Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/nicaraguancanal03ryan u is! i - t-t 1 ■NICARAGUA CANAL Wmm fflssgk HAY- PAUHCEF0TE TREATY, SPEECHES OF Hon. WILLIAM H. RYAN, OF NEW YORK. v IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 15, 1300 and JUNE 6, 1900. 3 8 V C , / c/ Jj'CTtfS C,1 AiSC-endteJ, Washington, D. C. : 1900. /? c.i Nicaraguan Canal — Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. SPEECH O* " HON. WILLIAM H. RYAN, OF NEW YORK, in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, May 1, 1900. The House being in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill (II. It 253S) to provide for the construction of y. canal connecting the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans— Mr. RYAN of New York said: Mr. Chairman: When the debate opened on this bill I had about made up my mind to sit and listen — to be a student, as it were — while ihe members who- have traversed the various routes, literally back and forth, proposed for an isthmian canal, gave to the House the information they have and the knowledge they have acquired on this subject. I was willing to be taught, Mr. Chairman; but when that teaching would have me believe that this Government cannot build the canal on its own responsibility; when I am asked to be convinced* that we must first secure consent from a foreign power, then 1 am not willing to accept the teachings of my colleagues, and I want to say that I believe the American people will demand — if we are to have a canal at all — that it be built, owned, and controlled by the United States Government, without considering the whims and desires of Great Britain or any other country in its construc- tion. T feel that we are united on the proposition that the canal must be built. There are some who maintain that the present time is not opportune and that we should wait until we have all the facts from the latest commission. Assuming we do wait, what assurance has the House that we would not be asked to appoint another commis- sion to secure new facts, make new surveys, refurbish the report of its predecessor and so shape matters as to leave an avenue for the appointment of a successor? Every year’s delay puts us back a step in the progress of time. Every moment's delay is a loss to American commerce and to American shipping. All the eminent commissioners of the numerous commissions which have investi- gated the .subject, all the learned and experienced engineers who have surveyed the ground, unite in declaring that the project is per- fectly feasible. Naval experts say that it will increase our prepara- tions for defense one hundredfold. Every American citizen who sw r ears by the American eagle is convinced that the construction of the canal would be one of the greatest benefits that could come to a progressive country like ours, and every American citizen expects this canal for ourselves, except wherein we can grant its privileges without detriment to our own interests. What further need has Congress for direction in this matter? The details of construction are an after consideration, which, while holding our attention and consideration in the forma- tion of the plans, must largely be mapped out as time and circum- stances surrounding will dictate. We cannot design the exact course of the canal; we can lay its course in a general way. We can not say it must equally divide this or that section of the country. We can say it must be near that section. We can say, Mr. Chair- man, that we are going to build this canal, just as our forefathers said, “This country is and of right should be free.” We can say we are going to build this canal and control it, and fortify it, and de- fend it, and protect our commerce by it, and we do not care whether Great Britain or any other foreign country likes it or not. We are catering to no one but ourselves. A gentleman who preceded me on the floor quoted a portion of the language of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. He deprecated and condemned the language, and I like his sentiment. His quotation is as follows: I< is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States. In what crucible of God or man was Great Britain made the guardian of our action? By what right does that country say “we may" construct this canal? Better by far. one hundred times, that no canal be built if conditions have so changed that we must ask the consent of a foreign power before we can proceed. