through vigorous investigation while acting as
attorney for the United States.
Aside from the fact that Mr. Knox's sym
pathies are naturally with the trust system, ho
is greatly handicapped in the discharge of his
duty toward the United States by reason of tho
fact that everything which the United States
Attorney General should know in his fight
against tho trust Mr. Kndx knows and obtained
in a confidential way. Is there an individual
in tho United States who Would care to em
ploy as his attorney amanwho had acted as
attorney for an opponent, and aided that oppo
nent in devising methods whereby this indi
vidual could be wrongdd?
It is impossible that Mr. Knox, having
served as attorney for the trust in paving the
way for the violation of the very laws which
ho is now called upon toj enforce, should en
force those laws as tho interests of the United
States require.
Mr. Knox is a great lawyer, otherwise tho
trusts would not have employed him. But
there are many other great lawyers in tho
United States today. The republican party is
full of great lawyers, and among them aro
many men who could be depended upon to ex
ercise the ability and fidelity essential to tho
enforcement of the anti-trust law. Why did
not tho McKinley administration select as its
Attorney General one of this number? Why
did it choose as Attorney General the most
conspicuous trust lawer in the United States?
Trickery of Words.
The Chicago Chronicle warns "democrats"
in and out of conventions" that "sonorous dec
larations againBt 'imperialism' and 'colonialism'
will not do." Tho Chronicle adds that "some
thing more than mere declamation is needed.
If democrats are opposed to imperialism what
do they propose to give the people in its place?"
' Then the Chronicle complains that the Ohio
platform, because of its indefiniteness on this
subject is lamentably weak. It insists that this
question must be met "intelligently, courage
ously and entirely free from demagogy and
mere trickery of words." This is good advice;
but if tho advice be sound on the question of
imperialism why is not similar advice sound on
the money question?
The opponents of bimetallism would havo
the democratic conventions indulge in "sonor
ous declarations." But the advocates of bimet
allism have said that "something more than
mere declamation is needed." They have held
that if democrats have any opinion on tho
money question, they should state that opinion
"intelligently, courageously and entirely freo
from demagogy and mere trickery of words."
But today the men for whom the Chicago
Chronicle stands sponsor, while objecting to
bimetallism and protesting against the definite-,
ness with which democratic conventions have
declared their position on the money question,
insist upon a money plank composed of "sonor
ous declarations."
Why do not these gentlemen give tho peo
ple "something more than declamation?" If
tile' single gold standard is right, why do they
rioi abandon the"trickery of words" and boldly
The Commoner.
announce to tho people their prcferonco for tho
single gold standard?
Why does tho Chicago Chronicle insist
upon clearness and directness of statement so t
far as concerns tho question of imperialism
while it has no protest to make against a "trick
ery of words" in the democratic platforms on
tho money question?
What the Chronicle says on the form of tho
plank relating to imperialism, tho bimetallists
in the democratic party have said on tho form
of the plank relating to tho money question:
"Something more than mere 'declamation is
needed. If democrats are opposed to bimetal
lism, what do they propose to give tho people
in its place."
If the men who seek to reorganize the dem
ocratic party aro opposed to bimetallism, what
do they propose to give tho people in its
place? Do they propose to give them tho
single gold standard? If so, why not say so
"intelligently, courageously and entirely freo
from demagogy and mere trickery of words."
W
Giving Away Public Lands.
Recently considerable has been said by some
of the newspapers of the country in criticism
of what they call the "El Reno land lottery."
Conspicuous among the fault-finders of tho
method by which tho Kiowa-Comancho reser
vations were opened to settlement is the Chi
cago Tribune, an ardent republican newspaper,
whose ideas concerning the "rights of the peo
ple, old and young, of the country," must havo
changed materially in recent years, or else have
been woefully out of harmony with tho prin
ciples of its party and the actions of that
party's leaders in giving a large part of our
public domain to wealthy corporations.
