for services rendered the public by such corporations.
6. Abolition of industrial trusts, those that exist because of tariff
protection and those that exist because of freight discriminations
whether by rebates, special rates or otherwise.
7. Taxation that will tax every man according to his accumulated
wealth—tax property, not man; collect state and municipal taxes by direct
tax on the accumulated wealth of society assessed at actual cash value;
collect national taxes by a direct tax on the earnings of accumulated
wealth, whether large or small. Have only direct taxes, for indirect
taxes cover injustice and extravagance.
8. Foreign policy that will keep our country out of all entangling
alliances with European and Asiatic countries, and strengthen our
economic relations with all American countries that have different soil,
climate and products from those of the United States.
These are the demands of the People’s Party, the cardinal principles
for which that party contends. They are all simple, easily understood,
and must have approval of a great majority of the American people when
brought to them for consideration by a party of the rank and file,
controlled by the people themselves, not dictated to by the money
oligarchy; by a party that stands for the interests of the many, not
of the few. I close, as I began, by saying we need organization and
education.
_The Panic of 1893_
BY W. S. MORGAN
Hon. THOMAS E. WATSON,
_Thomson, Ga._
MY DEAR SIR—I have your letter containing communications from James R.
Branch, Secretary of the American Bankers’ Association, New York City,
and Jno. D. Reynolds, President of First National Bank, of Rome, Ga., in
which they deny the authenticity of the Panic Bulletin published in my
contribution to the March issue of your magazine.
I remember when the Bulletin was first made public I asked a friend, a
president of the Citizens’ National Bank, of Fort Scott, Kan., a man with
whom I was intimately connected in business for ten or twelve years, if
such a circular had been issued. He replied that he had received a number
of circulars covering the propositions therein contained, and that likely
he had received that one. This incident, and the fact that the Bulletin
had been published from time to time for years and I had not seen its
authenticity questioned, and furthermore that its suggestions were in
line with the events of that date, led me to believe that it was genuine.
However, the authenticity of the circular was not the subject matter of
the article which provoked these denials. My indictment of the National
Bankers was not merely for issuing the Bulletin, but for doing the things
it suggested. Messrs. Branch and Reynolds have ignored the indictment
and attacked the witness. But there are other witnesses that can’t be
demolished.
After Mr. Cleveland had sent Henry Villard and Don M. Dickinson to
Washington, in the winter of 1893, and failed to secure from the
Fifty-second Congress the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman
law, the National Bankers began to show their hand.
It was seen that no ordinary pressure on Congress would secure the
demonetization of silver. It was claimed that the Panic Bulletin was
issued March 8, just four days after Cleveland’s second inauguration.
What was the program laid down in the Panic Bulletin?
1. The interests of the National Banks require immediate
financial legislation.
2. Silver, silver certificates and Treasury notes must be
retired and National Bank-notes, upon a gold basis, be made
the only kind of paper money.
3. Bonds required to be issued as a basis for the bank-note
circulation.
4. Pressure must be brought upon the people, especially in
sections of the country where the free silver sentiment was
strong. Circulation to be reduced, loans called in, credit
refused and general distrust spread broadcast through the
land.
5. Demand for an extra session of Congress to repeal the
purchasing clause of the Sherman law.
This was the program laid down by the Bulletin. Did it agree with the
action of the National Bankers? We shall see.
On the 11th of April, 1893, Grover Cleveland appointed Conrad C. Jordan
to be Assistant Treasurer of the United States.
In this capacity Jordan had control of the Sub-Treasury at New York.
The Sub-Treasury is the great business establishment of the Federal
Government. It is one of the associated banks of New York City.
Jordan was a banker, the President of the Western National, of New York
City, and was recommended for the position by the New York National Bank
Presidents. He was the go-between—the link which connected the National
Bankers with Cleveland and the Federal Government.
His nomination was confirmed on the 15th day of April, and on the 20th he
was in Washington with his bond and conferring with Cleveland.
From that hour things moved with wonderful rapidity.
Jordan left Washington on the 21st, arrived in New York at 5.30 in the
afternoon, went directly to the Chase National Bank, No. 15 Nassau
Street, where he met Henry W. Cannon, President of the Chase National
Bank, and J. Edward Simmons, President of the Fourth National, two of the
most active and influential of those who controlled the associated banks
and who constitute the “New York National Bank Ring.”
It must have been an important meeting, for that night Cannon left New
York for Washington on a midnight train, arriving in Washington Saturday
morning, April 22, and while there had interviews with Grover Cleveland.
On the morning of April 22 Jordan was sworn into office, and his first
act, official or semi-official, was to arrange for a meeting with certain
National Bank Presidents in the afternoon.
I can give you the names of most of the National Bank Presidents who
met Jordan that afternoon. The meeting was said to be informal, and its
proceedings were carefully guarded. But it was of such importance that
Jordan went to Washington on a late evening train to make a report of its
proceedings.
It was generally believed at the time, and there is little doubt of its
truth, that Jordan was simply given the office to mask his character as
confidential agent between Grover Cleveland and the New York National
Bank Presidents.
After a conference with Cleveland on Sunday morning, April 23, Jordan and
Cannon returned to New York, arriving there late in the evening. Before
leaving Washington Jordan wired certain National Bank Presidents to meet
him at a private house uptown.
What happened at that meeting we can only surmise. I mention it to show
the connection between the National Bank Presidents and Grover Cleveland.
The next morning, April 24, Jordan was at his desk. One of the first
things he did was to notify the National Bank Presidents and officers
of trusts and other companies to meet him that day at the Sub-Treasury.
This also was a dark-lantern meeting, and no one would give out the
proceedings. But what followed shortly afterward, and the action taken
by those who attended that meeting, justifies the belief that that
convention was called for the purpose of arranging a concerted attack
upon the national industries, agriculture, commerce, property and social
order of the American people—the assault to be directed by the New York
National Bank Presidents—as the swiftest and surest means of forcing
Congress to repeal the silver law—to give the country Cleveland’s
“Object-Lesson.”
Nine National Bank Presidents met John G. Carlisle at the Williams House
on April 27, presumably to complete the arrangements for the attack. No
doubt Cleveland had approved the conclusions reached on the 24th, and
sent Carlisle to sanction them.
Carlisle’s meeting with the Bank Presidents that day was, as you know,
a subject of much newspaper comment. The meeting was said to have been
one of “effusive cordiality,” and, in view of the events which quickly
followed, there is little doubt but what it partook of the nature of “two
hearts that beat as one.”