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of important considerations in this question. One is the Monroe doctrine; another is the source to which the benefits of this canal will accrue. As no other govern- ment is willing to spend a dollar in the construction of the canal, and as, therefore, the money to build it must come from the labor of this country, the benelits to be derived from the canal must like- wise be the reward of this labor. I do not wish to say which route I believe the more practical or the cheaper. While I have studied the question. I do not fedl that my knowledge is sufficient to say that we should vote to finish the 1 5 Panama Canal or to build the Nicaragua Canal. I do wish to go on record, however, to the effe»:*t that I believe we should not assume in the outset the liabilities, the obstructions, and the losses of a private enterprise. Either route, I feel, would be of marvelous benefit to the country; and, with reports from men of science, it is not necessary that I take up the time of the House hashing and rehashing their opinions and scientific researches, demonstrating the absolute necessity of this canal in order to put American ship- ping on the same or nearly equal footing with the boats of other countries. I do not wish to say that the commerce of this country and our products will all be carried in American bottoms, but it will give an impetuous character to our shipping that will make us a hardy and willing rival to any country on God's green earth. Nicaragua is peculiarly situated for. this improvement in ship- ping. Admitting that we were io allow foreign boats to use it on the same equal terms as our own, the American vessel would still have a great advantage in distance. The canal would save that great rail haul from the Pacific to the Atlantic seaboards. Califor- nia would be a strong competitor with Spain for the premiership of wine-producing centers of the world. Our internal commerce would be magnified and expanded to an extent that no other im- provement could give us. We would have an advantage in China and Japan that would almost repay us for the cost of building the canal, to say nothing of the increase of commerce with the other countries of the Far East. The water shipments of the Pacific side of South America, would come to us and ours would go to them. It would bind our commerce with those countries in an inseparable tie. Let me quote to you the figures presented by the Bureau of Sta- tistics of the Treasury Department relative to our trade with the countries of the lower Americas and the countries of the East. I desire to show that American bottoms carry but a scant portion of this trade. I contend that the canal would reverse this order of things and undoubtedly give us a majority. In the year TSDD we imported from Argentina §5,112,501. We exported to that country 89,503,510. We imported from Brazil 857,875.747, and exported to Brazil only 812,239,030. We imported from Chile §2,942,902, while we exported to Chile §2,107,124. We imported from Colombia §5,120,731, while we exported to Colombia only §3,042.094. We imported from Ecuador §1,054.053, and ex- ported only §S82,591. We imported from Peru §1,490,978, and ex- ported to Peru §1,325,050. We imported from Uruguay §1,281,109, and exported to Uruguay §1,242,822. We imported from Venezuela §0,507,847; we exported to Venezuela §2,851,634. We imported from South America altogether §80,587,893, / ! 6 We imported from Costa Rica $3,581,899, and exported to Costa Rica $1,240,950. We imported from Guatemala $2,111,264; we ex- ported to Guatemala $1,102,903. We imported from Honduras $911,849; we exported to Honduras $832,016. We imported from Nicaragua $1,514,630; w T e exported to Nicaragua $1,186,511. We imported from Salvador $1,OS5,703; we exported to Salvador $625,414. In Asia it was no different. We imported from Aden $1,924,941, and exported to Aden $993,741. We imported from China $18,619,- 268, and exported to China $14,493,440. We imported from the Brit- ish East Indies $32,560,312, and exported to the British East Indies $4,341,936. We imported from the Dutch East Indies $21,313,945; we exported to the Dutch East Indies $1,54S,973. We imported from Japan $26,716,814, and exported to Japan $17, 264, OSS. We im- ported from the total of Asia $107,091,214, and only exported to Asia $48,360,161. With the building of this canal the dangerous trips around the Horn will cease. It will mean the obliterating of 10,000 miles of ocean transportation, and each man may figure for himself the sav- ing in the cost of transportation. As to the amendment proposed that we insert the words '‘for- tify and defend,” I wish to say that I am heartily in accord with this amendment. The gentleman from Iowa states that there is embod- ied in the word “protect” all authority for defense. I know that the American people will always defend and protect their own, but I see no reason why the House should not so state in this bill and thus cut off any opportunity for international disputes. I am opposed to giving to Great Britain the slightest ground on which to cry “international agreement.” or “international courtesy.” I particularize Great Britain in this instance, because that country has for years been trying to force herself into a partnership in the rewards of this canal, yet, has she ever made a move to indicate that she was willing to bear the brunt of the expense of its construction? Has Great Britain ever offered to contribute one cent toward its construction? I think not. Why, then, should we consider her in- terest in this project? Mr. Chairman, we must be equal gainers by this canal in times of war as in times of peace. Our naval experts tell us that we need have no fear of invasion in case we have the canal. All mem- bers of the House are indeed familiar with the trip of that gallant battle ship, the