After commenting on the good fortune . of
those who drew first prizes, the Tribune says:
"Nor can the cheers of the crowd over the for
tunate ones disguise the fact that the value of this
choice, as well as that of the first choice, won by
a young Oklahoma man, and that of the other
'grand prizes,' and, indeed, that of all the 13,000
choices, really belonged to all the wage-earners
and other people, young and old, of the whole
country, and would aggregate millions enough to
stretch a hundred or two miles of good roads or to
endow extensive educational advantages in every
state and territory of the union. Since this land
actually belonged to the nation, it should havo
been sold by the nation for the benefit of the na
tion. Congress, yielding to the clamor of the
people in adjacent regions for a perpetuation of
traditions in the land office which are no longer ap
propriate, precluded such a disposition, and thus
made the government the manager of probably
the most stupendous raffle ever witnessed. Tho
plan is better than that of a literal 'rush' for lo
cations, but the policy of disposing of the public
domain by a 'wheel of chance' Is one to which
the administration should never again be forced.
The responsibility for this case lies with congress,
and that body should at its next session forestall
any repetition of this inequitable and demoraliz
ing method."
There seems to be no defense, in the con
sideration of the Tribune, to the giving away
of a few hundred thousand acres of land to
thirteen thousand American men and women
who desired to find a means of livelihood. In
fact, the Tribune asserts that the "land belongs
to the nation and should have been sold by tho
nation for the benefit of the nation." It would
seem that the Tribune does not believe in tho
giving away of land under any consideration,
and if it does not believe in the giving away
of land to tho poor and homeless, under agree
ment on their part to immediately improve the
land and thus create a demand for labor and
tho products of labor, how does it justify tho
record of tho republican party in giving away
the public domain to great corporations under
conditions not nearly so compulsory as to tho
immediate expenditure of money and labor on
tho part of those corporations receiving such
grants.
According to Mr. Spofford, former librarian
of congress, grants were made to different cor
porations as follows:
Acres.
July 1, 1862, to Union Pacific 12,000,000
July 1, 1862, to Contral Br. U. P 187,000
July 1, 1862, to Kansas Pacific 6,000,000
March 3, 1869, to Union Pacific (successor
to Denver Pacific) 1,000,000
July 1, 1862, March 2, 1864, March 3, 1855,
May 21, 1866, to Central Pacific (suc
cessor to the Western Pacific) 1,100,000
1864, to Burlington & Missouri 2,441,000
1864, to Sioux City & Pacific. 60,000
1864, to Northern Pacific 47,000,000
1866, to Oregon Branch Contral Pacific. 3,000,000
1866, to Oregon & California . 3,500,000
1866, to Atlantic & Pacific 42,000,000
1868, to Southern Pacific 3,520,000
1871, to Southern Pacific 6,000,0u0
July 1, 1862, to Central Pacific 8,000,000
Total , 135,800,000
What gigantic figures these aro, and what
a robbeiy it must have been if wo adopt tho
reasoning of tho Tribune on the late "El Reno
lottery" and declare that "this land actually
belonged to the nation and should havo been
sold by the nation for tho benefit of tho nation !"
If one takes the trouble to compute, ho will
find that this land given away to great corpo
rations by the. republican party during the first
ten years of ;ts existence almost exactly equals
the combined area of Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con
necticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylva
nia, Delaware Maryland and Virginia or
lacking only tho Carolinas of equaling tho en
tire area of tho United States at tho time wo
declared our independence. What did tho
railroads do in return for these monstrous
grants?
A few statistics on railroad building will
be of interest here.
In 1800 there were 30,000 miles of railroad
in the United States. The bulk of these grants
were given during the first half of tho decade
beginning with 1800, and nearly all had been
given by tho year 1800. In 1870 there wero
52,850 miles of railroad in tho United States,
a gain during the decade of 22,000 miles. In
1880 wo had 08,520 miles of railway, a little
over 00,000 miles more than we had in 1800,
and yet from 15 to 18 years had elapsed sinco
the bulk of this land had been granted to these
corporations. In 1890 we had 101,897 miles
of railroad thus building within tho decade
from 1880 to 1890, without any public grants
of land whatever, nearly 08,000 miles of road,
and more than was built in the two decades
preceding 1880 with the aid of those enormous
grants. Since 1890 we have built about 40,
000 miles more of railway without any govern
ment aid whatever, and a great deal of that,
too, in the midst of tho greatest money panic
this country has ever seen, and yet as a result
of giving away land equal in area to eleven
states only 00,000 miles were constructed be
tween 1800 and 1880.
History and experience have proved that
railways will be built whenever there is an
adequate demand for their services, and thero
havo been instances in this country where they
have been built in excess of tho demand and
without any government aid.
(1