It was there that the National Bankers proposed an issue of bonds. But
Carlisle, like a young girl, although keen to marry, intimated that it
was “too sudden.”
This was the last of the series of meetings between the Government
officials and the National Bank Presidents preceding the panic.
Everything was now ready to give the country the “Object-Lesson.”
Within the next forty-eight hours the worst financial calamity that ever
befell the people was to break upon them.
At this time there was nothing in the industrial situation to precipitate
a panic. Prices had been low for several years, and there was none of the
spirit of speculation which usually precedes a panic.
Cleveland himself volunteered to say: “Our unfortunate financial plight
is not the result of untoward events, nor of conditions relating to our
natural resources, nor is it traceable to any of the afflictions which
frequently check national growth and prosperity. With plenteous crops,
with abundant promise of remunerative production and manufacture, with
unusual invitation to safe investment and with satisfactory assurance to
business enterprise, suddenly financial distrust and fear have sprung up
on every side.”
Thus the people and all those engaged in industrial and productive
enterprises are exonerated.
Who are the guilty persons?
The men who did just what that Panic Bulletin describes.
The bankers who demanded the practical demonetization of silver; who
demanded a special session of Congress to secure it; who called in their
loans and reduced their circulation; who demanded and secured the issue
of bonds, and who now demand the retirement of the greenbacks.
Messrs. Branch and Reynolds and other National Bank advocates may be able
to repudiate the Panic Bulletin, but they cannot successfully deny that
every feature of the program it contained was carried out in detail by
the men who practically control the National Bank system.
Four days after the Williams House meeting at which Secretary Carlisle
was present, the New York banks began to call in their loans with brutal
vindictiveness.
We are not left to conjecture the effect of such a policy on the New York
Exchange. By the 5th of May the strain had become intense. The New York
_Tribune_ of May 6, referring to the condition of the market, said: “The
enormous losses of the last week, the utter demoralization of the buying
power in the market and the practical paralysis of credit, promised a
liquidation that, unless stayed, would have swept them all off their
feet.”
On May 7 the same paper said: “The effort of the Administration to bring
the South and West to a full realization of the inevitable consequences
of compulsory purchases of silver bullion has brought distress and
perhaps ruin to many innocent persons—but there is no reason to suppose
that it will be relaxed.”
Within ten days from the time of the Williams House meeting between
Cleveland’s Secretary of the Treasury and the National Bank Presidents
the panic had spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and for forty days
it continued with unabated fury. On the 9th of May several Western banks
were forced to close their doors.
“There is no lack of pressure,” said the New York _Tribune_ on the 22d of
May.
On the 6th of June—six weeks after the Williams House meeting—the New
York _Sun_, in its money article, said: “The Presidents of the New York
National Banks think that the so-called “Object-Lesson” has been carried
far enough. They see nothing to be gained by a further shrinkage of
values and unsettling of credits.”
It is useless for me to detail the results of the panic.
From May 9 to 30, inclusive, sixty banks were forced to suspend, and
fifty-eight of them were in the doomed section—the South, West and
Northwest.
From the time of the Williams House meeting, April 27, to December 30,
1893, a period of eight months, more than fifteen thousand bankruptcies
and suspensions had occurred. Over six hundred banks had been driven to
the wall, and the loss to the country in round numbers was SEVEN HUNDRED
AND FIFTY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
But the National Bank Presidents had won their fight. They had carried
out the program laid down in the Panic Bulletin, an extra session of
Congress had been called and the purchasing clause repealed.
That the “Object-Lesson” was intended for the West and South is evidenced
by the records. Out of 169 banks failing from March 5 to August 4, five
only were in Eastern States, forty-eight in Southern and 151 in Western
states—Dunn’s Report.
Dunn’s Report for July 21, 1893, says: “A large proportion of the
suspended Colorado banks and mercantile institutions will pay in full and
resume business, inability to borrow money on or sell ample collateral
alone being the cause of the Denver banks closing their doors.”
No doubt the panic reached proportions not at first intended by the
National Bank Presidents and threatened their own financial standing,
as Mr. Branch suggests is the case in time of panics. But they had a
remedy, no doubt decided upon beforehand. While they refused credit to
the Southern and Western banks, they issued Clearing House certificates
to the extent of $63,152,000 to themselves, an act which was in violation
of the law.
There is so much evidence obtainable to the effect that the National
Bankers are guilty of every count in the indictment contained in the
Panic Bulletin that a book could be filled with it.
In a speech in the United States Senate August 25, 1893, Senator David
B. Hill, referring to the bankers, said: “They inaugurated the policy of
refusing loans to the people even upon the best security, and attempted
in every way to spread disaster broadcast throughout the land. These
disturbers—the promoters of public peril—represented largely the creditor
class, the men who desire to appreciate the gold dollar in order to
subserve their own selfish interests, men who revel in hard times, men
who drive harsh bargains with their fellow-men regardless of financial
distress. It is not strange that the present panic has been induced,
intensified and protracted by reason of these malign influences. Having
contributed much to bring about the present exigency, these men are now
unable to control it. They have sown the wind, and we are now all reaping
the whirlwind together” (_Congressional Record_, Vol. XXV, Part I, p.
865).
August 8, 1893, Senator Teller said, in a speech in the United States
Senate:
“It is the height of folly that this is a panic caused by distrust of
the currency.” On the 29th of the same month the Senator from Colorado,
referring to the Williams House meeting of Secretary Carlisle with
the New York National Bank Presidents, said: “It is a most remarkable
interview; it will go far to support the charges which I am not going to
make on my own authority, but which I am going to make upon the authority
of others, that this panic is a bankers’ panic, brought by the action
of the New York banks, and brought about for distinct purposes, which
purposes were practically avowed on the 27th of April. The same things
have been reiterated by the financial papers, and the policy is still
continued up to the present hour. It had two objects in view. One was to
secure from the United States a large issue of bonds, and the other to
secure the repeal of the much-abused Sherman law.”
The records show that the bankers accomplished both of these objects.
They secured the repeal of the purchasing clause, and afterward the issue
of $262,000,000 in bonds.
In the same speech Senator Teller said: “There are many banks in the
West, and some that I know of, which shut their doors because they could
not draw the money that they had on deposit in New York” (_Congressional
Record_, Vol. XXV, Part I, p. 1022).
In its issue of August 20, 1893, the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_ said:
“When the future historian tells the world of the great financial panic
of 1893, he will say: ‘In the winter and spring months of that year the
New York bankers and financiers sowed the wind, and in the summer months
reaped the whirlwind.’