Oregon. We are likewise ready in memory regard- ing the anxiety that overspread the country when it was known that Admiral Cervera's fleet was headed from Spain toward our coast. Dewey was at Manila; Schley and Sampson were off the southern reefs dodging about. The Oregon was on her long trip around the 7 Ilorn. No one knew where Cervera was. We did not know where he was headed. The good people of Boston town sought the storm cellars o’ nights fearing that dynamite bombs was to be their greet- ing in the morning. , Reports came from our Pacific coasts declaring that the Span- ish fleet had been seen off the entrance to the Golden Gate. Anoth- er report would startle another section of the country, and well it might. The Pacific coast was bare. Our fleets were in Southern wa- ters. Neither Sampson nor Schley nor Watson could have reached there in less than a month's time. The people had cause to be startled. Would they liave shown this anxiety had the canal been constructed? Mr. Chairman, we could have pmt a fleet on the Pa- cific coast in a few days and could have brought it back in an equal length of time. With a fortified canal we would be able to defend our coast against the combined forces of the other continent. But we are told, Mr. Chairman, that we must not fortify the canal. We are confronted with the statement that the Clayton- Bulwer treaty is still in force. This treaty is condemned by the peo- ple from the Lake of the Woods to the Tropics, from Maine to Cal- ifornia. and from the Klondike to the colony of Porto Rico. There has been a shrewd though somewhat transparent effort on the part of the friends of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which has been pre- pared to supersede this defunct and entombed arrangement of Clay- ton and Bulwer, to have it appear that the opponents of the treaty are also the opponents of the canal. We must repudiate the new treaty just as the country has re- pudiated the old; and I trust that the members in the upper branch of Congress will spurn that agreement entered into by our Secretary of State and Great Britain’s diplomatic representative. We are not to build an international canal, and we want no international alli- ances. I admit that men will claim and have claimed and are claim- ing that we should construct an international canal; but I want to ask them, as they have undoubtedly asked themselves, by what authority and under what clause of the Constitution do they intend to draw from ihe United States Treasury the money to construct an international canal? Would they have this Government bear the full burden of expense for the construction of a waterway for the benefit equal with ours, of all foreign powers? Would they have us build a canal neutral in war and in peace by a specific agreement which we could not break, even were we so inclined, without arraying all Europe against us? No, Mr. Chairman, that treaty should be defeated, absolutely and without reservation. Mr. Chairman, let us refer to the eighth section of Article I of the Constitution, which says: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It is contended on the floor of this House and elsewhere — and contended with absolute common sense and good judgment. I be- lieve — that in t lie event of war, the canal, bound hand and foot by the Hay-Pa uncefote treaty, would be our undoing. To build it under this agreement would not be providing for our defense, but would be our weakness. It would not be expending the people's money for our general welfare, but rather in the interest of for- eign powers. England, Germany, Russia, France, all would be en- titled to the same privileges of the canal as we would enjoy, and it would give to them a vast advantage. Great Britain could use it to strike in the East and to attack our Pacific coast. She would save the distance around the Horn, just as we would. . That country has now a powerful military station on the island of Santa Lucia, off the entrance to the canal. She has other strategic points from which to operate against us. Our plain duty, Mr. Chairman, in view of these facts, is to cut off all idea of an interna- tional canal. Why this secret parleying and snobbery with Great Britain anyway? Can not we be fair to that country without put- ting on the bells and bowing before the throne? Will American citizenship allow any foreign power to tell us that we may build this canal, providing we grant it or them the privileges of the same in time of war? I charge the Administration with nothing but blun- ders in this regard. Mr. Chairman, the United States has suffered enough through treaty enactions. Darkest among these is the infamous Clayton- Bulwer agreement, which produced nothing but discord and inhar- monious relations, and was a source of annoyance until Great Brit- ain by her perfidy abrogated its bindings. Each nation put a differ- ent construction on that agreement. England would have it bind this country and herself go unleashed. International law is at its best but a flimsy guidance, and I appeal to the members of the House to weigh well these facts in acting upon this measure. We can not reiterate too strongly nor