courts are far greater than those resulting from legislation. By the
decisions of the supreme court of the United States, the distinction
between public and private rights has been obliterated; the constitution
of the country has become of no more binding force than statute laws.
State statutes and the decisions of state courts have been overridden
and annulled where the interests of corporations were to be subserved;
the settled decisions of the same court have been overruled, and a new
doctrine, in conflict with the settled interpretation of the fundamental
law of the land, has been announced, which makes the people the vassals
of railroad corporations. The rights of the people and the states have
been disregarded, and the edicts of the supreme court have been
substituted for constitutional law. By the decree of that court,
railroad corporations are clothed with the attributes of sovereignty,
and the people are compelled to pay taxes to aid in the construction of
their roads. That court has engaged in judicial legislation, and
fastened upon the people a despotic government, with railroad
corporations as their rulers. If it be true that railroad corporations
are public and not private, they are not subject to the control of state
courts or state legislatures. They are not by their charters, or the
powers derived from legislative grants, made public corporations, and if
they are public, they are made so by the decisions of the supreme court,
or by some assumed power not visible to the public eye. It is contended
by some, that if it is fully established that they are public
corporations, the state legislatures and the state courts can regulate
and control them. Is this so? Will not that fact take from the states
all jurisdiction over them? The decision making railroad corporations
public, also makes their roads public highways extending throughout the
country. It is claimed that the general government, having power to
regulate commerce between the states, can take control of all the
railroads in the United States. No power is conferred upon state
legislatures, in many of the states, to grant charters to railroad
companies, conferring upon them any sovereign powers. And by the
constitutions of some of the states they are deprived of the power of
aiding in any works of internal improvement. As a consequence, there
could not be uniform legislation among the states in relation to
railroads. Being public highways, and the corporations being also
public, the power of regulating and controlling them, and preventing
discrimination among the states, would belong to the general government,
and these powerful corporations, chartered by the state in which they
are located, could defy state authority. With a congress composed of
their friends, and a supreme court already committed to their interests,
the people would be powerless. But on the other hand, if (as we insist
is the fact) railroad companies are private corporations, then they are
within the jurisdiction, and subject to the control of, the authorities
of the states in which they are located. This we insist is the true
status of railroad corporations, and the courts, by their decisions,
cannot change this character. The decisions of the courts of the
different states and of the nation have not been of a character to
command the respect of the people, and unless we accept the last edict
of the supreme court of the nation, as the supreme law of the land, and
admit that it supersedes the constitutions and statutes of the states,
as well as the decisions of the state courts, it is difficult to
determine the character of railroad corporations and their relation to
the people. Accepting that decision as final, the constitution of the
United States is of but small value, and state governments are of but
little benefit to the people. Upon the various questions that have
arisen in connection with the construction of railroads, and the rights
of the people, and railroad corporations respectively, there has been
such confusion in the decisions of the courts, as well as contradiction,
reversals, and overrulings, that there now exists a necessity for the
regular issue of a judicial bulletin, like the market reports, that the
people may know what is the latest interpretation of the constitution.
By the supreme court of the state of Iowa, it was decided to be
constitutional for counties and cities to subscribe stock to railroad
companies, and that there was a statute authorizing such subscriptions.
By the same court it was decided, overruling the above named decision,
that the constitution did not confer the power to subscribe stock to
railroad companies, and that there was no law of the state authorizing
such subscription. The whole matter arose under the constitution and
laws of the state. The supreme court of the United States overruled this
last decision of the state courts, and decided that such subscription
was constitutional and was authorized by the laws of the state. The
courts of the states of Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,
Missouri, and others, made like decisions, and the supreme court of the
United States overruled them. The legislatures of some of the
states--Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan included, passed statutes
authorizing local aid in shape of a tax to be voted to railroad
companies. The supreme courts of these states decided that the statutes
were unconstitutional, and within fifteen months thereafter the supreme
court of Iowa decided that the Iowa act was constitutional. Like
decisions were made in some of the other states. In Wisconsin the state
courts decided the act was unconstitutional, and the supreme court of
the United States overruled that decision and decided that the act was
constitutional. Some of the state courts hold that railroad corporations
are private, whilst others decide that they are public. The supreme
court of the United States, by its decisions, clothes them with one of
the attributes of sovereignty, and declares that under the law they are
public corporations, and that their roads are public highways. The same
court, upon the legal tender issues, decided that treasury notes were
not legal tender for debts contracted before the enactment of the
statute providing for their issue. In a few months after that decision
was made, and after the friends of railroad corporations had so
reconstructed the court as to have a majority of the court in favor of a
re-hearing of the question, the same _high court_ decided that treasury
notes were not only legal tender for all debts (save those excepted by
the statutes), but that they were the standard of values. In all of the
above decisions made by the supreme court of the nation, either
reversing the decisions of the state courts, or reversing and overruling
its own decisions, such reversals and overrulings were in favor of the
corporations and against the people. When courts, whose duty it is to
declare the law and interpret the constitution, differ so widely and
change so often, it is not strange that the people should begin to look
with suspicion upon, and doubt the binding force of, these decisions;
and when it is received as a truth, that in the appointment of judges
care was taken to select men who were pledged to decide important issues
then pending, in accordance with the interests and expressed wishes of
railroad companies, it will not appear strange that the people, before
voting for a judge, should demand of him a pledge in favor of measures
advocated by them, or that he at least should pledge himself to abstain
from judicial legislation and from twisting the meaning of the
constitution to suit the views of the monopolists who are already
clothed with too much power. If it is important that men elected to
congress and state legislatures should be in sympathy with the people in
their struggle to regain their rights, now usurped by the different
monopolies of the country; and if it is necessary that the executive
departments of the state and national government should be filled with
men who are friends of the people and in favor of restricting
corporations within proper and legitimate bounds,--it is of vastly more
importance that the seats of justice, the courts of the country, should
be filled and controlled by men who, instead of deciding cases according
to their own personal views of what the constitution ought to be, will
accept it in letter and spirit as it is, and decide accordingly. An
inordinate desire to interpret the fundamental law, to give it a new
meaning, or, as it is commonly expressed, for amending the constitution
by judicial legislation, seems to have seized the courts, and has been
followed to such length as to make it almost impossible for even the
courts themselves to decide when an act is constitutional and when it is
not. A new decision is made as often as a new judge is appointed, not
unfrequently overruling the long settled decisions of the courts. These
decisions, no matter how absurd or unjust, must be accepted by the whole
country as the supreme law of the land. Of late years, by accident or
design, most of the decisions on questions of a general nature have been
adverse to the interests of the people, and in favor of monopolies.
Newly appointed judges, scarcely warm in their seats, have not hesitated
to overrule the decisions of "Marshall," of "Story," and "Chase;" to
disregard the views of "Webster," of "Adams," of "Jefferson," of
"Washington," and "Hamilton," on constitutional questions. Their own
personal views have been substituted for constitutional law, until the
protection that instrument is supposed to afford the private citizen is
entirely destroyed, and the absolute control of the government is
transferred to the few monopolists, who, under the sanction of the
courts, oppress the whole people. Whatever reform may be effected in the
legislative and executive departments of the government, no real reform
can obtain without a reformation of the courts.
FIFTH.--_The Effect of the Legal Tender Decision, and its
Antidote._--The power of congress to issue treasury notes and government
paper as a war measure, is not denied. The authority or the right, under
the constitution, to make government promises to pay (treasury notes)
legal tender, is not admitted. We have already treated of the legal
tender decisions; of the reconstruction of the court, and the means used
to secure the appointment of judges to insure a majority in favor of the
validity of the legal tender act, and its general application to all
debts save those excepted in the act, no matter at what time they were
contracted. We recur to this subject again for the purpose of showing
its effect upon the financial interests of the country. Whatever may
have been the views of congress in passing the act, or of the court in
declaring it constitutional, it has proved disastrous to the interests
of the people, and of great benefit to the corporate oligarchy that now
rules the country. Whatever may have been the views of the majority of
the court, or the motives that prompted and controlled that majority in
rendering the legal tender decisions, these decisions have proved
disastrous to the interests of the people, and added greatly to the
already great power of corporations and Wall street speculators. In our
commerce with foreign nations we are obliged to use _money_ or its
equivalent. While the acts of congress and the decisions of courts may
make treasury notes legal tender for all domestic debts, and all foreign
debts payable in this country, neither the acts of congress nor the
decisions of courts can have any power or controlling influence over
other nations. Debts due from us payable in foreign countries must be
paid in coin or its equivalent. Our governmental promises to pay will
not pass current as money in foreign countries, even though accompanied
and supported by the decision of the supreme court, deciding that they
are to be received by us as legal tender in all of our transactions. No
one will claim that treasury notes are money, or that they are of
intrinsic value. It is because the government is pledged to redeem this
class of paper with coin that it has a market value. All other nations
recognize coin--gold and silver--as the measure of values. It is the
standard for all other articles of barter or sale. It is _money_. All
other issues are but the representatives of money. Debts due from us,
payable in foreign countries, must be paid in money; legal tender will
not answer. But if debts due us from persons residing in other countries
are to be paid here, the debtors can take their money, buy our legal
tender at a discount of fifteen or twenty dollars to the hundred, and
discharge their debts, saving for themselves the difference between coin
and paper. The confidence we have in the promises of the government to
redeem in coin is all that makes treasury notes pass current, or gives
them a market value.
The hope of an early resumption of specie payment is blasted by the
legal tender decision. Its effect is to drain the United States of coin
in our commerce with foreign nations, thus making it impossible to
resume. Our coin grows less from day to day, and the secretary of the
treasury is obliged to sell gold in New York at short intervals and in
large amounts, in order to prevent the Wall street brokers making a
margin of twenty-five per cent or more between coin and government
paper. While stock jobbers and gold brokers make large profits in the
appreciated price of gold; and railroad companies, in paying their
bonds, make a net gain to the amount of the difference in value between
gold and legal tender currency, the farmers and producers suffer loss to
the amount of this difference in disposing of their products. When wheat
is sold for one dollar per bushel, the seller gets but eighty-four
cents, or just the value of treasury notes, and not one dollar in money,
as he imagines, because the dollar he gets has no intrinsic value, but
sells at its market worth, coin being the standard of values.