“We know of no arrangement of words that can more graphically describe
the action of the New York financiers and the results of that action.
Colonel Ingersoll, early in the season of disturbance, properly called
this a ‘bankers’ panic.’ Nor are the New York bankers alone to blame.
Those of Boston and Philadelphia come in for their share.”
But it is useless for me to continue to pile up testimony to further
sustain my contention. Whether the Panic Bulletin is a “canard” or not,
its suggestions were carried into effect. The bankers opposed silver,
and, for the purpose of having the law providing for its issue repealed,
they precipitated the panic and used the methods described in the
Bulletin to accomplish their ends. They are opposed to greenbacks, and
if necessary will, I have no doubt, precipitate another panic in order
to have them retired. And it all goes to show that the control of the
currency should be taken out of their hands.
W. S. MORGAN.
_Hardy, Ark._
_The Cradle of Tears_
BY THEODORE DREISER
_Author of “Sister Carrie”_
There is a cradle within the door of one of the great institutions of New
York before which a constantly recurring tragedy is being enacted. It is
a plain cradle, quite simply draped in white, but with such a look of
cozy comfort about it that one would scarcely suspect it to be a cradle
of sorrow.
A little white bed with a neatly turned-back coverlet is made up within
it. A long strip of white muslin, tied in a tasteful bow at the top,
drapes its rounded sides. About it, but within the precincts of warmth
and comfort, of which it is a fort, spreads a chamber of silence—a quiet,
solemn, plainly furnished room, the appearance of which emphasizes the
peculiarity of the cradle itself.
If the mind were not familiar with the details with which it is so
startlingly associated, the question would naturally arise as to what it
was doing there—why it should be standing there alone. No one seems to
be watching it. It has not the slightest appearance of usefulness, and
yet there it stands, day after day, and year after year—a ready prepared
cradle and no infant to live in it.
And yet this cradle is the most useful and, in a way, the most inhabited
cradle in the world. Day after day, and year after year, it is the
recipient of more small wayfaring souls than any other cradle in the
world. In it the real children of sorrow are placed, and over it more
tears are shed than if it were an open grave.
It is the place where annually 1,200 foundlings are placed, many of them
by mothers who are too helpless or too unfortunately environed to be
further able to care for their child, and the misery which compels it
makes of the little open crib a cradle of tears.
The interest of this particular cradle is, that it has been the silent
witness of more truly heartbreaking scenes than any other cradle since
the world began. For nearly thirty-five years it has stood where it does
today, ready-draped, open, while as many thousand mothers have stolen
shamefacedly in and, after looking hopelessly about, have laid their
helpless offspring within its depths.
For thirty-five years, winter and summer, in the bitterest cold and the
most stifling heat, it has seen them come—the poor, the rich; the humble,
the proud; the beautiful, the homely—and one by one they have laid their
children down and brooded over them, wondering whether it were possible
for human love to make so great a sacrifice and yet not die.
And then when the child has been actually sacrificed, when by the simple
act of releasing their hold upon it and turning away they have actually
allowed it to pass out from their love and tenderness into the world
unknown, this silent cradle has seen them smite their hands in anguish
and yield to such voiceless tempests of grief as only those know who have
loved much and lost all.
The circumstances under which this peculiar charity comes to be a part
of the life of the great metropolis need not be rehearsed here. The
heartlessness of men, the frailty of women, the brutality of all those
who sit in judgment in spite of the fact that they do not wish to be
judged themselves, is so old and so commonplace that its repetition is
almost a weariness.
Still the tragedy repeats itself, and year after year, and day after
day the unlocked door is opened and dethroned virtue enters—the victim
of ignorance and passion and affection, and a child is robbed of an
honorable home.
_The Racing Trust_
BY THOMAS B. FIELDERS
The only Trust that has the sincere and earnest and unfaltering support
of the daily press is the most audacious, the most grasping, the most
immoral of all trusts. This is the Racing Trust. There are hundreds of
trusts in this country. All corporations that have eliminated or lessened
competition to a marked degree are called trusts. It is asserted,
commonly, that such combinations are against the laws of the states that
form the Union and are in opposition to the Federal Constitution. If the
Beef Trust or the Sugar Trust or the Standard Oil Trust have advocates
among the daily newspapers of the country, these advocates are not
earning their salt, to say nothing of their salaries. The only support
they have the courage to give is silence. Yet it has to be proven that
these trusts have infringed the law.
In the case of the Racing Trust there is no doubt. There is none to deny
that it is an absolute monopoly. It conducts business in open defiance
of the law and the Constitution. It has the avarice of a miser, and the
impudent shamelessness of a courtezan. All who will help to fill its
maw are received with open arms. Lacking morals, it expects none of its
patrons. Within its portals the scum of humanity is made as welcome as
the cream. It has its rules, but these are without and beyond the law,
though, curiously, they are enforced by so-called guardians of the law.
The Beef Trust, by its rapacious methods, may make vegetarians; the
Racing Trust makes outcasts, who, sometimes, rise to the dignity of
convicts. The Beef Trust shuns advertisement; the Racing Trust welcomes
it. Any reputable undertaking must pay heavily for the support of the
press; the Racing Trust gets such support in columns per day for a
ridiculously small subvention. The press poses as a teacher of morality.
In the case of the Racing Trust it plays the part of a panderer without
getting the price insisted upon by that unutterable in any other walk of
life.
Americans believe that they possess a quality of humor that is far
superior to that which bears the hall-mark of any other nationality.
’Tis a comfortable belief, for it enables them to live cheerfully under
conditions which would not be tolerated elsewhere. There are several
kinds of humorists among us, and of these the men who make inadequate
laws, or laws which they know will be broken, and the men who break them
and go unpunished are worthy of more and of a different sort of attention
than they receive. People growl at the Beef Trust on account of the high
prices of beef, though Mr. Garfield, who was instructed by the President
to investigate that Trust, has said that its profits are only moderate.
What of the profits of the Racing Trust? Monte Carlo is described
invariably as the most delectable gold mine in the world. In ordinary
gold mines the vein may be “pinched out”; in Monte Carlo it runs on
forever. Games made by gamblers for gamblers are called games of chance.
There is little humor in your gambler, else he would recognize the
absence of chance. Many thousands have tried to “break the bank” at Monte
Carlo. Nobody has succeeded, for while play is conducted there honestly,
the games are of the “sure thing” variety, as the percentage is always
in favor of the bank. But the shareholders of the Casino at Monte Carlo
are satisfied with twenty per cent. per annum on their investment and,
sometimes, get less. And let it be remembered that in conducting their
business they do not break the law.