too often our determination to construct this a canal for the people of the United States, for their benefit, for their protection, and for their advancement, both com- mercially and from the standpoint of war. I ask the attention of the House while I quote here a few ex- tracts from letters of James G. Blaine and other able statesmen of his time. First I will read the preamble and first article of the treaty, which run as follows: Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, being desirous of consolidating the relations of amity which so happily subsist between them, by setting forth and fixing in a convention their views and intentions with reference to any means of communication by ship canal, which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by the vliy of the river St. Juau de Nicaragua, and either or both of the lakes of Nicaragua or Ma- nagua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean. * * * 9 'Art. I. The Governments of Great Britain and the United States here- by, declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for Itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal: agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua. Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America: nor will either make use of any protection which either affords, or may afford, or any alliance which either has. or may have, to or with any state or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same. Nor will Great Britain or the United States take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or in- fluence that either may possess with any state or government through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the subjects or citizens of the one, any rights or advantages in reaard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered, on the same terms, to the subjects or citi- zens of tbe other. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to show how ill advised and how much regretted was the signing of that treaty. The words of General Cass, then Secretary of State, stand out emblazoned be- fore us as a guide that the country may not fall into the same trap. General Cass.says, in a letter to Her Majesty's representative: The Clayton-Bulwer treaty, concluded in the hope that it would put an end to the differences which had arisen between the United States and Great Britain concerning Central American affairs, had been rendered inoperative in some of its most essential provisions by the different constructions which had been reciprocally given to It by the parties. And little is hazarded in paying that, had the interpretation since put upon the treaty by the British Government, and yet maintained, been anticipated, it would not have been negotiated uuder the instructions of any Executive of the United States, nor ratified by the branch of the Government intrusted with the power of ratifi- cation. In a letter James G. Blaine quotes President Buchanan as fol- lows: 1 If the Senate had imagined that it could obtain the interpretation placed upon it by Great Britain, it would not have passed. If he had been in the Senate at tbe time, that treaty never would have been sanctioned. With reference to arbitration (which Lord Napier had only thrown in as a suggestion of his own), he could not give any opinion at present. The President also inveighed against the excess of treaties, affirming that they were more frequently the cause of quarrel than of harmony, and that if it were not for the iDteroceauic communications he did not see there was any necessity for a treaty respecting Central America at all. In communication with Lord Napier, General Cass, on October 20, 1857. inserted this clause in a letter: I have thus endeavored to meet the frank suggestions of your lordship by restating with corresponding frankness the general policy of the United States with respect to the Governments and the interoceanic transits of Cen- tral America. But since your lordship lias referred to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1S50 as contemplating a harmonious course of action and counsel between the contracting parties in the settlement of Central American in- terests. you will pardon me for reminding your lordship that the differences which this treaty was intended to adjust between the United States and Great Britain still remain unsettled, while the treaty itself has become the subject of new and embarrassing complications, 10 In view of these facts, Mr. Chairman, I domot believe that the division of Congress which lias the power and duty of ratification, will vote to bring into existence, in connection with the construction of the canal, another treaty which will not alone confirm the '•gold- brick” provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer arrangement, but will bring to us a multiplicity of evils in addition. Because this is so, Mr. Chairman, is no argument that we should not construct the canal. It simply demonstrates that we must avoid the rapids of entangling alliances and reassert our inde- pendence and our ability to push this work on our own responsibil- ity, cony what will. Look at the chart I here present and view another reason why we should build the canal for the United States alone. Compare the distance between New York and Liverpool by the present route and the distance when the canal is completed: llul Nicara- gua.. Distance Saved. Advan- tage to New York. Mi: ■ Miles 6.700 .