ft
. i tew iii ii i ii
mm nftu
wwv v w Www
VOL. XIV.
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, AUGUST 28, 1902.
NO. 14.
i
t
- FOWLER'S GOLD STANDARD
Q
Y
r
I
Mr. Dellart Coatlanes Hie Diseussion ef
- ;The Fowler Bill. Not a Gold Stand-'
ard, but a Bank Note Stand
V " ard Wlll Result.
; Editor Independent: As the Fowler
bill 13 impending and must come be
fore the country, sooner or later, for
general discussion, and as this .bill
opens up the whole subject of money
and currency and Indeed all the mon
eys and ' currencies ,k of the "'world, it
seems to be necessary to begin, by
coming to some agreement as to fun
damental principles; and, for this pur
pose, to some agreement as to terms.
The title 13 "A bill to maintain the
gold standard, provide n elastic cur-,
rency, equalize the rates of interest
throughout the country, and further
amend the national banking laws."
So much of this bill as relates to the
"gold standard," refers to money, not
only in this country, but to money as
it is in all. the countries of the world.
So much as relates to "elastic cur
rency" in the United States, refers
not only to cur own currency but to all
the currencies of all the nations of the
world. 'For the present I will pass over
so much of the bill as relates or may
relate to "equalizing the rates of in
terest" and so much as proposes to
"further amend the national banking
laws." The bill may be summed up as
having two objects, first, to maintain
the gold standard, and, second,' to pro
vide an elastic currency by amending
the national banking laws. The rates
of interest are to be made uniform
throughout the country, by allowing
branch banking, which will allow one
large or. a few large banks to swallow
up all the small banks and then a few
large banks can combine together and
regulate the rates of interest through
out the country. There is evidently a
scheme or plan on foot to allow a few
great bankers to regulate the rates of
Interest in their own interest. It is
necessary to come to an understand
ing as to what all this means. But
before we can discuss "rates of inter
est," we must have a definite meaning
for the-"gold standard" and a definite
meaning for "elastic currency." -As
the "gold standard" cannot be used
without calling up the whole subject
of money and "elastic currency" can
not be used without calling up a wider
subject than' money, and one very
closely connected with it and even in
cluding it, it is necessary to com
mence by inquiring as to the difference
between money and currency.
. What is "the gold standard of val
ue" or a gold measure of value, which
Mr. Fowler proposes to maintain? Ha
proposes to keep the mintsopen to free
and unlimited coinage of gold, as they
have been, and to use the gold coins
not only for money, but for redeem
ing all other kinds of money, silver
dollars included. Gold is not to con
stitute our total money, much less
our total currency. This is not making
gold our standard of value or our
measure of value, because it does not
make gold our total money or total
currency. Gold must be our total
money and currency in order to be our
standard or measure, of value. It would
then be our standard or measure of
value because its supply or volume,
in connection with the supply of each
commodity, would determine the price
of each commodity. But, inasmuch as
Mr. F. proposes to use gold as a part
only of our money and, besides, to
use it as a redeemer of all other kinds
of money, and by means of such re
demption to keep all other kinds of
dollars equal in value to gold dollars
we are obliged to come to the con
clusion that he intends to set up gold
to be worshipped as a deity, instead of
using It as a standard of value. By
using it as a god to be worshipped he
deceives the people of the United
States whether he or they know it or
not. He makes gold the basis of the
currency only while he gives out that
It is to be the nation's standard of
value. He assumes that gold never
changes in value, whereas in fact it
Is always ' changing in value, accord
ing to its supply and demand. Having
assumed this he next proposes to make
all kinds of dollars equal to gold dol
lars which are always changing in
value. Here is the deception which,
perhaps, he is not aware of. At any
rate it ought to be understood that
gold, under our system of money and
currency, is not our standard or
measure of value and cannot be, un
til we can find enough of it on which
to make all our money and currency.