Another result of the legal tender decision is to make the value of farm
products dependent upon the operations of Wall street sharpers. Legal
tenders are the standard of values, says the court; coin and all
marketable articles have their values measured by treasury notes. The
price of treasury notes fluctuates. This fluctuation is not caused by
any real change in the relative value of coin and treasury notes, but
results from the dealings and operations in Wall street. If the "bulls"
corner gold, its value rises, or, more properly speaking, treasury notes
depreciate in value. When the "bears" control the market, the price of
treasury notes advances. This legal measure of values is constantly
changing, and with its rise and fall the prices of western products also
rise or fall. Railroads, railroad stocks and bonds, and the currency of
the country, as well as the coin, are all under the control of Wall
street operators, and as long as treasury notes are treated as legal
tender, these same operators will control the markets of the whole
country.
The legal tender acts and decisions, in effect, provide an irredeemable
paper currency for the people, and coin for the government. Duties on
imports must be paid in coin. Wall street brokers have the coin of the
country cornered; the importer must buy it of them; he pays it to the
government; government sells it to the broker, and he again sells it to
the importer. It cannot get into general use, because the brokers
preserve so great a margin between gold and paper as to drive all coin
from circulation. They monopolize the gold market, and, under the legal
tender decision, control the money market of the whole country. This
state of things must continue until the legal tender act is repealed or
the decisions of the supreme court are reversed.
The imagination cannot devise a more perfect system for the subjection
of the best interests of the people to the control of railroad and
monied corporations and companies, and Wall street brokers and gamblers.
It needed but the legal tender decision to make it perfect; to subject
the whole country to the rule of rings and combinations of unscrupulous
and dishonest men; to reduce the people to a state of vassalage more
degrading than that of the Russian serfs. In name we are a free people,
protected by the constitution of our country; in fact, we are the
servants of these giant monopolies. We retain of the proceeds of our
labor such portion as they graciously permit us to keep. With the
congress of the United States, and the legislatures of most of the
states, committed to their interests, and the supreme court of the
nation issuing its edicts in their favor, they can defy the people and
continue their oppressions.
SIXTH.--_Popular Measure of Relief Discussed.--The Nature of the Reform
Needed._--We recognize no higher human power than the will of the
people. When the servants of the people, elected and appointed to
represent their interests in legislative bodies, or to decide upon
questions affecting public interests, prove recreant to the trusts and
interests confided to them, the people--the sovereign power--can remove
them in the method provided by the fundamental law, or, if this cannot
be effected, then the people have the right, the God-given right, to
resort to nature's first law for self-preservation. If by legislation
the rights of the people are taken from them, then that power, retained
by the whole people to be exercised when their rights are refused
them--that power which is inherent in the supreme rulers of our
country--can be exercised. Under our system of government it should not
be asserted save in the last extremety. When all other means fail; when
redress can be obtained in no other way, then the people, as supreme
rulers, should arise in their majesty, and, by the exercise of their
reserved rights, _take_ what their servants have denied them. As a
people, we have not yet reached the point which would justify extreme
measures. While the different monopolies of which we have been treating,
by their shrewd management, by the use of their money, and by concert of
action, have obtained almost unlimited control of all the departments of
the government, numerically they comprise but a small part of the
population of the country. Their success is to be attributed to two
causes: their systematic organization, and their unlimited control of
the finances of the country. We might add, as a further cause of their
success, the inattention of a large majority of the people to the
political affairs of the country, and their willingness to follow a few
political leaders, to whom they seem to have entrusted the entire
control of the politics of the country. As a rule, we submit to wrongs
in the administration of the affairs of states, as well as the national
government, until we individually suffer from their mal-administration,
then, what has been termed the "sober second thought of the people"
manifests itself, and reforms are effected. The situation of the affairs
of the nation, and the great power that the monopolists have obtained in
the land, have aroused that "sober second thought," and never in the
history of our government has there been more urgent need of action on
the part of the people. Never were issues presented that demanded more
earnestly the united efforts of all who love and prize constitutional
liberty. The evils of which we have been treating can be remedied by
demanding of all who fill official positions a recognition of the
superior binding force of the constitution. It is not to be expected
that those men filling official places in the legislative and judicial
departments of the government, who, from interest and custom, have
become addicted to the habit of giving new meanings and interpretations
to the constitution, will reform the abuses that have been rapidly
accumulating, or that they will manifest any zeal or alacrity in
stripping the railroad corporations and other monopolies of the great
powers conferred upon them, or that any real reformation can be effected
without a thorough change of public servants. No matter what political
party has control of the government, or to what party the men selected
to fill the different offices belong, or with what political
organizations they affiliate, unless they acknowledge the superior
binding force of the fundamental law they should be requested to vacate
their official positions, and their places should be filled by men who
are willing to acknowledge the binding force of the constitution, and
will pledge themselves to abstain from judicial legislation. Men elected
to congress and state legislatures are the servants of the people,
elected to protect their interests; hence, their will should control the
action of members of congress and state legislatures. Being elected to
serve the people and not to promote selfish interests or support class
legislation, the people, before supporting any candidate for a
legislative office, should demand of him a pledge to labor for and
support only such measures as will tend to a restoration of the rights
that have been taken from and denied to them, and by special charters
and grants conferred upon corporations and other monopolies. Railroad
corporations being created by legislative grants, their business being
that of common carriers for hire, the legislature possesses full power
to enact such laws as will limit and restrict their charges for
transportation to a reasonable tariff, prohibit and punish extortions
and unjust discriminations, and provide for the swift infliction of
penalties whenever the laws are violated. Before the people elect any
man to a legislative office, he should pledge himself to support and
obey the requirements of the constitution, and to abstain from that bane
of a republican government, special class legislation. By supporting
only such men as would, in good faith, pledge themselves, as above
suggested, and who, as legislators, would abide by their pledges, unjust
discriminations would cease, and some of the rights of the people would
be restored. But reforms must extend beyond the points named. Railroad
companies being chartered and railroads constructed for the prosecution
of the business of common carriers, having received aid in lands and
bonds from the general government, and from states, counties, cities,
and towns, bonds and taxes, as well as special privileges not granted to
any other corporations, in contemplation of law, these companies are
bound to act honestly. It was never the intent of the legislatures (if
they acted in good faith) to create these powerful corporations, to
grant them extraordinary aid and privileges, and then allow them, by
false and fictitious reports as to the cost of their roads, to charge
unjust prices for carrying freights and passengers. By the watering
process to which we have referred, the pretended cost of the roads, as
shown from their reports, is often two or three times the actual cost,
and the rates that are charged for transportation are such as to pay
dividends not only on the cost of the road, but on the fictitious or
added stock. Indeed, in many cases the stock reported as paid up is not
paid in a legitimate manner; but when the company is organized, by
selling bonds it builds its road from the proceeds, and from the earning
of the road pays not only the interest on its bonds but accumulates a
surplus. This surplus is divided among the stockholders, not as
dividends on their paid-up stock, but is capitalized and stock issued to
subscribers. The road is made to pay the interest, and eventually the
principal, of the capital borrowed to build it, and also to earn money
enough to show a paid-up capital to the amount of the actual cost of the
road. This species of financiering on the part of the company is robbing
the people, and abusing the privileges conferred by the charter. No
thorough reform of the abuses practiced by railroad companies can be
effected until the legislatures, by statutes, compel each and every
company to purge its stock of every spurious dollar, so that the stock
of each company shall not appear to be in excess of the cost of its
road. If the legislature does not possess the power to do this, then it
has the power to create a corporation that, by arbitrarily increasing
its stock to any amount it may choose, can extort from the people
sufficient to pay the interest upon such amount, and defy the power of
its creator. The position is not sound. Any and all abuses practiced by
railroad corporations can be corrected by legislative enactment, unless
we admit that the creature is greater than the creator.
But it is claimed that if the legislatures should by statute compel
railroad companies to reduce their stock to the cost of constructing
their roads, or to their actual value, and then limit their tariff of
charges to reasonable rates, great injustice would be done the innocent
holders of their bonds; that such reduction would render it impossible
for them to pay either the interest or principal of these bonds; that
such statutes would impair the obligations of contracts; that many of
the bonds are held by widows and orphans, who would be ruined. This may
or may not be true. If true, who is responsible for it? Certainly not
the states or the people. Originally the bonds were purchased of the
railroad companies. If these companies by false representations have
obtained credit on their roads to two or three times their actual value,
the companies are the responsible parties, and not the public. While
innocent persons may suffer, their suffering results from their own
imprudence, or it is a misfortune occasioned by the fraud of the
railroad company. There is no justice in allowing these companies to
extort from the people money sufficient to relieve themselves from the
consequences of their frauds. A owns a farm worth $2,000; he represents
it to be worth $6,000, and by reason of this false representation
obtains from B a loan of $4,000, secured by a mortgage on this farm. He
fails to pay the money borrowed, and B forecloses his mortgage, and
sells the farm. It pays but one-half his judgment or decree. Would B
have any claim upon the public for the balance of his debt? He made his
own contract, and expected a profit on his investment, but was
disappointed. Under the law A had full authority to mortgage his land,
and B had the option of loaning his money to A and taking a mortgage. He
acted in good faith, and believed his security was ample, but was
mistaken. Is there any difference in principle between the case of A and
B and the purchasers of railroad bonds? Both parties will suffer loss
because of the fraud of the party with whom they dealt. Neither have any
claim upon the public in law or in equity, and both must look to the
parties with whom they contracted. The charters to railroad companies
empowered them to transact business, but did not empower them to commit
frauds, by mortgaging their roads for three times their actual value. To
require railroad companies to act honestly and charge reasonable rates
for carrying freights, does not impair the obligations of any contract.
Nor does it, to compel them to reduce their stock to what it actually
should be, measured by the value of their roads. The legislature should
be composed of men who are not embarrassed by personal interest, and who
have not received bribes. We do not claim that because of the fact that
men are stockholders or directors in railroad companies they are
disqualified for seats in the legislatures of states, or of congress.