<000 0 100 Miles. 0 000 Mila Now York to San Francisco 1 1.600 9.200 4 1 K >» 3,100 New fork to Hawaii 1 1.200 (>]20O 8.0 0 r > 400 2,900 IT.OliO 0 100 8>00 3.000 12.700 10.000 7 400 GOO New York to Melltourno J'l.nOO o.HH) 2.2' HJ 2.700 yjou 4 000 5.100 2 . S 00 4 709 2,021 | We can be dignified, yet reasonable and even magnanimous, af- ter the canal is constructed, and permit foreign countries to enter and use it under toll for commercial purposes. We can do this, Mr. Chairman, but we can not, should not, and, if the sentiment of the natiou is truly represented, will not allow a foreign power to say that we may construct it providing we "do not assume to ourselves any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the subjects of Great Britain.” The question is not what Great Britain will permit us to do in this regard, but what we shall per- mit her to do. We are the dictators. Just a word more, Mr. Chairman, and then I am done. That the people of my district at least may know of Administration blun- ders, I quote a portion of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty: The high contracting parties, desiriDg to preserve and maintain the "gen- eral principle"’ of neutralization established in Article X' 1 1 1 of the Clayton- Bubver Convention, adopt as the basis of such neutralization, the following rules, substantially as embodied in the convention between Great Britain and certain other powers, signed at Constantinople, October 29, 1SSS, for the free navigation of the Suez Maritime CanaJ, that is to say; ii 1. Tbe canal shall be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations, on terms of entire equal- ity, so that there shall be no discrimination against any nation or its citizens or subjects in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. 2. The c-anal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be ex- ercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. 3. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary; and the transit of suclr vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay, in accordance witii the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same rules as vessels of war of the belligerents. 4. No belligerents shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war or warlike materials in the canal except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and In such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dis- patch. 5. The provisions of (his article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal, within three marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such wafers longer than twenty-four hours at any oue time, except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as pos- sible: but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall net depart within twenty- four hours from the departure of a. vessel of war of the other belligerent. 0. 'The plant, establishments, buildings, and all works necessary to (lie construction, maintenance, and operation of die canal shall be deemed to be part thereof, for the purposes of this convention, and In time of war as in time of peace shall enjoy complete immimi-y from attack or injury by bel- ligerents and from acts calculated to Impair their usefulness as part of the canal. 7. No fortifications shall be erected commanding the canal or the wa- ters adjacent. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder. Mr. Chairman, there is magnanimity personified. A revival of the Clayton-Buhver treaty, and for what? I charge no secret alli- ance. but there is circumstantial evidence of a toadyism to Great Britain on the part of the present Administration totally out of ac- cord with our independent democratic institutions. Every nation has a mission. Our mission. Mr. Chairman, has ever been to defend and protect the oppressed. Our mission is and ever has been the mission of independence, and i believe we can never ally ourselves with a nation or a people whose chief aim is oppression. For this evidence of alliance with that unmotherly mqsCier country, look to the South African republics now struggling for their very existence. The people of this country are not unmindful of the failure of their official representatives to declare for them that sympathy which it is our boasted mission to feel, and when necessary to demonstrate to the world. The full truth of the matter is that the country is to-day ask- ing itself for some clean-cut explanation of the Administration's apparent alliance with Great Britain in this war of devastation and spoliation upon the South African republics. It is well to bear in mind that this country's is an impulsive, brave and daring people. They burn incense to valor, humanity, 12 and justice, but they condemn in unequivocal language, unfairness, bad faith, and cruelty. They see in the Hay-Pauneefote treaty a chasm filled with shameful