The Racing Trust would scorn to accept anything so paltry as twenty per
cent. on its investment, yet it is a law-breaker for seven months of the
year, on six days of the week, and in the course of time, doubtless, will
break it on the seventh day of the week also.
Laws against gambling have existed from time beyond count, just as they
have existed against murder and other crimes against public welfare. The
Constitution of the state of New York prohibited all kinds of gambling
until 1887. In that year the Legislature passed the “Ives Pool bill.”
Ives was a member of the Legislature from this city. Except that he
piloted this particular bill through a legislature which was paid to
adopt it, his name would have been forgotten. The bill called by his
name suspended the provisions of the Penal Code relating to gambling at
race-tracks. It limited racing between May 15 and October 15. It limited
racing upon any track to thirty days. It permitted bookmaking upon the
tracks. In return for enormous privileges the racing associations were
to pay to the state five per cent. of their gross receipts. The law
confined gambling to the tracks, and in order to take full advantage
of it, and also, of course, to improve the breed of racing stock,
philanthropists of the convict stripe opened tracks where racing was
conducted at night as well as by day, in winter as well as in summer. The
manner in which racing was conducted became a public scandal. The horse
was the principal factor, and, generally, was used as a means to an end.
There were, of course, owners and trainers and jockeys who were honest,
even under the Ives Pool law, but these were very much in a minority.
The “sport” reeked with dishonesty. Horses were “pulled,” trainers and
jockeys were “stiffened.” Some of the racing officials not only winked
at “crookedness,” but took part in it. Unless the starter of those days
had a piece of every “good thing,” it did not “come off” if he could
prevent it. None talked of the improvement “of the breed” except with
tongue in cheek. “Jobs” were discussed, after the event, as if they had
been meritorious performances. When these were the work of trainers and
jockeys the bookmakers were derided; when they were planned and realized
by bookmakers the latter were cursed. There was much cursing in those
days, as there was much reason for it, but the profanity was not due to
the failure of honest, but dishonest effort. Women as well as men were
allowed to bet, and the race-tracks were hotbeds of debauchery. The great
body of those who were interested in racing was beyond the pale. The
refuse of the country camped in New York while the orgy lasted, and so
obnoxious did these bandits make themselves that an organized effort was
made to induce the constitutional convention which met in 1895 to cleanse
the state of the filth which was bred by the Ives Pool law.
This convention appointed a committee, whose duty it was to prepare an
address to the people of the state. The address dealt with the work of
the convention. The committee called attention to the anti-gambling
amendment adopted by the convention in the following language: “The
passion for gambling to which the system of lotteries formerly ministered
has found fresh opportunity under the so-called Ives Pool bill, and,
under color and pretext of betting upon horse races, is working
widespread demoralization and ruin among the young and weak throughout
the community. We have extended the prohibition against lotteries so as
to include pool-selling, bookmaking and other forms of gambling. It is
claimed that this provision will array in opposition to the proposed
Constitution a great and unscrupulous money power; but we appeal to the
virtue and sound judgment of the people to sustain the position which we
have taken.”
This address was signed by Messrs. Joseph H. Choate (Ambassador to
England), Elihu Root, H. T. Cookinham, Elon R. Brown, Chester B.
McLaughlin, Milo M. Acker, Daniel H. McMillan and M. H. Hirschberg.
The anti-gambling amendment, which was adopted by the convention with
only four dissenting votes, was as follows:
“The delegates of the People of the state of New York, in convention
assembled, do propose as follows:
“Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution is hereby amended so as to
read: ‘No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and to petition the Government or any department thereof;
nor shall any divorce be granted otherwise than by judicial proceedings;
_nor shall any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling,
bookmaking or any kind of gambling hereafter be authorized or allowed
within this state, and the Legislature shall pass appropriate laws to
prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section_.’”
The “great and unscrupulous money power” to which Mr. Choate and his
associates alluded was that of the racing associations. Their power was
felt in the convention, and some of those who discussed the amendment
prior to its adoption claimed that it was offered at the suggestion of
one set of gamblers (poolroom keepers) against another set of gamblers
(the racing associations). This was true enough. The racing associations
were as grasping then as they are now. Their members claimed that the
poolroom was a nefarious and demoralizing influence. Why? Because it
prevented the racing associations from having a monopoly of the petty as
well as the big gamblers’ money—of the cash of those who had not time to
go to the races as well as of those who were unable to go. The engines
of the law were stoked up and run full tilt against the poolrooms at
the behest of the racing associations; therefore, in self-defense, the
poolroom keepers were anxious that all gamblers should be placed on the
same level; hence the anti-gambling amendment to the Constitution. Mr.
Telusky, who offered the amendment as a resolution, said that if any
member of the convention “can name one man in the state of New York
that is in the bookmaking business that is not a thief, a blackguard
or an ex-convict, I will withdraw my resolution. I say, Mr. President,
every bookmaker in the state of New York, no matter where he comes from,
is nothing but an ex-convict, a cracksman, a pickpocket, a thief of
the lowest character, and these men come here and desire to shut this
(amendment) out because the Legislature of a few years ago legalized a
certain kind of gambling, and they are trying to protect them.”
Mr. Edward Lauterbach paid his compliments to the racing associations in
plain language. “Their nefarious establishments,” he said, “have been
erected from Montauk Point to Niagara Falls, and the state treasury has
received and distributed to the county fairs a few miserable shekels,
which it has reserved as its share of the plunder. _Why, for every dollar
that the state has received, it has expended ten dollars to support those
who have become inmates of its prisons by reason of the weak policy so
pursued._ You are all familiar with the terrible temptation of this
alluring vice. The passion of gambling is pandered to in this fashion in
the most insidious manner. Exaggerated accounts of great winnings are
presented to the readers of every journal. Tens of thousands of young men
and women have been hurled to their ruin through the instrumentality of
the state that should have protected them. Gambling has already been made
unlawful. If anyone desires to legalize any one branch of gambling by the
suggestion of proposed amendment (to the anti-gambling amendment), let
us say to him, Never. Let us pass this amendment, so that, once enacted
into a law, it may carry out its beneficent purpose and not prove a sham
and a deceit. Just as it was as reported let us have this amendment—no
subterfuge, no change, no alterations; make no halfway work. Sweep the
whole brood together—gamblers, pool-sellers, bookmakers, all the racing
fraternity—into oblivion forever. Pass this amendment now, as it is,
unaltered and unchanged. True horse fanciers—the Bonners, the Lorillards,
the Belmonts, the Keenes and the rest—will thank you for the protection
you thus afford to their legitimate pursuit. Only the gambler, who should
be a pariah and an outcast, and not the state’s associate, will have
cause for regret.”