But do insist that when men are elected for the express purpose of
advocating the increase of the already too great powers and privileges
conferred upon corporations, they prostitute their offices to base and
illegitimate purposes. When the sole aim of men elected to represent the
people is demonstrated to be to defeat every measure designed to relieve
them from the effect of unjust laws, and to correct abuses practiced by
the combined influence of corporations, they dishonor the place they
fill. The rights of the people can be neither restored nor preserved,
until legislatures are purged of this class of men. Men who receive any
remuneration from any man, class of men, or corporations, paid or
bestowed for the purpose of securing friendly legislation, are unfit to
represent the people. It makes no difference whether the consideration
is paid in money, or in _passes over the railroads_; it is given as a
_bribe_. Passes are called complimentary; they are accepted as
complimentary, yet it is a fact that these complimentary passes are
placed where they "will do the most good." They are given to
congressmen, legislators, judges of courts, and executive officers. If
it were necessary to offer proof that these passes were intended as
bribes, we need only look at the manner of their distribution to the
members of the last Iowa legislature. They were distributed among those
friendly to legislation in favor of railroads, and withheld from those
opposed to such legislation. If passes are purely complimentary, this
was wrong; but if they are given as _bribes_ it was the proper
distribution of them. The legislator who accepts a pass, and the party
giving it, should be punished under the provisions of the statutes
against "bribery and corruption in office." And the provisions of the
same statutes ought to be enforced against all persons holding official
positions in the states, and in the general government. If officers
cannot afford to pay for travel over railroads on their present
salaries, increase them so as to make them independent of railroad
companies, who estimate official integrity as being equal in value to a
pass over their respective roads. History demonstrates that in some
cases these passes have been received as full consideration for official
influence. Legislatures possess the power to regulate and control
railroad companies, and should exercise that power in every case of
abuse of their privileges by the railroad companies. Some deny the power
of legislatures to compel railroad companies to reduce their stock to
the actual cost of their roads. This power is lodged in some department
of government. We are not prepared to admit that these corporations are
supreme; that they can openly, and in defiance of law, and the rights of
the governing power, practice frauds, which, if practiced by an
individual, would consign him to prison. If the legislature does not
possess it, the courts certainly do, as we will hereafter demonstrate.
We have shown that by the manner of building roads with borrowed capital
obtained by sale of bonds, and by extortionate charges for
transportation, making their roads earn sufficient to pay dividends on
stock which had not been paid, as well as on the watered stock, the
railroad companies in the United States whose roads cost $2,456,230,000,
yet in fact representing the enormous sum of $6,236,638,749, in what
purports to be-paid-up capital stock, and bonds, were robbing the
people.
The question we are now discussing is, How to remedy these evils. Our
attempt thus far has been to demonstrate the fact that the remedy is
exclusively within the state authorities, and not in those of the United
States, and that railroad companies are private, and not public.
Adhering to these views, we contend that railroad companies are subject
to taxation at the same rate on the assessed value of their property as
an individual; and the legislature cannot adopt a different rule for
taxing railroad property without disregarding the letter and spirit of
the constitution. The chartering, regulating, and controlling of
railroad companies, and all corporations created for pecuniary profit,
must remain with the states. To concede the exercise of this power to
the national administration is to overturn republican government and
take from the people the rights and powers reserved to them and the
states; create a great central power without constitutional limit or
restitution, but governed by the personal views of those in office. We
have treated of this subject in the preceding pages, and refer to it
here in considering the remedies for the evils endured by the people. We
know that congress has granted charters to corporations organized for
pecuniary profit, and that United States courts have taken jurisdiction
of cases arising under state statutes, and disregarded the action of
state legislatures and state courts on questions affecting the interests
of railroad corporations, and have also decided that congress possesses
the power to charter railroad companies. But we do not recognize the
decisions as right, nor do we believe they will remain long unreversed.
The opinion generally prevails that railroad corporations have abused,
and are abusing, their charters; that they are oppressing the people;
that there must be a reform of the abuses practiced by them. But
differences of opinion exist as to the means to be applied. If we
recognize the people as the source of power, and that they retain all
the power they have not delegated to the government, the more nearly the
interests of the people and the companies approach each other, the more
closely they can be blended and united, and the more readily can abuses
be corrected. To divide their rights and interests; to provide different
governments, and rules of decisions for them; to make the people
amenable to state authority, while the United States authority takes
control of corporations, will create rival interests, and render
railroad companies independent of the people. If the congress of the
United States, claiming to have the constitutional right, should provide
by statute for transferring the exclusive control of railroad
corporations to the United States, an entire change of the relation
between the states and the general government would be the result. The
states would not have the power to redress any abuses of the charter
privileges granted to these companies, either by legislative enactment
or by judicial decisions. Railroad companies created by state
legislatures, and hitherto subject to the jurisdiction of the state
courts, would be released from all obligations to state government, and
from the control of state legislatures and courts. The congress of the
United States and the federal courts would have exclusive control and
jurisdiction over them, and constant confusion and conflicts of
jurisdiction would naturally follow. Such a course would confer upon
railroad companies still greater power, and place in their hands more
efficient means for oppressing the people. Another evil resulting from
such a course would be, that the whole corporate interest of the country
could combine and concentrate their whole influence for the purpose of
accomplishing any desired object. Now both congress and state
legislatures must be bought over to their support; but if the United
States government should take the whole control of corporations and
railroad companies, the whole railroad force of the country, from the
men who own, manage, and control this great interest, to the most
menial employes, could be directed to a single purpose--that of securing
congressional favor.
Now, state legislatures must be approached, and _persuaded_, as well as
congress; then a single legislative body, and that one the farthest
removed from the people, would be the only body to claim the attention
of this great corporate interest. When grants were once made to railroad
companies, and privileges conferred upon them, it would be simply
impossible to effect any change, no matter how oppressive they might be
upon the people. The idea that railroads are public highways, and that
railroad companies are public corporations, already obtains among
congressmen and in the supreme court of the United States. This is well
understood among railroad men, as well as the fact that there is an
increasing demand on the part of the people for the reform of the many
abuses that are now practiced by them. Hence their anxiety to have the
United States government assume control of railroad corporations. They
desire it for another reason: Most of the special favors and grants they
have received have been the result of bargain and sale. The same means
will be used in the future unless a thorough reform is effected, and it
will cost the corporate interests of the country less to deal with one
body representing all the states than it would to deal with the
legislatures of all the states. Another reason for this desire on the
part of railroad companies is, that the supreme court, as now formed, is
in full sympathy with them upon the points at issue between corporations
and the people.
Careful consideration and examination of this question will satisfy the
people that their only hope for the restoration and preservation of
their rights in the conflict now existing between themselves and the
railroad companies is in states retaining exclusive jurisdiction and
control of all the railroad corporations and railroads within their
respective borders. Another remedy suggested is, for the general
government to purchase and own all the railroads in the country, and
control them in the future. If this plan were feasible, it is of
doubtful wisdom. The purchase could not be made without the consent of
the owners of the roads. This consent could only be obtained upon
payment of the prices demanded, because railroad stock is not such
property as can be condemned for public use. It is not to be expected
that the companies owning the stocks and roads would sell for less than
cost; and this cost would be the amount of money represented by the
roads. This we have shown is over $6,000,000,000. To pay less than this
amount (being nearly three times their actual cost) would be aiding the
companies to defraud their creditors, for the reason that the roads are
the only security the bondholders have. The purchase of the roads would
increase the national debt to the amount paid for them, and impose
additional burdens in the shape of taxes upon the people. It would add
to the list of government officers and employes at least two hundred
thousand men, whose influence could be relied upon when the interests of
the people and those persons in office conflicted.
It may be said that the government would not operate the roads, but
would lease them. Would this afford relief? It would require two parties
to make the contract. The contractor would agree to pay a certain
stipulated amount for the use of the road. He would then fix his own
rate of charges for transportation, and being only a lessee, would be
virtually irresponsible. Government could not fix the price to be paid
for the use of the road, and also the tariff of charges. But the lessee
would demand the right to fix his own tariff in order that he might have
sufficient to make repairs, pay for the use of the road, and make his
profit. This system would be subject to the abuses of which the shippers
now complain. Irresponsible persons would often have control of these
roads, or a part of them, and a wide field would be open for fraud and
irregular practices. The wants of the people demand some other and
cheaper mode of transportation; either a cheaper system of building and
operating railroads, so that the tariffs can be reduced, or some new
method. The present roads may be superseded and another kind adopted. In
that case, the present railroad system would become of little value, and
would prove a loss to the government. Last of all, the general
government cannot go into the railroad business without contravening the
provisions of the constitution. In addition to the above reasons why the
government should not become the owner of the railroads, is this one,
which outweighs all others: It would place them entirely beyond the
control of the people. If the control of corporations is left to the
states, they are in the hands of the people; each county, town, and
neighborhood, can bring its influence to bear upon the questions at
issue. In the election of congressmen and other United States officers,
local issues are lost sight of. National questions engage the public
mind, while in the election of members of the state legislatures and
other state officers, local questions enter largely in the canvass.
Numerically, the monopolists are but a small fraction of the people;
their great strength lies in the control they have obtained over the
business and finances of the country. The people, united against the
monopolists, can elect whom they choose to any state office, and can
secure a majority in their favor. The remedy is in their own hands, and
by united action they cannot fail of success. If a reform is ever
effected, if the people ever regain their lost rights, they must
commence at the _ballot box_. The producers throughout the west and
south are largely in the majority; they can elect their own men. If they
fail to do so, if they do not themselves apply the remedy, they ought
not to complain of others because they do not apply it for them. There
need be no difficulty or delay in effecting reforms dependent upon
legislative action, provided the people are true to their own interests.
They elect their agents to act for them. If they do not elect men who
are with them in principle, sympathy, and feeling, they ought not to
complain.