possibilities. They are watching the conduct of their official representatives in what they begin to sus- pect of being a dangerous and abominable tendency. Let us have the canal, Mr. Chairman, by all means, but burn the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and consign its ashes to a foreign port. Trusts. ' SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM H. RYAN, OF NEW YORK, In the House of Representative, Thursday, May 31, 1900. The House having under consideration the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 138 ) proposing an amendment lo the Constitution of the United Slates — ■ Mr. RYAN of New York said: -• Mr. Speaker: To my mind there is no matter of greater im- portance to the welfare of our country than the question of trusts, brcTught to our immediate consideration by this joint resolution. I wish to have it known as far as my remarks may travel that the time spent in consideration of this measure is so many wasted mo- ments and that there is no intention of passing it into law. I be- lieve its foundation has been laid in insincerity. Had the Republi- can members of this House a determined purpose to put a stop to the crushing influence of the trusts they would not have waited un- til the session was drawing to a close. While at times, and at this particular time, we may question the sincerity of the Republican members of this House, we can not question their ability. If you were earnest in this matter and had a desire to regulate the trusts you could have reported a bill early in the session and put it through just as you put the financial bill through. You had no intention of passing the Nicaraguan Canal bill’ through both Houses of Con- gress. You had no intention of passing the bill repealing the stamp tax. and you have less practical purpose in introducing and report- ing an anti-trust bill at this time. The Ways and Means Committee gave extended hearings to the great interests of the country, who desire and are justly enti- tled to a repeal of the infamous war-revenue tax. What were they held for? Did the committee have any intention of presenting to this House -a measure reducing or repealing this tax? I say no; not a bit of it. Personally I shall vote against the joint resolution and for the anti trust bill, and yet I know that it will not become a law. Why? - 4 14 Because it would cut the trusts away from governmental privileges as a reaper cleans the held. It would destroy their power to com trol the manufactured products of this country. It would destroy their power to control the raw material. It would destroy their power to make political slaves of the men, who are forced through the very existence of these trusts to depend upon them for the es- sentials of life. Without the Republican party the trusts would fall, and with- out the trusts the Republican party would have fallen long ago. The growth of these trusts has never-in the history of this coun- try been so rapid as it has in the last three years under a Republi- can Administration. They have sprung up like mushrooms in the corner of the pasture and we begin to wonder if they will ever stop. Unluckily for the man unendowed with a heritage of wealth, and I say it with sincere regret, the trusts have been given the power to limit the reward. of a faithful and persistent exercise of brawn and brain until they have “pressed down upon the brow of labor’’ that blistering crown of despair. Curb the trusts. Curtail their influ- ence and power for evil. You ask me how? I say pass your bill with amendments offered by the minority, including that amend- ment which reads: Nothin"- in this act shall be so construed as to apply to trade unions or other labor organizations, organized for (he purpose of regulating wages, hours of labor, or other conditions under which labor is to be performed. Pass it in both Houses of Congress. Lay it upon the President's desk, and if the Administration is desirous of ending this aggran- dizement of wealth and power, the President will sign it. Will you do it? Ko, my Republican friends, you will not. The country knows that you will not do it. 1 know it and you know it. It is useless to say more. Mr. Speaker, I will ask the indulgence of the House while I quote here the remarks of James R. Keene, a Wall street million- aire. He says: The people of this country must arouse themselves. The coming election is of more importance, from the standpoint of a pure and true Americanism, than any dial has transpired since die second election of Lincoln. Money is in the saddle: if is riding down die institutions of (his country with a confi- dent insolence that tells of its firm belief in its own invincibility. It is run- ning the Government to-day in its every branch and arm. If money's power in molding public affairs goes forward for four years more as it has for four years past, the name of Anieric-an liberty will only be worth a recollection as a matter of history. Money is pressing the people backward step by step. What is to be the end? If it goes on. ‘there are. as matters (rend, but two solutions. One is socialism, and (he second is revo- lution. The American people must