The Republican who told you those things about English wages did not know
what he was talking about. The idea of a railroad engineer getting four
dollars per month, and factory hands being paid five cents per day! The
figures are so ridiculous that even a Protection-soaked Republican ought
to know better.
If high Tariffs benefit the laborer, why is it that workmen get better
wages in free-trade England than in high-Tariff France, Italy and
Germany? If high-Tariffs give the benefit to the laborer why is it that
the Salvation Army had to save the factory hands at Fall River, Mass.,
from starvation, by ladling out free soup? The best paid laborers in the
United States are the negroes of the South who raise cotton, a free trade
product. The laborer gets a larger share of the cotton he produces than
any employee in any protected industry.
In England the wages paid to factory hands are at least equal to those
paid in the United States when the amount of the wage is compared with
the amount and quality of the product.
Ask your Republican friend if he does not know that his great Apostle,
James G. Blaine, made this assertion some twenty years ago.
The statement was not denied then and cannot be denied now.
There is a huge army of the poor and the unemployed in England, but it
is not due to Free trade.
It is the natural result of three things.
(1) Land monopoly.
(2) A diabolical financial system.
(3) The host of non-producers who use the government as a means of
getting their support and their wealth by oppressing the producers.
The Government could easily establish a Bureau of Loans, and could adopt
a business-like system of lending money direct to the people.
This principle has been put in successful operation in Great Britain,
Norway, Greece and other foreign countries.
Not long ago, the firm of N. A. Harris & Co., of Chicago, New York and
Boston, put out a Circular offering for sale “Sanitary District of
Chicago” bonds to the amount of $500,000. As a recommendation of these
bonds, Harris & Co., declared in the Circular that the United States
Government had accepted the bonds as security for Government deposits.
In other words, the National Banks have been borrowing the people’s money
out of the Treasury on the faith of these bonds. Of course, the banks
paid no interest.
Now does it not occur to you that the Government could as well lend
some of that money to you at four or six percent interest upon security
equally good, as to lend it to a favored few without interest?
I do not believe that Mr. Cleveland profited personally by the sale of
the bonds. He acted stupidly and he acted in violation of law. The whole
transaction had an ugly look because Morgan had recently been his client
and Stetson (who drew the contract) had recently been his partner. But I
do not think he acted corruptly.
Mr. Cleveland did not get 125 for the Bonds.
Oh, no. He sold them for 103½, and Morgan, Belmont, Rothschild & Co.
_immediately realized_ 112¼.
* * * * *
SAVANNAH, GA., December 18, 1905.
_Hon. Thomas E. Watson._
DEAR SIR: I have been a constant reader of your eminent
Magazine from the first issue and have become converted to your
Populist principles of which I will stand by as long as I have
the liberty of voting.
Tonight we have organized a club in the city of Savannah, Ga.,
principally of working men, so that we might study politics,
and thoroughly understand how to cast our ballot intelligently,
and for the best of our interest; we think the day is fast
approaching when if the workingman doesn’t wake up and take
hold of the reins of government, he will find in the near
future that his liberties have flown never to be regained. My
object in writing to you is for information in your Educational
Department. How would you advise as to the most intelligent way
to do this?
They don’t seem to understand how to get together, and I
believe you can give us the desired information.
Respectfully,
⸺ ⸺.