It was said at the time that the racing associations and the bookmakers
had collected a fund of $700,000, and intended to use it in buying enough
votes in the convention to defeat the anti-gambling amendment. Who said
it? The newspapers. True? Not at all likely. The racing associations
were able to raise such a fund, but would have got little assistance
from the bookmakers. The latter were an asset of the racing associations
and knew it; they must be taken care of. ’Twas said, when Mr. Jerome was
at Albany championing the Dowling bill, that the gamblers of New York
had contributed $100,000 for the purchase of the Black Horse Cavalry
in the Legislature. The press gave Troy as the headquarters of the
gamblers’ committee. There was no such committee. The gamblers of New
York, including Canfield, who had more at stake than any other gambler,
did not contribute a dollar for the purpose of killing the Dowling bill.
The latter was passed with surprising ease in Assembly and Senate, and
had become a law before the “clever division” had begun to think of the
possibility of such a result. This law, in the hands of Mr. Jerome, has
proved rather embarrassing to the gambling fraternity, and may give him
an opportunity of distinguishing himself in a manner after his own heart
before many weeks have passed.
The anti-gambling amendment to the Constitution was ratified by a popular
majority of nearly 90,000 votes. Some of the voters believed, doubtless,
that it would eliminate betting on race-tracks. These forgot that the
amendment was of little worth unless the Legislature made such gambling
an offense and also made a punishment to fit the offense. The Legislature
which followed the adoption of the Constitution was “open to reason.”
How much money was required to salve its conscience I do not know, but
the manner in which it replied to the demand of the popular vote shows
that it was dishonest. By the anti-gambling clause of the Constitution
it was ordered to “pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any
of the provisions of this section.” Instead of obeying such mandate it
adopted the Percy-Gray law, which makes gambling in poolrooms a felony
and gambling on race-tracks a misdemeanor. In other words, if the keeper
of a poolroom takes a bet on a horse race he commits a felony and can be
sent to jail, for according to the law he has committed a penal offense,
whereas if a bookmaker accepts your money on the same race he does not
commit a felony and you are at liberty to publish yourself as a poor sort
of creature by attempting to recover your money by civil action. Class
legislation? It looks like it. But class legislation is unconstitutional.
That is the general opinion, but in this particular case many thousands
of dollars have been spent in an effort to discover whether or not the
present racing law is unconstitutional, and the dollars have been thrown
away.
The situation would be amusing did it not demonstrate the power of money.
To the average mind it would seem as if the constitutional convention had
barred all kinds of gambling, particularly gambling on race-tracks. Yet,
under the fostering care of the Racing Trust, the volume of gambling at
race-tracks is at least thrice as great today as it was in 1895. Before
the convention met the Racing Trust was permitted to do business for five
months in the year; now it does business for seven months. Under the
Ives Pool law, which was wiped out as vicious, the tracks were limited
to thirty days of racing; now the Jockey Club does as it pleases in the
matter of dates. Under a law which is, upon its face, unconstitutional
because it discriminates, the Racing Commission, a state institution, has
the power to issue or refuse licenses. The Racing Commission is under the
control of the Jockey Club, and the latter is the ruler of the racing
associations. The Jockey Club, of which Mr. August Belmont is the head,
is lord of all it surveys in the metropolitan circuit, to say nothing of
the Bennings race-track, in which a majority of the stock is owned by
Mr. Belmont. Racing began at Bennings on March 23, and its dates are not
included in the seven months of racing in the metropolitan circuit.
In this circuit there are seven tracks, not counting the Buffalo track,
which is controlled by the Racing Trust. The track at Morris Park, the
most picturesque race-course in the United States, has been relegated
to obscurity, as it was not owned by the Racing Trust, but was leased
at an annual rental of $45,000. Belmont Park, which is owned by Mr.
August Belmont, the head of the Racing Trust, has taken its place. The
associations which are controlled by the Racing Trust are capitalized as
follows:
Westchester Racing Association (Belmont Park) $1,500,000
Queens County Jockey Club (Aqueduct) 700,000
Metropolitan jockey Club (Jamaica) 550,000
Coney Island Jockey Club (Sheepshead Bay) 525,000
Brooklyn Jockey Club (Gravesend) 500,000
Brighton Beach Racing Association 300,000
Buffalo Racing Association 200,000
Saratoga Association for the Improvement
of the Breed of Horses 50,000
----------
Total $4,325,000
These figures were obtained from the Secretary of State, the Hon. John
F. O’Brien. In any calculations that may be made the capitalization
of Belmont Park should be eliminated and the rental of Morris Park,
$45,000, substituted for $1,500,000, in order to show how thriving a
concern the Racing Trust is. It will be understood, of course, that the
capitalization of these concerns may be a trifle, just a trifle, higher
than the actual value of the said tracks and appurtenances, except in the
case of the Saratoga track, which was built solely “for the improvement
of the breed of horses.”
For the right to do business on these tracks the Racing Trust pays, or is
supposed to pay, to the state five per cent. upon the gross earnings of
said tracks. Among the duties of the Racing Commission is the supervision
of these receipts. The commission consists of Messrs. August Belmont,
John Sanford and E. D. Morgan. Mr. Belmont is the president of the
Westchester Racing Association (Belmont Park), and the largest owner of
stock in the Racing Trust. Mr. Sanford is the power at Saratoga, and
does not race until the season opens at the Spa. Attached to the Racing
Commission is a State Inspector of Races. Until he was appointed to a
position in the Internal Revenue Department the place was filled by
Charles W. Anderson, a colored man. Reports of gross receipts are made
to the State Comptroller by the racing associations and by the State
Inspector of Races. It is not impossible that the latter official takes
such figures as are offered to him, and it is difficult to imagine that
he ever objected to them on the score of inaccuracy or any other score.
The reports of gross receipts made by the members of the Racing Trust to
the State Comptroller for the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904 are
as follows (the figures were obtained from the State Comptroller, the
Hon. Otto Kelsey):
1900. 1901. 1902.
Coney Island Jockey Club $494,895.06 $640,327.97 $820,184.18
Brooklyn Jockey Club 474,887.88 593,472.72 761,394.65
Brighton Beach 307,311.30 407,611.75 502,940.25
Westchester 323,041.23 432,187.86 571,178.79
Saratoga 137,248.21 272,612.24 359,342.40
Metropolitan
Queens 164,555.14 225,417.69 324,177.82
Buffalo 62,519.80
------------ ------------- -------------
Totals $1,901,938.82 $2,571,630.23 $3,401,737.89
1903. 1904.
