products. In this way, by this method, money will
represent the value of labor's products. By this method the producer
will have a true representative of his labor which he has given for it,
and he owns the repre.sentative, until such time as he chooses to part
with it in exchange for some other man's product.
In the government handing this privilege over to a banking insti¬
tution to furnish to the people, the government receives nothing in
return, hence it does not represent any value at all. The government
in paying it out gives up its ownership of it to the man that gave his
labor for it and the man owns it. The banker in loaning it into circu¬
lation, does not give up his ownership in it; he simply gives up the use
of it for a specified time, to be returned to its owner at the end of the
time agreed upon. The borrower not only agrees to return what he
receives, but agrees to return something for the use of it, and as he
cannot return the amount agreed upon in money, he is compelled to do
one of two things, either return a portion of the product of his labor or
go in debt for the amount to the money owner.
This system has been in existence in this government for 115
years, and the result is a debt of over 50 billion dollars. Debt and the
inability to pay are the direct cause of financial panics. In other words
financial panics are only the settling days of these debts by transferring
the wealth (surplus) to the money owner and loaner.
All of which is respectfully submitted to the wealth producers of
this country for their consideration, by Yours Truly J. C. V.