But, says the reader, admitting that legislative reform can be
accomplished, how can the decisions of the courts be changed? This
question presents more difficulty. It has been the custom from time
immemorial for courts to be governed and controlled by precedents. This
is adopted in order that the law may be settled and certain. When
questions arise under statutes, the meaning of which is ambiguous,
resort is had to former decisions under like statutes, for a rule of
construction, and thus the law is _settled_. We accept the decision as
the law of the land, and to criticise it is seemed discourteous to the
court making it. To call in question the motives of the courts, or to
doubt their wisdom, is deemed rank "treason." The rule governing them
may be of ancient date; the reason for its adoption may have long since
ceased; the rule itself may be obsolete. Yet, to find a precedent for a
decision that outrages justice and is at war with the best interests of
the people, but in favor of the corporate interests of the country, this
old rule is dragged from its long repose and made the basis of new
decisions. Most of these old precedents originated in monarchical
countries, where all doubtful questions were construed in favor of the
crown, and where the rights of the people always yielded to kingly
prerogative. While precedents should have their true weight in
determining between private parties, when none of the great questions
arise affecting the national welfare, and while interpretations of the
constitution, acquiesced in for many years, should remain as the settled
law of the land, and be observed by the courts, the practice of solving
constitutional problems by resort to old monarchical precedents, and the
adoption of the reasoning of the high courts of the king's _exchequer_,
should not be tolerated in a republic. Our form of government is new.
Our courts should be the courts of the people, and not a _star chamber_
for the protection and perpetuation of the monarchical dogma, that "it
is absolutely essential to independent national existence that
government should have a firm hold of the two great sovereign
instrumentalities of the _sword_ and the _purse_," as was declared by
the supreme court of the United States, in December, 1871. Such
declarations are at war with our ideas of republican government. It has
no support save in despotic governments and decisions emanating from
them; yet it is the doctrine that must obtain, if the recent decisions
of the supreme court are to remain as the settled law of the nation. To
accept this doctrine as a final exposition of the relative rights of the
people and the government, is to acknowledge that the agents and
servants of the people, elected and appointed to office, become their
masters, clothed with imperial powers.
It is not only in the adoption of old precedents that the rights of the
people have been denied in courts, but by wresting the meaning of the
earlier decisions made by the distinguished men who graced the bench of
the supreme court in its earlier and purer days. The "Dartmouth College"
case was the first in which the rights of states or the people to
interfere with charter privileges was determined. We have given the
history of this case in preceding pages. It in no sense justifies or
supports the recent decisions of the court, as to the rights and
privileges of corporations organized for pecuniary profit. Yet, taking
the decision in that case as a precedent, the supreme court has
gradually encroached upon the rights of the people, until, under its
latest decisions, railroad corporations are public corporations, their
roads are public highways, and the property of all the tax-payers can be
taxed, and the taxes thus collected can be used by these private
corporations to pay for building and repairing their roads. This is the
latest new departure, and with the "Legal Tender" decision, makes the
interest of the whole people, as well as the value of their property,
depend upon the action of corporations.
No good reason can be shown why the decisions of courts should not be
subjected to criticism, the same as the acts of legislative bodies. The
courts are a co-ordinate branch of the government, but with a power
greater than that of the legislative and executive branches combined.
The decisions of courts render nugatory the acts of the other
departments of the government. To admit that the decisions of the
judiciary cannot be questioned, is to concede to it all the prerogatives
possessed by absolute tyrants. Not only have the people the right to
question the decisions of the courts, and if need be to examine the
motives which prompted them, but also to know the views of the men who
aspire to judicial positions, upon all questions of a general and public
nature. No candidate for judicial position should be expected to form an
opinion upon, or decide a question affecting the rights of parties until
it had been finally submitted. But, upon the great questions that
frequently arise affecting the public welfare, his views should be
publicly known. Let the people understand the views of the men seeking
for a seat on the bench, before his election, and judicial legislation
and partisan decisions will soon disappear. The judges of the supreme
court of the United States hold their offices for life, by appointment;
that court is further removed from the people than state courts. Reforms
are not easily effected. Judges recently appointed received their
appointment because of their understood views upon certain public
questions. The course of decisions of this court demonstrates that the
rights of the people are considered of less importance than the demands
of corporations, in cases of conflict. While the present system of
selecting these judges continues, with their life terms, it will be hard
for the people to regain their rights. There are times when, because of
oppressions, the people have the right to demand changes in the
fundamental law. At the present time they are demanding redress; they
are asking to be relieved from the unjust burdens imposed upon them by
companies and corporations, who are petted and supported by the supreme
court. But one certain means is left them, and that is an amendment to
the constitution, restricting their term to a certain number of years,
and providing for their election by the people. We could then free
ourselves from the burdens imposed upon us by this anti-republican
department of our national government, and take from corporations some
of their oppressive powers and privileges, now assured to them by the
decisions of the supreme court. If any relief is afforded the people
from the oppressions under which they now suffer, they must obtain it
through their own efforts. No other channel is now open. All of the
departments of the government, state and national, are more or less
controlled by the monopolies against which the farmers are now preparing
to fight. The silent ballot is the weapon to use; when used by a united
people victory is assured. It is more potent than all the appliances of
an army; more thorough in its execution than the bullet. It is the dread
of the unfaithful legislator, dishonest office-holder, and the unjust
judge. It strikes terror into the hearts of the unscrupulous men, who
are willing to sacrifice honor, country, and future happiness for the
purpose of amassing wealth, by extortions practiced upon the sweating,
toiling millions who till the ground. While partial relief may be
obtained through other channels, real, genuine, and lasting redress can
only be obtained by organized action at the polls.
How can the abuses of the transportation system be corrected? This
question is now having a practical test in Illinois, and is being
discussed throughout the country. It is being demonstrated that a _pro
rata_ tariff will not afford relief; and that some other means must be
adopted. What that may be, time will develop. No uniform _pro rata_
tariff would be just to either the companies or the people. The shipping
of way freights is always attended with more proportionate expense and
delay than at prominent and terminal points. The extensive shipper, who
loads a large number of cars for a single train, should be allowed more
favorable rates than the one who ships at some way station but one car
of freight at long intervals. The real cause of complaint is the
uniformly exorbitant rates charged for carrying freights, in connection
with the present warehouse and elevator system. The legislatures and the
courts are clothed with full power to prevent oppressive or unjust
charges for carrying freight. They care not how much per cent the
companies shall make upon their investments; but when their charges
amount to an abuse of their charter privileges the legislatures and the
courts can correct them. The rule established by railroad companies, to
force from shippers such rates as will pay interest or dividends upon an
amount of imaginary stock, is unjust. The process by which they increase
their stock to two or three times the amount invested is fraudulent. The
legislatures and the courts possess the power to compel railroad
companies to make a return of the actual amounts of money invested in
their respective roads, in order to determine whether their charges are
excessive and oppressive. Railroad companies being dependent upon state
legislatures for such grants as will enable them to construct their
roads, and being common carriers, the legislature can, by statute,
restrict the capital stock to the amount invested. If this course had
been adopted years ago many of the abuses now endured by the people
would have been prevented. Not only has the law-making power the right
to restrict the stock to the actual cost of the road, but it has also
the power to fix the maximum rates for transportation. Competition will
always have a controlling influence upon the price of any commodity, as
well as fixing the price of any species of services or labor. The
legislature has the power to enact statutes to prohibit the
consolidation of the business of railroad companies, or a combination
on their part to charge excessive tariffs; and the courts possess the
power to enforce the observance of such statutes by the infliction of
suitable penalties. In this connection the abuses practiced by the
dispatch companies may be considered. The railroad companies receive
their charters with the understanding and implied agreement on their
part that, as common carriers, they will deal honestly with the public,
and that they will furnish the necessary locomotives, cars, etc., for
the purpose of supplying the ordinary wants of the people. This they are
bound to furnish, and also to do the ordinary carrying of freights, for
a reasonable compensation.
We have already given a history of the dispatch lines, and told who
compose the companies, and how they do the business the railroad
companies agreed to transact when they obtained their charters. These
dispatch lines are a fraud upon the public, for which the companies
should be held responsible. Every dollar paid to them, in excess of the
regular rates of the railroad companies' regular tariff, can be
recovered from the companies. The fiction of hiring their roads and
locomotives to another company, and giving such company a monopoly of
the trade over their road, in order that higher rates may be charged, is
an abuse that the legislature can correct and the courts can punish. Of
the same nature are the "warehouse" and "elevator" combinations. Of
these we know what is open and visible; but of the internal workings and
divisions of the "pools," or, more properly speaking, the "spoils," we
know but little. We know that it is a means of oppression, and that it
compels farmers to sell to _inside_ men, or sacrifice the moiety of the
crop the railroad companies allow them to retain. In law, railroad
companies are bound to ship for all who pay the regular rates without
bestowing a bounty upon elevator and warehouse men; and they are also
bound to deliver the freight at such warehouses as the shippers direct.
For a refusal to do so, they are liable to the shipper for damages to
the amount of the loss suffered, and sums extorted. Shippers can compel
the companies to receive their freights on board their cars at regular
stations, and to deliver their freights at the place designated,
irrespective of any and all combinations to prevent it. To conclude
this whole matter, the people have the power to reform all the abuses
they suffer at the hands of these monopolies by the election of men to
legislative offices whose hands will not touch bribes, and by filling
the seats of justice with judges who are not so wedded to ancient
precedents as to do injustice rather than make a new departure; by men
whose chief object shall be to do equal and exact justice to all, and
not resort to judicial legislation and new interpretations of the
constitution in order to uphold and strengthen the power and advance the
interests of corporations already too powerful in the land.