Coney Island Jockey Club $903,128.84 $854,421.20
Brooklyn Jockey Club 790,054.07 731,559.26
Brighton Beach 559,348.00 626,837.10
Westchester 623,131.27 566,143.62
Saratoga 439,649.49 393,550.09
Metropolitan 355,270.70 307,396.03
Queens 282,900.88 218,729.16
Buffalo 60,857.63 106,489.05
------------- -------------
Totals $4,014,340.88 $3,805,125.51
The reader will notice the exactness with which the racing associations
make up their gross receipts—the “twenty cents” of the Coney Island
Jockey Club, the “nine cents” of the Saratoga “Association for the
Improvement of the Breed of Horses,” and so on. The reader will notice,
also, that the gross receipts for last year were $209,215.37 less than
those of 1903, though the press was unanimous in declaring that last
year’s racing was the greatest, which means the most profitable of all
years. The five per cent. paid to the state last year by the Racing Trust
amounted to $190,256.27. This five per cent. is “the penny in the dollar”
alluded to by Mr. Edward Lauterbach in his address to the constitutional
convention. But ridiculously small as it is, why does the Racing Trust
give it to the state? Simply as a sop to the rural legislator and his
constituents. The dweller in cities may lack some or many of the virtues,
but when it is necessary to find the highest plane of parsimonious
hypocrisy one must needs pay a visit to the rural districts. This five
per cent., which smacks so much of Iscariot’s thirty pieces of silver,
is divided among such agricultural societies as give annual fairs, and
to farmers’ institutes. Ostensibly it is intended for the improvement
of agriculture; in reality much of it is given as purses for trotting
races at the said county fairs. Without the support of the rural element
the Racing Trust would not have succeeded in getting the adoption of the
Percy-Gray racing law.
The profits of the Racing Trust are enormous. Take the Coney Island
Jockey Club, for instance. Mr. Leonard Jerome, who was a sportsman who
never made money out of sport, built the Sheepshead Bay track at a
cost of $125,000. The grounds of the Coney Island Jockey Club belong
to the people and were filched from them by an act of the Legislature.
Improvements were made since the track was built, but the actual legal
belongings of the Coney Island Jockey Club are worth far less than the
amount of the capital stock, which is $525,000. The gross receipts of
the club for last year, as reported to the State Comptroller, were
$854,421.20. Of what did these consist? It was said that the attendance
on “big days” last year numbered from 40,000 to 50,000. Put it at 35,000,
and the money taken in for admission, boxes and clubhouse seats and boxes
and for “field” admissions would amount to about $80,000. Then there are
the bookmakers. On more than one day last year there were 120 members of
the Metropolitan Turf Association in the ring. They paid $57 each for the
privilege of “laying the odds.” Back of them were a hundred layers who
paid $37 each. There were fifty others who paid $27, and as many more who
paid $17 each. Programs to the number of 40,000 at ten cents each make
$400. Then there are the bar and restaurant privileges, the commissioners
and many other means of income, so that the income of one such day could
not be less than $100,000.
There were thirty days of racing at Sheepshead Bay last year.
The attendance, according to the daily press, was “enormous,”
“record-breaking,” “large” or “highly satisfactory.” The “highly
satisfactory” days were the smallest of the season, which shows the
difference between English as it is understood by “sporting” writers in
the daily press and those who are able to distinguish the difference
between fact and fancy. If the average daily attendance were not more
than 12,500, it and the other sources of revenue would mean about $35,000
per day.
Thirty days’ racing at $35,000 per day $1,050,000
Expenses of all kinds at $10,000 per day 300,000
--------
Balance in favor of the club $750,000
The sum of $10,000 per day will cover all the expenses, including added
money, at Sheepshead Bay. According to such calculation and taking the
club’s figures of gross receipts as correct, the result would be like
this:
Receipts for thirty days’ racing $854,421.20
Expenses for thirty days’ racing at $10,000 per day 300,000.00
-----------
Balance in favor of the club $554,421.20
These figures show that the profits of the Coney Island Jockey Club for
_thirty days_ of racing are more than the full amount of its capital
stock. Some years ago, when racing was conducted on a smaller scale, this
stock paid 56 per cent. per annum. Unless a lot of money is packed away
in a reserve fund, the stock should pay dollar for dollar now, and the
state still gets the “penny in the dollar.”
Much of the income was contributed by the chief factors at a
race-course—the men who own and race horses; and one of the most
interesting features of a race meeting, to members of the Racing Trust,
is the fact that the men who own the horses are racing for money
contributed, in great part, by themselves. The money added by the racing
associations is often less than the amounts furnished by owners of
horses that have been entered for a race. Much stress is laid upon the
fact that $2,601,160 was won in purses last year on the tracks of the
metropolitan circuit and Bennings. This amount, large as it may seem, was
so distributed that very few owners paid much more than expenses, while a
far larger number lost much money. Four hundred and thirty-eight stables
or owners were among the winners, and a glance at the following table
will show that the losers were in a large majority.