defend themselves from money just as they once guarded dicir forest frontiers from the savage. Unless they come solidly shoulder to shoulder lor their rights, aud come at once, Bunker Hill .will have been a blunder, Yorktown a mistake. (Applause.) JL 15 I believe that Mr. Keene has not misrepresented the actual sit- uation, and that something must be done, and that speedily, to shat- ter the control of monopoly; to lighten the burden, to soften the yoke, and restore the confidence of people in the equality and integ- rity of legislation, or disastrous consequences may be foreseen. While on this question of deception of the people, a word for the stamp tax. The Republican party has no more intention of reg- ulating or curtailing the power of the trusts than they have of re- deeming the pledges they made to the people of the country when war with Spain was declared. They gave their promise to the coun- try that when that war had ceased this stamp tax would be repeal- ed". The people took them at their word. The druggists, the insur- ance interests, the large and small manufacturer and retailer all _ willingly contributed their share. With a patriotic zeal the brew- ers of the United States came to the front with an additional war tax of $35,000,000. Have they no rights that should be considered now? Delegation after delegation from each of these interests have appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means but to appeal against a predetermination. The injustice of the allotment of this tax was explained to the committee, and I here quote what Mr, Charles H. Clark of Pennsylvania, who visited the committee with his fellow-druggists, said: v - ° It means, simply stated, if I may be permitted to use the expression in Its naked deformity, you come up among the everlasting hills of where we have our factory in Pennsylvania and take $7,000 out of my pocket, which I want, and which you have no use for whatever, and you send it up to the Treasury Department and then the Treasury Department sends it over to a bank in New York and that bank loans it out at interest and puts the money in the pockets of its stockholders. (Applause by bystanders.) The whole point I want to make for myself is tltis: When there is a war we are willing to do just as much for our country as anybody else, and we have always done it. We furnished about 600.000 pieces of material for use of the soldiers in Cuba, and we have evidence which we can produce to you showing that those articles preserved the lives of our soldiers; aud on a great many of the articles we sold at about half price to the Government, on ac- count of the competition, we were compelled to place revenue stamps, and we did not cafe anything about it; It was something that we did with pleasure. But when the rime of peace comes and there is no exigency of war. and there is no other exigency, when you do not want that money. I say that, while you have the legal and constituted right to do it, you have no moral right — allow me to say with all courtesy— you have no moral right to take that money out of my pocket. Mr. Clark, in response to a question, said; If there is an oppressive or unjust taxation on anybody, It ought to be taken off. That is a good general statement to make. I have had the honor of speaking on the platform in political campaigns with one of the members of this committee, aud I will say that if I were to go out on the stump next fall, and on the Democratic side (and I do not believe I ever would do that), I would not ask anything better than to lie able to prove that a Republican Congress is permitting ?S0. 000.000 or $90,000,000 to be taken away from the people to be sent over to be distributed through New Y'ork banks. 16 I personally attended the hearing given to the brewery interest of the country before the Ways and Means Committee. I do not differ with the man who believes there is merit in the manufacture of liquor, nor do I differ with the man who does not, but when a tax of $1 per barrel additional is placed upon this product strictly for war-revenue purposes, and that war has ended and the tax is not then taken off, J differ materially with the men or party who insist upon the retention of t he tax. The emergency is over, but the emergency tax is still in force. The surplus in the Treasury is in- creasing, and we ask what is to become of this money. Is it to go back to the people, or is it to go to those favored New York banks? I think to the latter. The brewers paid, according to the reports of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the fiscal years ISOS and 1S09, $108,159,979. One-lialf of this amount was the extra war tax. The total increase in internal revenue taxes for these two years was $126,748,587. The brewers alone paid over 40 per cent of these increased taxes. They can not continue to bear these burdens and continue their business. This tax could be taken off and there would still be more revenue than is needed to pay the expenses of the Government. An act of justice can be done in removing this tax and at the same time re- duce the surplus of which the people complain. O 1 igggjH ■ir; i: rii BJSgfflg:- :: .