There is no such thing as a stand
ard dollar, except Jn the sense that it
must be of a certain weight and fine
ness. Such a dollar may be the re
sult of "free" coinage, which allows
all persons to take their gold or sil
ver to the public mints and have it
coined into dollars of a certain weight
and fineness. Gold dollars are sup
posed to each represent 25 8-10 grains
of "standard" gold, which is gold nine
tenths fine. Ifwe have free coinage
of gold, every gold dollar must con
tain exactly the same amount o pure
gold, otherwise one private owner of
gold would gain an advantage over
another private owner in going to the
mint. This is carried so far that the
government weighs the coins whenever
' it is suspected that they are below the
standard weight: and, if found below
the standard weight, they are only a
part of a dollar, the idea being that a
, certain quantity of metal Is one of the
essentials of a dollar.
In 1878 congress made a law entitled
"An act to authorize the coinage of
the standard silver dollar." This act
assumed that there was or could be
"such a thing as a "standard silver dol
lar," whereas there is no such thing.
except in the sense that every such
dollar must be of a certain weight and
fineness of. silver. The dollars, author
ized by the act of 1878, were not the
result of free coinage of silver, but
the secretary of the treasury was au
thorized to " purchase, monthly, not
loco ttian twrt Tor m&r than four mil
at the market price,, and to coin It
into dollars, each weighing 412
grains of "standard. silver," which was
silver nine-tenths fine,' so that the dol
lar would contain exactly 371 1-4
grains of pure silver. Such was "the
standard silver dollar," as authorized
by the act of 1878, five hundred mil
lions of which were coined and put
into circulation by means of silver cer
tificates. These ' dollars were similar
to those coined under the old law au
thorizing free coinage of ' silver dol
lars; but by the' act of 1878 the num
ber to be coined,' by order of the sec
retary of the treasury, was limited,
and they obtained their value not from
the silver In them, but from the limi
tation. They now circulate at par with
gold, although the silver in each one is
not worth more than one-half of the
gold in a gold dollar andNalthough
they are not redeemed by gold dol
lars. These silver dollars are the ones
which Mr. Fowler proposes ; to make
redeemable with gold. You will notice
that the secretary of the treasury was
authorized to purchase "hot less than
two million nor more than four million
dollars' worth of silver bullion
monthly." At that time the "dol
lars" with which, the secretary could
purchase "silver bullion," were, either
greenback dollars - or national bank
note dollars, no others being then in
circulation. "Specie payments" had
been suspended since 1862, and there
was no gold or silver coin In circula
tion, except for the payment of im
port duties and interest on the public
debt, which were required, by law, to
be paid with "coin." There was a
premium on gold and silver dollars
(compared with greenback . and bank
note dollars) and nobody would pay
with coin unless allowed the premium,
which fluctuated from day to day and
therefore rendered the coin inconven
ient for ordinary payments among tha
common people. Let it be remembered,
then, that the secretary began In Feb
ruary, 1878, to purchase "two million
dollars' worth" of silver bullion,
monthly; and that this meant "two
million dollars' worth of greenback
dollars, until January, 1879, when we
resumed ''specie .payments,'' which
meant gold coin payments or, their
equivalent. In those days jthe price
of silver was falling and the value of
gold was rising; and, as the price of
silver bullion . went' down and .the
value of gold went up, the secretary
could and did purchase, monthly, more
and more silver, with his two million
of gold dollars or their equivalent in
other money or currency; and, conse
quently could and did coin more and
more of his "standard" silver dollars
during each successive month;" until
1890 when the act was repealed, so far
as he wa3 authorized to purchase any
more silver under the act.
In 1890 a very different kind of law
was made. I allude to the Sherman
silver purchase law. This law, in
stead of authorizing 'the secretary to
purchase "two million dollars', worth"
of silver, authorized him to purchase
a certain quantity , by weight,, and to
pay for It, not with "dollars," but Iwith
"treasury notes," printed for the pur
pose; and therefore the silver cost the,
government nothing, except the print
ing of the treasury notes. This law
was continued three years and put into
circulation one hundred and fifty mil
lions of treasury notes,- which were a
legal-tender for all debts, including
taxes and import duties, so that 'they
were better money than . the green
backs issued during the war. ' But,
inasmuch as the law of 1890 was re
pealed in 1893 and nearly all the treas
ury notes have been retired, it is only
a matter of history. At the same time
It is a good illustration of how a
first class paper money can be put
into circulation not only by the pur
chase of silver, but by the purchase of
gold as well. The natural way to have
it, is to buy yold bullion with treas
ury notes as we bought silver bul
lion from 1890 to '1893. This, would
get clear of free coinage : of gold,
which is a greater fraud than free
coinage of silver. : : "
The treasury notes were redeemable
with "coin." The secretary, In exer
cising his discretion, redeemed them
with gold coin and thus they passed
out of existence and gold took ; their
place. This was one of the steps to
ward a "gold standard," which Grover
Cleveland helped; along, when he as
sisted John Sherman In repealing, his
own law, by calling an extraordinary
session of congress in; 1893.