OWNERS AND WINNINGS
Herman B. Duryea $200,043
James R. Keene 164,940
E. R. Thomas 151,210
Sydney Paget 133,441
Newton Bennington 104,210
John A. Drake 99,480
S. S. Brown 82,472
R. T. Wilson, Jr. 69,115
John E. Madden 55,830
Goughacres Stable 50,084
Thomas Hitchcock, Jr. 44,540
W. B. Jennings 34,605
M. L. Hayman 34,330
John Sanford 33,435
W. B. Leeds 32,320
L. V. Bell 31,520
J. W. Colt 23,130
Waldeck Stable 23,050
M. Corbett 22,445
J. L. McGinnis 21,400
Andrew Miller 20,155
Frank Farrell 19,980
W. C. Daly 18,495
“Mr. Cotton” 18,135
“Mr. Chamblet” 17,605
P. Lorillard 17,290
J. E. Widener 16,970
C. F. Fox 16,810
A. L. Aste 16,705
S. Deimel 16,605
J. McLaughlin 16,490
E. W. Jewett 16,165
August Belmont 15,745
Columbia Stable 15,317
W. Lakeland 15,220
Boston Stable 14,765
H. T. Griffin 14,555
F. R. Hitchcock 14,405
J. G. Greener 14,200
Albemarle Stable 12,895
T. L. Watt 12,755
E. E. Smathers 12,695
N. Dyment 11,900
U. Z. De Arman 11,080
Oneck Stable 10,600
John J. Ryan 10,515
W. M. Sheftel 10,515
W. L. Oliver 10,425
P. J. Dwyer 10,382
Joseph E. Seagram 9,305
Mrs. J. Blute 9,305
David Gideon (9 horses) 9,230
H. C. Schulz 8,910
W. F. Fanshawe 8,775
J. L. Holland 8,765
C. E. Rowe 8,475
F. R. Docter 8,440
J. W. Schorr 8,295
R. H. McCarter Potter 8,060
National Stable 7,805
J. C. Yeager 7,720
H. J. Morris 7,600
Fairview 7,405
T. D. Sullivan 7,335
Frederick Johnson 7,260
Chelsea Stable 7,090
In addition to the foregoing, 155 stables won between $1,000 and $7,000
each. Some of these stables had as many as a dozen starters who “figured
in the money.” Stables or owners to the number of 217 won between $100
and $1,000 each. Of this number fifty-four were in the $100 class. The
average winnings for the 438 stables were $5,938, which sum tells a
doleful tale for a majority of them, as the expenses of one thoroughbred
and its owner for a year cannot well be squeezed into $5,938, unless the
horse’s diet is restricted to hay and the owner lives at a Mills hotel.
Mr. Keene’s winnings were $164,940. That amount about paid his racing
expenses for the year.
All of which, I think, goes to prove that the Racing Trust is more
anxious to make and increase enormous profits than to improve the
breed of horses. And everybody is aware that such enormous profits are
made only by violation of the Constitution of the state, and that,
while gambling in poolrooms and elsewhere has been made difficult and
dangerous, no effort has been made by the authorities to interfere with
it on the tracks of the Racing Trust.
_Dependence_
Not that there are not “other eyes
In Spain” as bright as yours can be,
But that no eyes in all the world
Can ever seem as bright to me.
Not that there are not lips as sweet
Kissed daily by each separate wind,
But that no other lips to me
Can seem so sweet, can be so kind.
Sweetheart, I own myself your slave
Because you own yourself my thrall;
I—with so little, dear, to give;
You—who so gladly give me all.
REGINALD WRIGHT KAUFFMAN.
_What Buzz-Saw Morgan Thinks_
BY W. S. MORGAN
Paternalism is preferable to infernalism.
When the gentleman with the cloven hoof collects what is coming to him
there won’t be many bag barons left.
The Beef Trust does business on a sliding scale; the price they pay
slides down, and the price they sell at slides up.
A pauper lives off the public, and so do those who make their money
through special privileges granted them by law.
As Bryan is losing prestige with the people he is becoming more popular
with the plutocrats.
The United States Senate should be rechristened and called the
Corporations’ Cuckoo’s nest.
The way to make the cuss-toady-ans of public interests more amenable to
our will is to have ready an Imperative Mandate lariat.
Yes, the trusts are in the people’s pasture, and they got in over
Republican and Democratic fences.
It is better that a whole lot of business shall be “hurted” than that the
trusts should continue to rob the people and be a standing menace to free
government.
The Governor of Kansas is right; building a state refinery is not
Socialism; it is competition, just what the Populists stand for.
The trusts also have “big sticks.”
The Standard Oil Company has outlawed itself and ought to be “swatted”
off the face of the earth.
The bandit bag barons are going to have some hard sledding from now on.
If the concentration of wealth means the destruction of the republic,
then the people have a right to stop the concentration of wealth.
The fact that the trusts are now in control of the railroads is another
reason why the Government should own them.
An economic principle that does not rest upon a moral basis should
receive no support from honest men.
Every applicant for a special legalized privilege is an enemy to good
government.
It is the men who are always hammering at the doors of legislation for
special privileges that want “something for nothing.”
The greatest power in the world is that which controls the volume of
money, and the Republicans are talking about turning that power over to a
few private buccaneers.
When the very rich men are called by their right names there will not be
such a scramble to get rich.
It is to be hoped that in this fight with the trusts and railroad
corporations that “big stick” of Teddy’s will not prove to be a stuffed
club.
If Uncle Sam wants to mix his credit with anybody’s let him mix it with
that of the farmers. Their security is better than bonds.
More that half of the men in the United States Senate wear corporation
collars.
If all the big thieves were sentenced to jail we should have to turn the
little thieves out in order to make room for them.
I challenge anyone to point out a single instance in this country where
the national bankers have made a recommendation in the interests of the
people. It is always a jug-handled proposition in their favor.
One of the biggest pieces of foolishness in this old world of ours is for
Uncle Sam to make free money for the bankers to loan, and then borrow
that same money for his own use.
Unless there is some change made in the manner of selecting United States
senators, that body of corporation attorneys would better be abolished.
So insignificant was the last Presidential candidate of the Democratic
Party that a great many voters have already forgotten his name.
The country is now ready for the election of United States senators by
the people instead of the corporations, but that body of august lawmakers
will block every effort in that direction.
If there is no other way to prevent corporations from violating the law
they should be denied its protection, just like other outlaws. A dose of
that kind of medicine would soon bring them to their milk.
The decision of the North Sea Commission seems to be based upon the
principle (if it has a principle) that a naval commander has a right to
fire at anything that frightens him.
If the packers didn’t steal their immense fortunes from the people, whom
did they steal them from?
A “reasonable rate,” as interpreted by the railroad companies, is all the
honey except barely enough to keep the bees from starving to death.
There has already been a good deal of water squeezed out of Standard Oil
stock; now, if some process can be brought forward that will squeeze the
water out of the oil the company sells, it will be better yet.
The great trusts have shown that they have no regard for “vested
rights.” They have “frozen out” the smaller concerns without mercy. Why,
then, should they object to a little of the “freezing” process, if the
Government or states decide to go into the oil business on their own
account?
If the Socialists insist on turning the world over at one flip, like
turning a pancake, before they can start the show, they are following
a mighty cold trail. If they are willing to go by the usual road of
evolution there is no reason why they and the Populists should not work
together, for awhile at least.
The man who is wholly controlled by sentiment is not fit to vote. Voting
is a business proposition and demands both intelligence and good judgment.
It seems to be the policy of lawmakers in this country to grant special
privileges to the rich and powerful, and to permit them to impose upon
the weak, and this condition will remain just so long as men will submit
to being robbed.
The men who prate most about “vested rights” and “law and order” are the
ones who violate them most.
