Touching the falsehood to which the furious John L. refers, I have this
to say: My article was based upon a “special” sent out from Chicago which
went the rounds of the Press, and which was not contradicted.
The “special” from which I took the facts, appeared, on December 19,
1905, in the _Augusta Herald_, one of the most reliable and conservative
Democratic daily papers in the United States.
The indignant Sturtevant does not deny that the bank was looted of the
sum stated by me, but because I said that “the people” lost the money
he charges me with having made a statement that was “absolutely false.”
Sturtevant alleges that the money was not stolen from “the people” but
from “the stockholders!”
He is equally indignant because I said that the bank “burst.” He alleges
that the stockholders were able to stand the theft of nearly a million
and a half dollars, and that the bank didn’t burst.
An Editor of a Magazine is at a disadvantage when compared to the Editor
of _The Waupaca Post_, of Waupaca, Wisconsin. Sturtevant evidently stands
at the head-waters of information, and gets his news fresh from the
spring. That’s one of the luxuries of living and editing at Waupaca.
A poor devil of a Georgia editor, like me, has to take his information
second-hand. In spite of all that I can do, it is impossible for me to be
there, all over the world, when things are happening.
Sturtevant was close to Milwaukee when Bigelow looted his bank, and
therefore, knew at first hand what the facts were. On the contrary, I
was thousands of miles off, and had to rely upon telegraphic despatches,
published in reputable newspapers.
In the “special” from Chicago which appeared in the _Herald_, of Augusta,
Ga., December 19, 1905, this language appears:
“The three big bank WRECKS which are still fresh in the public mind on
account of their size and recent date are: the Enterprise National Bank
of Allegheny, Penn.; The First National Bank of Topeka, Kans.; the FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE, WIS.!”
Then in a tabulated statement, the “special” gave sums which were
classified as “losses.”
In this separate list of “losses” occasioned by “THE BANK WRECKS,” the
First National Bank of Milwaukee, heads the table with $1,450,000.
Therefore, instead of my statement in the Magazine being reckless and
false, it was carefully based upon a “special” sent out from Chicago
in December, which at the time my paragraphs were written had gone
unchallenged for more than a month.
Even when corrected by Mr. Sturtevant, how much good is done to the
National Banking system whose claim to be “the best on earth” I was
ridiculing? My point was that the lootings of this boasted “best system
on earth” were so frequent and so colossal that it was absurd to claim
that the system was “the best on earth.” How does the Waupaca Champion of
looted banks improve matters by explaining that the president of the bank
merely stole a million and a half from _the stockholders_?
How does he weaken my attack by saying that the bank was able to stand
the huge robbery?
Is bank rottenness saved from denunciation because the looted bank
happened to be rich enough to survive the blow?
Is bank gutting made respectable because the stockholders alone were
gutted?
Suppose the stockholders had not been rich enough to make good the
loss; suppose the bank had not possessed “a surplus” of that immense
size—wouldn’t “the loss” have fallen upon “the people,” and wouldn’t the
bank have “burst”?
Ah, Mr. Sturtevant! When you say that a National Bank has gained such
tremendous profits out of the privilege of creating money and lending
it to the people at high rates of interest that a robbery which runs up
into the millions does not stagger it in the least, you simply convince
the intelligent reader that National Banks reap far greater gains out of
Special Privilege than their champions are in the habit of admitting.
As to the “other” reckless and libelous statements which the Waupaca
Editor says I have been making in the Magazine, I can only invite him to
name them.
The Magazine is here to stay, and it is not conscious of having made
reckless and libelous statements.
The columns are open to brother Sturtevant, and to all others, who wish
to challenge any statements made therein.
Whenever I am shown to be wrong, I will gladly make correction, and, if
need be, apology.
If, on the contrary, the other fellow happens to be wrong, I will
endeavor, in a mild, conciliatory but earnest spirit to show him his
error.
Brother Sturtevant, of Waupaca, asserts that I am constantly doing grave
injury to many people.
I appeal to Sturtevant to furnish me a list—a partial one, at least—of
the people whom I am constantly injuring so gravely.
If he can establish the fact that in the 200,000 words or more, which I
have written for the Magazine, a grave injury has been inflicted upon any
man, woman or child, I stand ready to make the fullest amends.
_Make good, brother Sturtevant!_