The law, as it now stands, does not
authorize the secretary of the; treas
ury to redeem the silver dollars or the
silver certificates issued under the act
of. 1878; and, therefore, it, is proposed
by the Fowler bill to give the . secre
tary power to redeem them with gold
coin. This is another step, in the di
rection what Mr. Fowler calls "the
old standard." But we shall find that
when the silver dollars (or certificates)
have been redeemed, bank notes" will
be put in their place, so that what Mr.
Fowler calls a gold standard Is really
a bank-note standard. It Is a great
scheme and deserves a great deal of
study. Mere denunciation of Mr. Fowl
er will not do. Perhaps he is not aware
of what he is doing. It is for us to
present the facts, with "malice toward
none and charity for all." leaving the
American people to judge "for them
selves. - JNO. S. -DE HART.
Mt. Freedom, N. J.
The West Virginia federal judges
still continue to bind the chains of
slavery upon the miners. Judge Keeler
in order to hold and fine some of them
recently decided that his jurisdiction
extended all over the United States,
holding ','that having jurisdiction of
the non-resident parties against whom
the bill was filed gave the court jur
isdiction over anybody who i was con
federated with them, no matter where
such person resided." The populist
and Kansas City platforms denounced
government by Injunction, but these
miners would not support . the ticket.
Now they are getting a dose of what
ANCIENT AS THE HILLS
Nothing: New la Economics; Modern Soph
istries Hoar? DTUh Age tat Us
Clear Away Confusion ,
Says Mr. Van Vorh U.
;, Editor Independent: It is practical
ly certain that very little, that can be
regarded as new, has been said upon
financial economics for half a cen
tury. Even the modern sophistries are
hoary with age, and the false and ab
surd doctrines of the hour are but
exhumed extractions, from the explod
ed and discarded errors of the past.
Many of the villainous schemes for
public robbery are but resurrections of
methods centuries old.
It is disclosed in history that in hu
man society there has always been, as
there is" now, . two antagonistic ideas
with distinct purposes. The one has
been the welfare of, society, and the
purpose to apply principles with that
end in vie ; the other has been to
advance seltsh interests, and the ap
plication of principles for individual
benefit. The votaries of one have
studied economics with thoughts about
human right3 end personal duties; the
votaries of the other have' sought
economic knowledge to make them
selves discriminating and shrewd in
manipulating the conflicting interests
of unrestrained selfishness.
Much has been written, and many
correct propositions have been re
pealed with false interpretations. The
aggregate result, to those who have
not "had time or opportunity to study
these questions, has been confusion
about the teachings of history. In
this confusion, congress has been in
duced to inaugurate a' policy and es
tablish a system that is contrary to all
experience, and that has no foundation
except the false and exploded theories
of the past, and that must inevitably
end in disaster.
In view of the danger with which we
are threatened; in view of the very
limited progress made by the great
mass of voters, it is about time that
most of us, who are not professional
economists, and about 99 per cent of
those who are, had better cease our ef
forts to be original and try to clear
away some of the confusion that has
settled about the foundations of the
subject. :
We are fond, of asserting that the
only just and rational foundation of
government is the consent of the gov
erned. The importance of . this doc
trine . cannot be overestimated, but, if
the declaration 6f Aristotle is correct,
as it most undoubtedly Is, that ;'So-;
ciety is impossible without exchange,
and exchange impossible without
money," then there is a relation that'
mdney sustains to social organizations
and governments so intimate and so
important that it may well' be ques
tioned whether the abandonment of
the doctrine of "the consent of the
governed" is not less disastrous to
civilization than the abandonment of
the doctrine that the issue of money
and the control of its volume is a pre
rogative of government that, ought not,
under any possible set -of circum
stances, to be delegated to private,
control and subjected to the exigencies
of individual interests. ,
Nothing is more clearly taught by
"history than that - governments ought
to retain absolute control of the issue
of money. - The economic conclusion
of the exhaustive investigation and
debate in Europe during the first half
of the last century was, that it was the
greatest folly for any government o
allow this prerogative to pass out of
its hands.