When the Government thought the express companies were charging
the people too much for the transmission of money it went into the
money-order business itself. What was the result? Why, the express
companies had to come to the rate established by the Government or get
none of the business. It was purely a matter of business, and that’s the
way to do it.
It was the “battle-scared” bag barons that discredited government paper
money during the Civil War between the states. Yet it is from these men
that we hear most about “national honor” and “public credit.” They are
the same class of men of whom honest old Abe Lincoln said: “They ought to
be hanged”; and the country would have fared better ever since if they
had been.
Nearly every civilized nation in the world owns all or a part of its
system of railroad and telegraph lines, and they have no disposition to
turn them over to private corporations. The United States alone permits
a few wealthy buccaneers to levy taxes on the people which no government
would dare do. An increase of three cents per bushel on corn alone means
a tax of fifty millions of dollars to the men who produce that cereal.
Until recently the national bankers paid the Government one per cent. on
the money the Government loaned them. Then they claimed that it was too
much to pay for the use of the money and the credit of the Government,
and Congress reduced the rate to one-half of one per cent. But the banker
has no conscientious scruples about loaning this money to the people at
eight and ten per cent.
The railroad companies admit that they violate the law by granting
rebates, but set up the claim that if they did not do it they would lose
their share of the traffic. It is a very singular plea. It is not half as
just as the one that a man steals because he is hungry, or because his
wife and children are suffering for the necessaries of life. “We violate
the law because somebody else does,” say the railroad companies. Suppose
that every criminal would set up the same excuse for the commission of
crime. And ordinary criminals have a better right to make that plea in
palliation for their crime than the trusts and corporations have. If, as
they admit, the railroad managers are so dishonest that one must violate
the law because another does, if there is no way to restrain them except
to turn the whole matter over to them, and permit them to pool their
earnings so that one thief can watch the other thieves, it is about time
to abolish the whole system of private ownership and for the Government
to take charge of the lines of transportation. The railroad companies
make out the worst kind of a case against themselves. They admit that
there are enough law-breakers among them to demoralize the whole system.
The public has heard a good deal about legislation that would discourage
capital from being invested in the state enacting the legislation. It has
been said that the passage of laws calculated to regulate the business
of large corporations would have the effect of driving them away. Kansas
just now is giving us an object-lesson along this line. The laws recently
passed by the Legislature in that state are perhaps the most drastic in
their nature ever passed by any state for the control and regulation
of corporations, yet the prospect is that more capital will go to that
state than ever before. Although the state is now engaged in building an
oil refinery, there are several other independent refineries projected,
with a good prospect for more to come. It is evident that capital has
not as much to fear from the people, when it is legitimately invested
and operated, as it has from the arrogant aggressions of such enormous
concerns as the Standard Oil Company that will brook no competition. If
capital will be satisfied with a fair profit it has nothing to fear from
the people, while, on the other hand, independent concerns that operate
legitimately in any line of business have much to fear from the great
trusts that have been built up through favors granted them by railroads
and municipalities.
_Flying the Kite_
HUDSON—Do you think they will be able to get along on $10,000 a year?
BUDSON—They ought to. With that much money they should manage to run in
debt for another ten thousand.
* * * * *
The rich man may defy the laws of the land and keep out of prison, but
when he gets dyspepsia from eating things out of season he realizes that
he can’t defy the laws of nature.
_The Heritage of Maxwell Fair_
BY VINCENT HARPER
_Author of “A Mortgage on the Brain”_
SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS CHAPTERS
Maxwell Fair, an Englishman who has amassed a colossal
fortune on ’Change, inherits from his ancestors a remarkable
tendency to devote his life to some object, generally a
worthy, if peculiar one, which is extravagantly chivalrous.
The story opens with Fair and Mrs. Fair standing over the
body of a man who has just been shot in their house—a
foreigner, who had claimed to be an old friend of Mrs. Fair.
Fair sends her to her room, saying: “Leave everything to me.”
He hides the body in a chest, and decides to close the house
“for a trip on the Continent.” Fair tells the governess, Kate
Mettleby, that he loves her; that there is no dishonor in
his love, in spite of Mrs. Fair’s existence, and that, until
an hour ago, he thought he could marry her—could “break the
self-imposed conditions of his weird life-purpose.” They
are interrupted before Kate, who really loves him, is made
to understand. While the Fairs are entertaining a few old
friends at dinner, Kate, not knowing that it contains Mrs.
Fair’s blood-stained dress, is about to hide a parcel in the
chest when she is startled by the entrance of Samuel Ferret,
a detective from Scotland Yard. He tells her that he, with
other detectives, is shadowing the foreign gentleman who
came to the Fair house that day and has not yet left it. He
persuades Kate to promise that she will follow the suspect
when he leaves the house and then report at Scotland Yard. As
soon as Ferret is gone she lifts the lid off the chest, drops
the package into it, and, with a shriek, falls fainting to
the floor. Mr. and Mrs. Fair run to her aid. On being revived
Kate goes to Scotland Yard, where, in her anxiety to shield
Maxwell Fair from suspicion, she inadvertently leads the
detectives to think that a crime has been committed at the
Fair house. The two detectives are piecing together the real
facts from the clues she has given, when Ferret is summoned
to the telephone by his associate Wilson, whom he had left on
guard in the home of the Fairs.
“Hello, Wilson!” He began speaking to his distant lieutenant. “Yes—yes.
No? By George! Yes, yes. Good, good! With you in ten minutes.”
He hung up the receiver and to Sharpe’s impatient gesture replied:
“Wilson says the quarry is up. Mendes the Cuban has just left the house,
with Thorpe following to see where he goes. And now there’s the very
devil to pay. Wilson is hot on the trail. So I’m off.”
“If anything goes wrong, call me up,” said Sharpe, keenly enjoying the
play of the big fish that he would have safely landed by a day or two.
“Right you are! Ta, ta!”
Ferret lost no time in reaching the Fair mansion. The guests were still
at dinner and he could see no trace of excitement from without. Wilson
reported in detail the sudden appearance of the Cuban, his hurried flight
up the street with Thorpe at his heels—and all quiet inside.
“Who the devil fired that shot, and at whom was it fired, and what did
pretty Kate mean by her stammering protests that no crime had been done?
Was the saucy little minx deeper after all than they thought?” asked
Ferret of himself. He must have a good look at that library—that was the
key to the thickening mystery. So he stole up the stairs, but before he
could investigate the fatal library he heard the family coming up from
dinner and fled to the attic, passing Kate’s door, which stood ajar, and
through which he saw her on her knees with her face buried on the bed.