In order to restore to the people the rights now denied them, and to
abridge the combined power of the monopolies who now rule the country,
the control of the finances must be taken from them. The financial
policy of the government, adopted during the late civil war as a war
measure, is still adhered to. The internal commerce of the whole country
is controlled by a few men--the same who own and operate the railroads
and rule the _business_ in "Wall street." The peculiar financial policy
of the government tends to concentrate the money of the country--to
gather it together, rather than to scatter it abroad. New York City
being the great commercial center, and the internal commerce of the
country, being under the control of a few men who make this metropolis
their principal place of business, with their vast lines of railroads
extending over the whole country, bringing to them a never-ceasing
stream of money, they are able to regulate the market value of almost
all articles of commerce, and to limit the supply of the circulating
medium as occasion serves. We have already shown the bad results of the
system upon the interests of the people, and do not intend to repeat it
here. Ordinarily, the laws of trade, of demand and supply, will regulate
and equalize the distribution of the circulating medium over the
country. Such will always be the case if no special causes exist to
prevent it. But with the railroad interest of the country controlled by
the same combination of men who "corner" all the coin in the country;
with the established policy of the government making depreciated paper
the only circulating medium, and the "legal tender" decision making this
depreciated currency the standard of values; with the constant
fluctuation of prices resulting from the above named causes--it is not
strange that these corporations and Wall street brokers control the
finances of the country. Until this control is taken from them, the
wrongs of the people cannot be redressed.
Money is said to be "power," and when a certain interest or locality has
the absolute control of this "power," all others must suffer. One means
of stripping railroad magnates and Wall street gamblers of this power
would be the resumption of "specie payment." As we have shown, under the
present financial and tariff policy of the country, this is out of the
question. With our legal tender decisions, our depreciated currency, and
our tariff system, the balance of trade is largely against us; our coin
is being shipped to other countries, not leaving us sufficient for the
purposes of resumption, or for circulation. Add to this the fact that
the Wall street brokers own or control most of what is in the country,
and the truth is patent that resumption cannot be effected until the
whole financial policy of the government is remodeled. Will an increase
of the banking facilities of the country under the present system
accomplish this object? We answer, No. An increase of banks, and of the
currency, would only afford temporary relief. Suppose $100,000,000
should be added to the present amount of currency, and that it should
all be distributed in the west and south. Wall street operators would
only have to increase their operations to gather the whole of it under
their control. They now, in their various ramifications, own and control
capital more than sufficient to pay the whole of the national debt and
leave them a large surplus. While the distribution of additional
currency through the country might afford them temporary relief, under
the combined management of railroad corporations and Wall street
brokers, and without any change in their present system, they could and
would soon absorb this surplus of currency, and resume the absolute
control of the finances of the country. The people would again be in
their power, with an additional burden imposed upon them, "to-wit"--the
payment of the interest on an additional $100,000,000 of government
bonds. Would a change in the banking system of the country take from
these monopolists the control of the finances of the country? This
would depend upon the character of the change. If the secretary of the
treasury, or his department, should retain the entire management of the
system, no real relief could be expected. While the general government
has the exclusive right to regulate the coinage and value of coin
(money), it is the assumption of power not delegated to vest in one man,
or department, the exclusive management of the finances of the entire
country, not only of the government, but of all private persons. We do
not comprehend the wisdom of fixing and limiting the amount of currency
the country may have for a circulating medium, and empowering one man to
decide, how, when, and where it shall be distributed. Conceding to the
general government the power to charter banks and issue treasury notes,
the power is not exclusive. There is no limit to the volume of gold and
silver, and if government should attempt to limit the amount of coin, it
could not do it. The laws of trade, the demand and supply, would fix the
amount. Under our present banking system, coin is driven from
circulation, and a definitely fixed amount of treasury notes and
government paper is all that the country is permitted to have for the
transaction of its whole business--and this amount must be placed just
where the comptroller of the currency shall determine.
The legal tender decisions have made the resumption of specie payment
impossible. The present banking system prevents an increase of currency
or treasury notes, and gives concentrated capital absolute and unlimited
control of the business of the country. Any other banking system, if
left under the same control, would be subject to the same objections. No
one department of the government, nor the whole government combined, can
determine the amount of currency necessary for transacting the business
of the country. Fixing the amount in the present banking act has
afforded the means to Wall street operators for "cornering" such amounts
of currency as would derange the market and depress prices. No valid
objection can be offered to what is known as the "free banking system."
Such a system, if generally adopted, would strip railroad corporations,
Wall street jobbers, and all other rings and combinations of men, of the
power to control the finances of the country. Another advantage would
result to the people: It would free them from the annual payment of from
$18,000,000 to $20,000,000 interest on government bonds purchased by
bankers and deposited with the treasury department. Such a system of
banking would reduce the margin between coin and currency and promote
the resumption of specie payment, and, instead of having only
depreciated paper as a circulating medium, we would have a currency
convertible into coin. The giant corporations and other monopolies that
now rule would be shorn of much of their strength, and the people would
be freed from their relentless grasp.
SEVENTH.--_Free Trade and Direct Taxation._--Our conclusion would not be
complete were we to omit a reference to the subject of tariff. Indeed,
it so interlaces the question of transportation and the construction of
railroads as to become an integral part of our discussion. Disclaiming
any partisan views of the question, we shall try to demonstrate that all
tariffs are unjust and oppressive. In a former chapter we have shown the
operations of our tariff, and some of its results. We now proceed to
demonstrate that the true rule in all our dealings and commercial
transactions is, _to sell where we can obtain the best prices, and to
purchase where we can obtain the desired article for the least money_.
Demand and supply should regulate the prices in our dealings, and
protective tariffs should be repealed. A "protection" that taxes
three-fourths or four fifths of the whole people, in order that the
remaining fraction may amass riches, is an oppression that ought not to
be tolerated. No class is more oppressed by protective tariffs than the
farmers and producers of the country. They do not ask, nor do they
receive any protection.
With high or protective tariffs, farmers and producers pay much more
than their just proportion to the support of the government. The
consumer simply pays tariff duties on what he consumes, while the
producer not only pays on what he consumes, but his product must pay a
large part of the duty upon what is consumed by others. The products of
the country are its wealth. No matter who is obliged to pay the duty in
the first instance, ultimately the producer must pay it. To illustrate
this proposition, let us take any given article produced, manufactured,
or constructed in the United States. There is a duty on some of the
material used in the manufacture of the reaper. The manufacturer pays
this duty, and adds it to the cost of the machine purchased by the
farmer. In the erection of factories, machine shops, furnaces, and
foundries, dutiable articles are used, all of which, in the end, must be
paid for from the products of the country. In the construction of
railroads, locomotives, cars, etc., iron and other articles are used
upon which there are high tariff rates. These duties are paid by the
companies in the first instance, the amounts paid are included in the
cost of the roads, and must be returned in shape of increased rates for
transportation over the roads. In the end these duties are paid by the
producer. Every bushel of wheat, corn, or other grain, shipped over a
railroad, pays part. Protective tariffs are so interwoven with the
construction of railroads and the internal commerce of the country that
they cannot be separated from the questions we have been discussing. All
tariff duties are direct charges upon the productions of this country,
and not on any other. Import duties are not paid by the people of the
country from whence the goods are imported, but by our own people. It
matters not who pays the tax in the first instance, in the end it must
be paid from the product of the country. The main product of our
country, especially of the west and south, being from the soil, it
follows that the farmer must pay by far the greatest portion of tariff
duties. The burdens imposed on him are more than his just share. In the
first place he pays directly the duty charged upon what he consumes, and
then pays, indirectly, much the larger part of the duties paid in the
first instance by others. He is charged with the cost of shipping his
grain to market, whether that market is in the United States or Europe,
and his product must pay the cost of shipping the return cargo from
Europe to America, with the addition of such protective duty as congress
may fix by statute. His product must bear the whole burden. "In other
words, the question of transportation is part and parcel of the tariff
question, and cannot be dealt with apart from it. Transportation is made
dear by the dearness of supplies; that is to say, the railroads are
taxed enormously, and, through the railroads, the farmers, for the
benefit of special industries. There can be no cheap transportation
without cheap iron, cheap cars, cheap stations; and, what is more, there
can be no market for American produce abroad so long as the sale of all
foreign commodities, except gold, is made as difficult as high duties
and vexatious custom house regulations can make it. Agricultural produce
at the west is now a glut; it must become more and more of a glut, if
either more railroads are opened or the cost of transportation on the
present roads is diminished, as long as new markets are not provided,
or, in other words, as long as access to the crowded regions of the Old
World is artificially impeded. Of course, there may come a time when
there will be population enough in the west to eat up all its corn and
pork; but, at the present rate of agricultural and railroad development,
this will not be witnessed by either the present generation or the next,
and the cry of the 'Granges' ought to be for a clearing of the outlets
to the Old World in all ways. To secure this, it is not enough to
cheapen transportation; we have to offer a market to the foreigner for
his commodities in order to get him to take ours."
As we have before remarked, the settled plan for raising revenue for the
support of the general government, is by import duties. By common
consent this plan has been accepted as the most feasible. While we have
been following this method from the organization of our government, by
legislation we have been making war upon foreign commerce, by imposing
tariffs for the protection and government of domestic manufactures. By
congressional enactment, we determine that we will support the
government by the collection of duties levied upon foreign imports; and
then we levy high rates of duties for the purpose of prohibiting these
foreign imports, and for building up and protecting home manufactures.
Under the present tariff, but for the fact that our own manufacturers
take advantage of the high rate of duties, and advance the price of
their own products, to the extent of the duty, foreign importations
would cease, and some other means would have to be adopted to supply the
revenue needed by the government. The only benefit thus far resulting
from our present high tariff is the enriching of a few men by the
imposition of unjust and unequal burdens upon the farming and producing
classes. It might be pertinent to inquire whether there is any justice
in any kind of tariff. All are bound to contribute their _pro rata_
share for the support of the government. In theory the property of the
country is taxed for this purpose. Such a system of taxation is just and
equitable, because it is uniform; the property of each individual pays
its _pro rata_ share, and the burden is equally divided. As we have
already shown, revenue derived from tariffs is a tax upon the labor of
the citizen, and not on the wealth or property of the country. The poor
man, the man who depends entirely upon his daily labor for the support
of himself and family, pays as much for the support of the government as
the man of immense wealth. His daily toil, considered in the light of
its value to the government, is taken as equivalent to the $500,000 of
the rich man. The industry and not the wealth of the country is made to
support the government when the revenue is derived from import duties.