In the face of this teaching, that is
as clear as the noonday sun, we stand
face to face with the fact that this na
tion has been gradually allowing this
prerogative to slip out of its hands,
until now it is boldly proposed 'that it
shall be wholly turned over to the
national banks, and that govern
mental power shall be confined solely
to keeping the accounts of, the gov
ernment. .Words and economic phras
es have become of almost universal
use with almost no remembrance of
the economic ideas and doctrines out
of which they originated. Public ig
norance has been taken advantage of
to give them meanings that, original-,
ly, they never possessed, and often the
very opposite to that with which they
were first used. This has, of course,
resulted in almost endless confusion
of the public mind. '
In despair men of wide knowledge
have wished that we could eliminate
from the money question the terms
"intrinsic value," "standard of value,"
"double standard," "unit of value,"
and all such definitions as that "mon
ey is a medium of exchange;" that we
could substitute for "gold standard"
or "single and double standard," "gold
money and bimetallic money," . or
"gold valuation and bimetallic valua
tion." They - have erroneously con
cluded that, if we could get rid of the
words and phrases, we could get rid
of the confusions and misunderstand
ings. -. ,.
Ought these words to be eliminated
from economic literature? Are such
words and phrases meaningless and
misleading, and an obstacle to the de
velopment of the science of money?
Would vthe elimination . of these give
men, who have little knowledge, more
knowledge? If our literature were
divested of such terms, would we be
able to get at the truth more easily, or
comprehend the subject more readily?
There is confusion. No doubt about
it. But do such writers locate it cor
rectly, or point out the remedy?
Some persons still hold to the idea,
and seem unable to correct it. that
value is something inherent in things.
The phrase "intrinsic value" expresses
the idea. The idea is incorrect, but the
phrase expresses the idea . correctly.
If we could blot the phrase out of ex
istence, would that be the end of the
incorrect conception of value? The
fault is not in the use of the word,
but in the idea. The man, who De
prived of the word, will find some oth
er to express his thought, and will in
the end supply us with another phrase
equally objectionable to the . one we
now have.
A gentleman has written me, object
ing to what he calls my definition of
money as a "medium of exchange,"
and ; contending that money is one
term in exchange. I did not, define
money as a "medium of exchange."
There is a difference; between a defi
nition and the 'statement that- money
performs - a certain function. That
"which is called money tinder any defi
nition, has been developed out of, so
cial necessities.; It is a,'lool Of civili
zation, devised V by man '.through the
slow: processes of development as oth
er tools have been developed. It is an
instrument in his" hands .that i has a
purpose and a. utility.? ; One utility is
to facilitate exchange.' A man wants
bread to eat, clothes to wear money
to exchange. . Monet "serves this pur
pose, and yet, like bread, or clothes, or
any tool, it may become one term in a
single exchange.. Does' .this . make it
any less a "medium of exchange" in
the wider : and more inclusive sense,
and justify rthe demand that this de
scription of It shall be eliminated from
economic language and thought? The
fault is in" calling the statement of the
fact that "money is a medium of ex
change" a definition, " and then con
demning it 'because -It. is -not complete.
There are oranges' In Florida and
potatoes (in Michigan. To exchange
them the railroad, is used. The rail
road is "a medium of exchange." This
is not a definition, of a railroad, but
it is a statement of a fact a : distin
guishment of ' one function of a rail
road. ::.-;; ;'-, ;-;f";:-. j:;.';' :'
Money is an element; "one term" in
exchange, but; not in every exchange.
Money Is a medium of exchange, but
not the only medium. As a definition
it is too inclusive, because as a defi
nition it would imply that everything
that In any way, or in any degree,
serves as a medium of exchange must
be included as ' money; too exclusive,
because it wouldS be equivalent to as
serting that money has no function ex
cept as a medium of exchange. As a
definition, it is quite as . absurd as
Plato's definition" of tmam Neverthe
less, man is a biped without feathers,
and money is a!;tned turn of exchange.
But this is growing 'too; long for
one issue. I may continue it next
week, with your permission. I close
with the repetition of one statement in
a former article,-- " ,;
The attempt to fix,--- arbitrarily, the
meaning of a word , regardless of its
glottological development, cannot lim
it; or extend the scope or, effect of an
economic f unction, relation or condi
tion; to which it refers.- Correct defi
nitions are of far less importance than
correct ideas.'- .
FLAVIUS J. VAN ; VORHIS.
Indianapolis, Ind.
THE OLD ROMAN WAY
Its Adoption Ty- the Imperialists. Cob
: qnerlnff 10,000,000 Subjects In
i Ls Thin Thre Tr, '
In the inscription placed upon the
triumphal column erected , by , the Ro
mans in honor of ; the head of their
armies on his return from the east in
62 B. C, it was declared that "Pompey,
'the i people's general,' had in- three
years captured 1,500 cities, and had
slain, taken or reduced to submis
sion 12.000,000 . human beings." The
American ; republic, through its mili
tary representatives, has done almost
as much in the last three years, as is
witnessed by the facts of current his
tory. We do not know whether the
Romans Issued any amnesty proclam
ations to -those who were completely
conquered or not, but it is not at all
unlikely. The Springfield Republican
remarks that "never before has it hap
pened that the natal day of American
independence should be celebrated by
an act of pardon to men whose only
crime was in following the example
of those whose v struggle for freedom
has! found in the Fourth of July a
glorious memorial forever." , About
the ' principal difference between the
two I "triumphs" seems to be that
whereas Pompey's conquests "filled
the i Roman treasury to overflowing,
and 'made the annual .revenue of the
republic double what it had been be
fore," the conquests of the United
States have drained the national treas
ury to the extent of $170,000,000, and
give little Indication of ever yielding
anything in return And there have
been other losses- that, are still more
irreparable, suggested by the fact that
a transport recently took to the Phil
ippines 4,000 coffins for dead soldiers.
But there has been" even a greater loss
than money and life a loss which de
prives these other losses of the glory
that might otherwise attend them the
loss which comes from a repudiation
of great principles and a lowering of
national ideals, the loss which comes
from a reversion to the principles'.and
practices of the nations that have wor
shipped ambition and power and tram
pled unon human liberty and j human
asplratlons.L.iberty Sentinel. ,
. The appointment of Judgey Holmes
and he announced retirement of Jus
tice Shiras keeps the papers comment
ing upon the character of the supreme
court. That that court is to be hence
forth more than ever a political court,
i made plain, by a statement In a
Washington letter where it j is as
sertedsthat the president would not ap
point a' man, to that position who held
views on imperialism and other ques
tions opposed to his own. The ques
tion then.1 when a vacancy occurs, is
not, "Ts the applicant learned; in the
law. of upright character and ' of the
judicial temperament." but . "Will he
i-phold the political view of thr relCT1.
Inp: administration." The statement
recently made by all the great repub
lican dailies are in support of the po
sition lon? Flnce taku by The Inde
pendent l which was that the - npreine
THAT BALANCE OF TRADE -
... . . . )
Writer In Bankers' Magazine Hoots at
Idea That the United States Is Be
coming a Creditor Natlem.
When 'Mark Hanna, in 1900, had his
platform makers say: "No single fact
can more strikingly tell the story of
what republican government means to
the country than this that while dur
ing the whole period of 107 years, from
1790 to 1897, there s was an excess of
exports over, imports of only $383,028,
4.97, there has been in the short three
years of the present republican ad
ministration an excess of exports over
imports in the enormous sum of $1,
483,537,094," every mullet head in the
country said, "Yep. That's so." And
when the reports for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1902, showed that the
excess of exports over imports had de
creased more than $185,000,000, and
the republican papers began to say,
"There is nothing unfavorable in a
reduction of the balance of trade," ev
ery mullet L head in the country said
just as cheerfully, "Yep. That's so."