No one will deny the right of the general government to provide for its
own support, nor its right to provide means to this end by the levy of
import duties; yet the wisdom of these duties does not so clearly
appear. The reader will have noticed that this method of raising revenue
operates unequally; that it gives to American manufacturers an absolute
monopoly of business; that the only reason why imports do not cease is
because the prices of American fabrics have been arbitrarily raised to
the highest point allowable without permitting the importer to undersell
the home-made article. The manufacturers, under the statute, having a
complete monopoly, are not slow in availing themselves of it, and, as a
natural result, the whole country is compelled to contribute to their
support. It may be asked: How would you provide for the support of the
government? We answer, by direct taxation, because this is a just and
equitable manner of raising revenue, compelling the wealth and property
of the country, and not the labor of the toiling millions, to support
the government. Because it will prove less expensive, and will do away
with custom houses and custom house officers, with the frauds,
swindling, and robbery, that now afflict the country. Because it will
open to us the markets of the world, and give us an outlet and market
for our agricultural products. Now the balance of trade is against us;
our country is being drained of its coin and its wealth; all productive
industries languish, because of our selfish policy of attempting to
become exclusive in our commerce.
We are content to trammel all dealings with foreign nations in the way
of barter, sale, and exchange, and send our coin to Europe, while we
use, as the representative of money, an irredeemable paper currency.
Free trade would enable us to increase our commerce and shipping on the
ocean; to arrest the stream of coin that is flowing from us to Europe;
to sell where we could obtain the best prices, and buy where we could
make the best bargains. We are in favor of direct taxation for the
support of the government, because it will simplify our revenue system,
and consequently require less revenue than is now needed. It will compel
more rigid economy in the administration of the government, and place
within the reach of the people the means of ascertaining how much is
annually expended by those in power. It will destroy one branch of the
system of monopolies that is robbing the agricultural and producing
classes of their substance. Let us not become alarmed at the thought of
this direct taxation. We accept it as the best method for raising
revenue for the support of state and municipal government, and no good
reason can be shown why the same method would not be best for the
general government. The amount to be paid by the men of wealth would be
in excess of what they now pay, because their property, and not what
they consume, would be the basis of taxation. But to the laborer with a
family, the mechanic, the farmer with small means, and to a majority of
men who now pay in shape of duties from $100 to $200 annually, the
amount required would be but a tithe of the sum now demanded. To learn
something of the rate per cent necessary to support the government, let
us look at the valuation of the property in the United States as
returned with the census in 1870. The actual amount as returned was
$14,178,486,732, call it in round numbers $15,000,000,000; a tax of one
per cent on this amount would produce a revenue of $150,000,000. The
above valuation is taken mainly from the returns made by assessors, and
is but little more than one-third of the real value. Let us double the
amount, then the value of the property in the United States will be
$30,000,000,000. By an examination of the returns it will be seen that
but little railroad property is included in the valuation. If this
property is added, the above amount will be largely increased. By
supposing the real value of the assessable property to be
$30,000,000,000; then a tax of one-half per cent would raise a revenue
of $150,000,000, a sum sufficient to pay all the necessary current
expenses of the government and leave something to apply on the national
debt. A tax of three-fourths per cent would raise a revenue of
$225,000,000, enough to support the government and pay the interest on
the whole of the national debt. Should the special tax be continued on
spirits and tobacco, then a tax of four mills would raise a sufficient
revenue for all legitimate governmental purposes. Now, a laboring man
must pay from the proceeds of his labor from thirty per cent upwards for
almost all his purchases of clothing for his family, and the same on
many other articles of consumption. If, in the course of a year, he
purchases to the amount of $150, of this sum, $50 is paid, indirectly,
it is true, but nevertheless it is paid, and is a tax. With direct
taxation, if his homestead should be worth $1,000, instead of paying $50
as he now does, he would pay five for the support of the government, and
the other forty-five dollars now paid by him from the proceeds of his
labor would be charged against the property of his rich neighbor. There
is no injustice in this method of raising revenue for the support of the
government, and its adoption would relieve the people from the
oppressions of a ring of wealthy monopolies who now control the entire
manufacturing industries of the country, and would allow the laws of
trade, of demand and supply, to fix the prices of manufactured articles.
No reason now exists for the continuance of a law that assures to the
manufacturer large dividends on his investments, while the farm products
must be sold and bartered for a nominal price. The producer asks no
protection save access to the market and the privilege of keeping for
his family and himself the net proceeds of his crops, without being
compelled to bestow one-third of it as a gratuity upon the already rich
and lordly manufacturer. This right the agriculturalists will never
enjoy until the old anti-republican theory of protective and revenue
tariffs is exploded, and the equal rights of all are vindicated. When
this tariff embargo on commerce is removed, when this blockade is
raised, and the producer can send his grain to Europe, and in return
receive such manufactured articles as he needs, without paying _royalty_
to some American lord, in shape of tariffs (ironically called
"protection") the producing classes will ask no other aid of government.
Then will appear the dawn of that universal brotherhood of man, which
sooner or later will illuminate the whole civilized world. With "free
trade" and direct taxation, a death blow will be given to monopolists,
and the burdens so long borne by the laboring and producing classes will
be lifted from them, and they will be permitted to enjoy the fruit of
their own labor.
EIGHTH.--_Patent Rights--Cash Payments Recommended in Place of Long
Standing Mortgages on the Genius of American Industry._--We have shown
some of the abuses connected with the patent system of the country, and
their effect upon the people. While the monopoly of inventions is not of
as great magnitude as some others of which we have treated, the
oppressions resulting from it are more annoying than many that engage
general attention. Inventions are patented because they are expected to
be of public benefit, and because it is but just that the inventor
should be rewarded for a discovery or invention that will advantage the
public generally, or individuals who may make use of the invention or
discovery. The monopoly given to the inventor, or discoverer, is to
enable him to compensate himself for the time, labor, and skill, as well
as the talent or genius bestowed upon the invention, and also to
encourage others to enter the lists as inventors or discoverers of new
and useful articles and principles. But our patent system was never
designed for giving a monopoly to any one who happened to shape a plow
handle different from those now in use, or who cut a thread used in
operating a sewing machine in a peculiar manner, or for the many
hundreds of trifling alterations made in many articles in general use,
or in the manner of using them. An examination of the list of patents
issued will demonstrate that not one in ten contains any new principle,
or is of any value to any one, save the patentee. The apparent ease with
which patents are obtained, and the indiscriminate manner of their
issue, is a great and growing evil that should be remedied. No patent
should be issued until a test had demonstrated its perfection and
usefulness. An examination of many articles on which letters patent have
been issued, coupled with the attempt to use them, discloses the fact
that the invention, if it ever could be of any particular value,
required further improvement to make it of such value, and that letters
patent had been issued for an undeveloped theory. If the invention had
been submitted to a practical test, this state of things would not have
occurred, and the public would not have been defrauded. Patented
articles enter so largely in the prosecution of all industrial pursuits
that it is of the utmost importance that they should be perfect in their
plans and construction, and that the government should assume some kind
of responsibility in all cases when letters patent are issued. Such
letters say in substance, that the patented article is new and useful,
and that it is reasonably fit for the work in the view of the inventor.
These letters patent are a letter of credit to the patentee; as a
license permitting him to sell his invention, and forbidding all persons
to sell or use the invention without his consent. Under the present law
it is simply a special favor, in shape of an exclusive right, granted to
an individual to defraud the persons with whom he deals. The law should
be so modified as to make the government or the examining officer
responsible in all cases when patents issued for pretended discoveries
or inventions prove to be neither new nor useful. If such were now the
law, there would be less complaint of frauds practiced by pretended
inventors, and the utter failure of patented articles to answer the
purposes for which they were intended. The law should be so amended as
to prevent oppressions and extortions in the sale and use of articles of
real merit, for which the inventor should be rewarded, and should have
an exclusive right to use and sell his invention. There should be some
limit to the price of the article. Government has given him an
exclusive right; he should be restricted to such prices as would fairly
compensate him for his discovery. His case is not like that of other
men, who in their dealings come in competition, and where this
competition and the laws of demand and supply fix the prices of the
commodities in which they deal. He has the whole business in his own
hands, and any attempt on the part of others to interfere with his
exclusive right is forbidden and punished. We have already stated that
machines sold in this country for $75 could be bought in England for
less than half that sum. Most of the articles and machines of different
kinds patented in this country, and used in Europe, are sold by the
patentees, their agents and assigns, at less than half the sums demanded
here at home. In Europe, where they have no monopoly, no exclusive
right, they come in competition with others; hence they sell at fair
prices. But in this country, where they have an exclusive right, they
extort from the purchaser from one hundred to five hundred per cent on
the cost of the article. This, government should prevent. But a better
way to adjust the whole matter between the public and the inventor would
be for the government to pay a premium according to merit, for all new
and useful inventions, and remove all restrictions. Let all be free to
make, use, and sell, not the invention, but the thing invented. This
course would require careful and thorough examination and experiment
before the principle was indorsed by the government, and the premium
paid. Or, if his invention proved to be new and useful, let government
pay to the inventor such sum as would fairly and liberally compensate
him, and give the invention to the public. Government has bestowed
immense grants of land upon railroad companies, for the avowed purpose
of assisting in the development of the country; with greater justice
could it bestow upon the whole people all useful discoveries and
inventions. Such a course, adopted and executed in good faith, would
make it impossible for adventurers, sharpers, and swindlers to impose
worthless inventions and pretended discoveries upon the government, and
then palm them off upon the people. Under the present system of
obtaining letters patent, the people are wronged and often cheated, and
for their wrongs the government is mainly responsible. Some other plan
should be adopted, which in its operations would liberally compensate
the inventor, and at the same time protect the people from extortions
practiced by the owners of valuable inventions, and also from the
thousands of adventurers who have been so fortunate as to obtain letters
patent upon pretended discoveries of principles neither new nor useful,
using their letters of credit for the purpose of defrauding the public.
CONCLUSION.--We now approach the end of our labors. We have sought to
present to the reader a candid statement of the different questions we
have discussed; to lay before him evidence of the great and growing
power of the men who are surely and swiftly getting control of the
departments of the government, and monopolizing the finances and
commerce of the whole country. In doing this we have endeavored to
direct attention to the exclusive and munificent grants made to railroad
companies, and to their abuse of these grants; to the means used by them
to get control of the legislative and judicial departments of the
government, and their apparent success in that direction; to the
abridgment of the rights of the people incident thereto; to the
dishonest and fraudulent practices of the men constructing, owning, and
operating railroads; to the disgraceful Credit Mobilier swindle, and its
influence upon the country; to the questionable position of some of the
men representing the people in congress; to the destruction of the
rights of the states and of the people; to the disregard of the
constitutional restrictions and safeguards when the interests of these
corporations were to be subserved; the purposes for which taxes should
be levied; to the nature of railroad corporations--that they are private
in their organization, and subject to the control of the people; to the
effect of the policy of affording local aid to railroad companies by
taxation, etc.; to the blighting influence attending municipal
subscriptions to railroad companies; to the impositions practiced in
transporting freights, and the warehouse and elevator abuses; to the
fraudulent increase of capital stock by railroad companies through the
watering process, and the extortions necessary to this dishonest
practice; to their relative immunity from the burdens imposed for the
support of government; to the strong grasp of consolidated capital upon
the legislation of the country; to the special privileges granted to
corporations by state legislatures; to the influence of these
corporations on the executive department of the government; to the
absolute control of the treasury and the finances enjoyed by
corporations and Wall street brokers, with the manner of doing business
in Wall street; to the influence of corporations in the selection of
judges of the supreme court, with the decisions following the
reconstruction of that court; to the banking and financial policy of the
government, and its bad results; to the tariff policy and its effect
upon the agricultural and producing classes; to the patent system and
its abuses; and finally to the fact demonstrated, that unless the many
abuses that have obtained in the land can be corrected, the people will
be justified in calling into action their inherent rights for regaining
those privileges refused to them, but conferred upon the corporations,
rings, and combinations which have obtained such great power in the
government. We do not claim that our work is free from errors. We have
sought to state the facts correctly. If they are inaccurate, the errors
are unintentional. It was not with the wish or intention of doing
injustice to any man, class of men, corporations, or officers of the
government, that we undertook this work; but with the firm belief and
strong conviction that the liberties of the people were being taken from
them, while a gigantic oligarchy was obtaining control of the
government. We believe the remedy is yet with the people; but to save
themselves prompt, speedy, and united action is imperative. We have
watched with increasing interest the growing power of corporations, for
years, hoping that the time would come when the people would awake to
the necessity of asserting their latent powers for the restoration of
their rights. The civil war and other great political questions have
engaged the public attention, while selfish and ambitious men have
combined and consolidated their wealth and corporate power for the
purpose of controlling the government and commerce of the country. Their
success has been such as to alarm the agricultural, the producing, and
laboring classes. The indications now are that active and aggressive war
will be waged against these oppressors of the people until they are
shorn of their great power and the rights of the people are restored.
Desiring to aid in this great reform, we have deemed the present a
favorable time to present this work to the public. While the combination
the people are now combatting is powerful--possessing a dangerous
influence over the legislative and judicial branches of the government,
well organized and vigorous, controlling the finances of the country and
holding our commerce in its grasp--strong in wealth, and in the extent
of its organization--notwithstanding these fearful facts, that old
republican truth still obtains, that "the people are the source of all
power." That power is now being aroused. The watchword now heard, is
"Equal and exact justice to all." That potent, though silent weapon, the
ballot, is a sure correction of all abuses when intelligently used. The
signs of the times are hopeful from the fact that, for the first time in
many years, the people, especially the agricultural, producing, and
laboring classes are taking the lead. They are reading, thinking and
acting independently of old political and partisan leaders; they are
exercising their rights as freemen. They have declared that "old things
shall be done away, and all things shall become new;" that the
government shall be taken out of the old political grooves in which it
has been running; that it shall assume new life, with the rights of the
people fully recognized. That when the rights of the people and of free
government on the one hand, and the privileges claimed by the combined
corporate interests of the country on the other, are at issue, these
rights shall not be made to yield to old precedents originating in
monarchial and despotic governments, in order that the privileges
claimed by corporations may be upheld.
The organization of the Patrons of Husbandry forms a nucleus around
which all reformers can rally. The reforms they seek will effect the
liberation of the whole people from the oppressions under which they now
suffer. Our aim is to aid in this work. We feel assured that there is an
irreconcilable conflict between the monopolies and the people; that the
powers and privileges assured to corporations are at war with republican
institutions, and hostile to the constitution of our country. To effect
reforms will require time. Some relief can be speedily obtained, but to
accomplish thorough reform, and bring the administration of the
government under the control of the people, will require that the
offices shall be filled by men whose education and pursuits have been
such as to place them in full sympathy with the people--men who will not
spend their time as legislators and judges in discussing federal
prerogatives, and classing our republican government with old time
despotisms. The doctrine that corporations are subject to legislative
control must be fully established as the fixed and settled policy of our
government. When this point is reached, the farmer will not be obliged
to divide his crops with railroad companies--and so with all other
abuses. The power to correct all abuses must remain with the people. The
prosperity of the people, the perpetuity of our form of government, the
rights of the states and the public can only be preserved by guarding
against all encroachments made upon free institutions, whether they
originate in congress or out of it--whether they are enunciated from the
bench of the supreme court, or from the stump. In these days when the
tendency is to a strong centralized government--when a few men control
the finance of the country--when the whole commerce of the country is
controlled by Wall Street gamblers--when special grants and privileges
are bestowed upon companies and individuals, and when the property of
each individual is insecure and liable to be assessed for the building
of railroads--at this time, there came from Justice Bradley of the
supreme court of the United States, these ominous words: "It is
absolutely essential to the independent national existence that
_government_ should have a firm hold on the two great sovereign
instruments of the _sword_ and the _purse_." This announcement is made
from the bench of the supreme court of the United States, on the
fifteenth of January, 1872. The government must have a firm hold on the
purse and sword. This is the declaration of the court made but a few
months before it decided that railroad corporations were public, and
that the property of private third parties of the whole people could be
taxed to build them. We claim that under our form of government the
people are the power to retain the control of the purse and sword; that
to place them together in the hands of those persons who fill, for the
time being, the government offices, is to take from the governing power
its rights. But when the people's purse and the government finances are
subject to the action of corporations and rings, the special favorites
of the courts, the people are imperatively called upon to arise and
assert their rights as freemen--to throw off this oppressive yoke--to
stamp with the seal of condemnation, not only the enunciation of such
anti-republican sentiment, but the judge who uttered it. The real
question at issue between the people and monopolies fostered and
protected by government is, whether the people shall rule, or remain the
servants and vassals of the monopolists. The final determination of this
question will decide whether we are to live under the republic planned
and formed for us by our revolutionary ancestors, or are to submit to
the oligarchy shaped for us by recent enactments and decisions in favor
of a class of men, who, for the sake of private gain, are overturning
and destroying our free institutions. The issue is fairly presented; the
lines distinctly drawn. The corporate hosts are marshaling their forces;
the people, under the lead of the tillers of the soil, are preparing for
battle.
When the Union was threatened with disruption, and the armies were about
to engage in conflict, they armed themselves with the death dealing
sword and gun. Hundreds of thousands of brave and patriotic men proved
their devotion to their country by the sacrifice of their lives for its
preservation. No such sacrifices are now demanded. In a legal,
constitutional manner, these corporations, rings, and combinations, can
be routed "horse, foot, and dragoons;" their friends "at court" can be
displaced; their paid agents and attorneys can be driven from the halls
of congress and state legislatures; their judges can be invited to
vacate their seats that others, elected by the votes of the people, may
fill them; and the standard of "equal rights" can be again reared aloft
without the use of bullets or the shedding of blood.
But after all these errors and abuses shall have been corrected, other
questions will arise. The farmer of the west and south must have cheap
transportation to the seaboard. It may be demonstrated that our present
system of building railroads will not answer the purpose because of the
great expense of constructing and operating them, and that other means
must be adopted. Under the constitution the general government has
exclusive maritime jurisdiction, and can make canals and slack water
navigation. History demonstrates that water transportation is always
cheapest. The government should provide for water transportation from
the great agricultural centres to the sea-board. This kind of
improvement the general government can lawfully make, and an expenditure
of a small part of the wealth bestowed upon private railroad
corporations would open up water channels, affording cheap
transportation from the west to the east and south. Grain and meats
could then be shipped to the sea-board at such rates as would warrant
their transportation to foreign markets, which, with the abolition of
protective duties, would furnish the farmer a good sale for his
products, and an opportunity of purchasing his supplies free from the
bounty he now pays the eastern manufacturer. With such means for
shipping the farm products of the west and south, with protective
tariffs abolished, and the financial policy of the nation so changed as
to furnish to the people the same kind of money used by the government,
with "specie payment" resumed, and the large margin between coin and
paper removed, prosperity would again attend farming pursuits, and
contentment would fill the land.
With all the advantages Providence has given us in this great country,
with the pure and simple republic bequeathed to us by the heroes and
statesmen of Seventy-Six, we ought to be a prosperous and happy people.
But, with the blighting curse of oppressive monopolies fastened upon us,
upheld by bought legislation and strengthened by the decisions of judges
and courts, who, from education, occupation, and sympathy with the
oppressors of the people, or from baser motives, have become the special
guardians of the monopolists, the laboring and producing classes find it
difficult to live, and, in many instances, are being reduced to absolute
want. The farmer has abundant harvests, but their value is absorbed in
oppressive charges for transportation to market, and he is bound down
with onerous and unequal taxes until his labor has ceased to be
remunerative. While this is true of most industrial pursuits, the
manufacturer, protected by the government, the moneyed men of Wall
street, who operate in gold and stocks, and the railroad men, who are
protected by the decisions of the courts of the country, all amass
princely fortunes--the result of special privileges bestowed upon them.
As a necessary consequence, the interests of the country are being
divided. A moneyed "nobility" are arrayed against the laboring and
producing classes. Special privileges, at war with republican
institutions, are granted them; their wealth is virtually exempted from
taxation, and they are fast becoming the governing power, while those
who produce the wealth of the country are compelled to spend their
strength and devote their lives to the business of adding to the wealth
of their oppressors. It may be asked why this state of things exists.
There are two reasons for it. First, the indifference manifested by the
people to the affairs of the government; their willingness to allow
others to direct and control the affairs of the nation, while they
devote their time to their own personal interests, seemingly forgetful
that they have any interest in national affairs, or in the
administration of their own state government, and permitting those who
now oppress them to shape legislation, and to obtain those grants and
privileges which have now become the means of their oppression. The
second cause is the disposition of those in power to override and
disregard constitutional restrictions. During the civil war the
constitution possessed no restrictive force. The law of necessity
governed; the personal will of those in office was the supreme law. Acts
of congress were passed with direct reference to a state of war, and
decisions of courts were controlled by the same causes. With the return
of peace these laws remained unrepealed; the decisions of courts
remained unreversed; constitutional restrictions were deemed irksome and
of little moment. Laws remained on our statute book which contravened
the plain provisions of the constitution, and the decisions of courts
have continued in the same channel, until the great charter of our civil
liberty, has become obsolete, and the personal opinions of courts, like
the edicts of a monarch, have become the supreme law. Under this
species of legislation, and this class of decisions, these great
oppressors of the country have grown up until their power is superior to
that of all other interests, and not unfrequently defies the law. The
first great reform to be effected is to re-establish the supremacy of
the constitution, and to demand of courts and legislators a strict
observance of its provisions. When this is effected, the rights of the
states and the people will be protected. The courts of the United
States, and all other departments of the government, must remember that
in our republican system the federal government is limited and
restricted to the exercise of such powers as are expressly delegated to
it, and that all attempts to confer special charters and privileges upon
private companies are usurpations. They must remember that we have no
government with kingly prerogatives; that in a republic the people
retain control of the _purse_ and _sword_, and that the liberties of the
people, the equality of all before the law, as well as the perpetuation
of republican institutions, are in the care and keeping of the sovereign
people.
That there should be some means adopted to arrest this great and growing
power of corporations is now forcibly demonstrated. Since writing the
preceding pages, still another fatal stab has been given to the
republic. Vanderbilt, the leader in the raid made by corporations upon
the liberties of the people, and also an operator in Wall street
gambling, has added to the other roads under his control the Lake Shore
& Michigan Southern railway, and now controls the commerce of the west
with the seaboard, and can fix the price of a barrel of flour, or bushel
of wheat or corn, and from his decision there is no appeal. Extending
these monopolies still further, Vanderbilt and his co-conspirators are
about to take control of all the telegraph lines in the country, and
dictate to the whole people the price to be paid for dispatches. Thus
these enemies of republican government are surely getting control of all
the business and commerce of the country. The finances, the carrying
trade, the produce market, the price and sale of manufactured articles,
and the means of communication between the different portions of the
country, are all passing into the hands of the enemies of the people. At
the present time if any railroad company attempts to act independently
and honestly, this combination of sharpers and swindlers make war upon
it and force it to surrender, or drive it into bankruptcy.
No wonder that the people are becoming alarmed, and are preparing for
the conflict. The attempt made to dissolve the Union was an open and
bold one. The people met the issue, and triumphed. The attempt made to
divide the country aroused the national patriotism. The attempt of this
great combination of monopolists to obtain absolute control of the
government, the finances, and commerce of the country, presents more
serious cause for alarm than did the attempt to dissolve the Union. Our
institutions cease to be of any value when they are perverted to means
of oppression. When men in high official positions trifle with the
liberties of the people and encourage their oppressors, an indignant
constituency should hurl them from power. If, knowing the wrongs that
are committed against us, the encroachments being made on our liberties,
the threatened and partially accomplished destruction of republican
institutions, we silently acquiesce, we are not freemen, and we deserve
to be held as the bond-servants of our oppressors for all time to come.
But while the people are long-suffering and patient under adversity,
there is a point beyond which their oppressors cannot venture without
arousing them to action. That point is now reached; the fiat of the
sovereign power in this land has gone forth; the voice of the people is
heard from all portions of our common country demanding redress, and
that the government shall be brought back to constitutional limits; that
the power of their oppressors shall be destroyed; that their rights as
freemen shall be restored to them; that the halls of legislation and the
courts of justice shall be filled by men who do not legislate for
bribes, and who administer justice without respect to persons or
interests, and prize constitutional restrictions and the liberties of
the people above the interests of corporations and rings formed to
oppress them. If redress cannot be obtained at the ballot-box; if the
influences which now control the government and business of the country
cannot be overcome; if redress is denied in legislative halls and in the
courts--then the people have the right, the "God-given right," to arise
in their sovereign power and take what their servants have refused to
give them. If reform cannot be obtained, or the wrongs of the people
redressed in any other method, a resort should be had to
_revolution_--peaceable, if possible, but such as will bring the country
back to the days of its purity, and compel all to acknowledge the
_sacred_ binding force of the constitution.
Having an abiding confidence that the reform being inaugurated by the
farmers of the country will advance to a triumphant issue, we present
this volume to the public, as an humble but honest champion of the
cause, acknowledging its imperfections, expecting criticisms and
condemnations from the monopolists and their dependents, but asking a
careful perusal and earnest consideration of the doctrine advocated.
APPENDIX.
CHAPTER I.
As our position on the "Legal Tender" decisions and their effect upon
the finances and commerce of the country have been controverted by some
of the _legal men_ to whom we have shown our manuscript, at the risk of
wearying the reader, we quote the dissenting opinions of the late Chief
Justice Chase, and his associates, on the points at issue in those
cases, feeling assured that these opinions fully sustain us. If our
views are correct as to the effect of these decisions upon the best
interests of the country, and their tendency to increase the power of
the combinations that now have such control over the different
departments of the government, as well as the financial and commercial
interests of the country, it follows that no real relief from the
oppressions under which the people are suffering can be obtained until
the legal tender statutes are repealed, and the latest decisions of the
supreme court as to their constitutionality and scope are reversed.
We have claimed that those decisions were in conflict with the
provisions of the constitution. Our position is supported by the
opinions quoted. We have said that the supreme court of the United
States was reorganized in the interests of railroad corporations and
other monopolies, before the legal tender questions were re-argued and
reversed. The opinions quoted sustain us in this particular. But we
desire the reader to examine these opinions and determine for himself.
CHAPTER II.
DISSENTING OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE.
We dissent from the argument and conclusion in the opinion just
announced.
The rule, by which the constitutionality of an act of congress passed in
the alleged exercise of an implied power is to be tried, is no longer,
in this court, open to question. It was laid down in the case of
_McCulloch_ v. _Maryland_, by Chief Justice Marshall, in these words:
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consistent with the
letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."
And it is the plain duty of the court to pronounce acts of congress not
made in the exercise of an express power nor coming within the
reasonable scope of this rule, if made in virtue of an implied power,
unwarranted by the constitution. Acts of congress not made in pursuance
of the constitution are not laws.
Neither of these propositions was questioned in the case of _Hepburn_ v.
_Griswold_. The judges who dissented in that case maintained that the
clause in the act of February 25th, 1862, making the United States notes
a legal tender in payment of debts, was an appropriate, plainly adapted
means to a constitutional end, not prohibited but consistent with the
letter and spirit of the constitution. The majority of the court as then
constituted, five judges out of eight, felt "obliged to conclude that an
act making mere promises to pay dollars a legal tender in payments of
debts previously contracted is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted,
really calculated to carry into effect any express power vested in
congress, is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and is
prohibited by the constitution."
In the case of the _United States_ v. _De Witt_, we held unanimously
that a provision of the internal revenue law prohibiting the sale of
certain illuminating oil in the states was unconstitutional, though it
might increase the production and sale of other oils, and consequently
the revenue derived from them, because this consequence was too remote
and uncertain to warrant the court in saying that the prohibition was an
appropriate and plainly adapted means for carrying into execution the
power to lay and collect taxes.
We agree, then, that the question whether a law is a necessary and
proper means to execution of an express power, within the meaning of
these words as defined by the rule--that is to say, a means appropriate,
plainly adapted, not prohibited but consistent with the letter and
spirit of the constitution--is a judicial question. Congress may not
adopt any means for the execution of an express power that congress may
see fit to adopt. It must be a necessary and proper means within the
fair meaning of the rule. If not such it cannot be employed consistently
with the constitution. Whether the means actually employed in a given
case are such or not the court must decide. The court must judge of the
fact, congress of the degree of necessity.
A majority of the court, five to four, in the opinion which has just
been read, reverses the judgment rendered by the former majority of five
to three, in pursuance of an opinion formed after repeated arguments, at
successive terms, and careful consideration; and declares the legal
tender clause to be constitutional; that is to say, that an act of
congress making promises to pay dollars legal tender as coined dollars
in payment of pre-existing debts is a means appropriate and plainly
adapted to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the constitution,
and not prohibited itself by the constitution but consistent with its
letter and spirit. And this reversal, unprecedented in the history of
the court, has been produced by no change in the opinions of those who
concurred in the former judgment. One closed an honorable judicial
career by resignation after the case had been decided, after the opinion
had been read and agreed to in conference, and after the day when it
would have been delivered in court, had not the delivery been postponed
for a week to give time for the preparation of the dissenting opinion.
The court was then full, but the vacancy caused by the resignation of
Mr. Justice Grier having been subsequently filled and an additional
justice having been appointed under the act increasing the number of
judges to nine, which took effect on the first Monday of December, 1869,
the then majority find themselves in a minority of the court, as now
constituted, upon the question.
Their convictions, however, remain unchanged. We adhere to the opinion
pronounced in _Hepburn_ v. _Griswold_. Reflection has only wrought a
firmer belief in the soundness of the constitutional doctrines
maintained, and in the importance of them to the country.