But some of the papers are inclined
to discuss the matter, just the same,
and people who are not mullet heads
will ask questions, and discussion " of
the question of "favorable trade bal
ances" and those not so favorable still
continues. Public Opinion makes the
following excerpts from current edi
torial comment on the subject: .
"There is something very puzzling
or " deceptive in the official figures of
our foreign commerce," the Pittsburg
Post says. "Take this official state
ment of the foreign commerce of the
United States for the fiscal year 1902
as an illustration: ,
Merchandise exports. . . . .$1,382,033,407
Merchandise imports 902,911,308
Excess of merch'dise exp.$ 479,122,099
Excess of silver exp 21,500,136
Tot merch'dise and sllver$ 500,622,235
Net ' gold imports ........ 807,938v
Apparent" unsettled bal . . $ 499,814,297
' Here we have an apparent balance,
of trade of nearly $500,000,000, and the
year before it was larger by a hun
dred millions of dollars. Yet in face of
this great debt due us from abroad
gold is being exported and the imports
of free gold for the year are trifling
indeed compared with this apparent
balance in our - favor. ' Where is the
error in the figures?, Jt is believed it
arises mainly in ...the overvaluation of
f our exports. The official figures-are
padded to make the magnificent show
ings There is no other explanation.
This is especially the case in the ex
port of manufactures, amounting to
some $400,000,000 last year. The
Springfield Republican, discussing the
question, puts the inflation of the val
ues, of exported manufactures at 40
per cent, or $160,000,000, in the aggre
gate for the year. Many other prod
ucts are similarly overstated in their
values, and the belief is expressed
that the total values of our exports for
the year are some $200,000,000 In ex
cess of the amount for which our ex
ports were actually sold. t
"If this is correct the puzzle of our
great trade balance Is explained, and
it comes within known conditions.
The apparent balance is reduced to
$300,000,000, instead of $500,000,000.
There is an offset for this reduced
balance in the freight paid loreign
carriers, in travelers' expenditures,
and the interest and dividends paid on
American stocks and other invest
ments held abroad. So that as a mat
ter of fact the last fiscal year, instead
of $500,000,DOO, left no unsettled bal
ance of any great amount to our credit
abroad. In that case with gold exports
our foreign trade is now running
against us. Whafother explanation,
with ' our apparert favorable balance
of five hundred millions the last year,
can there be The government sta
tistics and reports do not reach ; into
the actual facts, and are therefore mis
leading." To a writer in the Bankers' Maga
zine ,the ; assertion frequently . made
"that ' we are thus changing from a
debtor to a creditor, nation, seems
like one of the biggest deceptions ever
imposed on the American people.. The
wonder is that public opinion has
tolerated . It so long. The truth is,
that instead of having any such sur
plus, the financial and other condi
tions : fully warrant the belief that
these balances, big as they are, are
not nearly big enough to offset our an
nual foreign debts, and that the actual
balance of trade is largely against us.
In recent years these debts, for in
terest, dividends and : profits on for
eign capital, immigrants hoards, ex
penses of Americans abroad, freights,
etc., have grown so large that now
kthey overtop . our . trade balances,
hence, -instead of having a big surplus
to repurchase securities, etc. we have
a big deficit, which has to be met by
exporting specie, or selling more se
curities, or j by contracting sterling
loans." " ':" - -
The overvaluation theory has doubt
less considerable merit, but It does not
account for the whole balance or even
the major portion of it. There is lit
tle doubt that trust-made goods ex
ported are c billed at the wholesale
prices charged American buyers, and a
big discount made to the foreign pur
chasers, and this would swell the ex
ports considerably. But the bulk of
our exports are agricultural products
and of such a nature that overvalua
tion is not probable. The writer in
the ' Bankers' Maerazine has the right
idea and Is not afraid to express him
self clearly.' The rational explana
tion is that our foreign debt requires
annually the, enormous excess of ex
ports to even things up, to keep the
interest payments clear. And when it
Is clearly understood that little or no
consideration " was ever-received for
the foreign debt, and that our neople
must be taxed half a billion do!lars
lent .debt (for that is essentially all it
is), "it would seem that a great cry of
Indignation would go up all over the
land. Such would be the case, were it
not for the millions of, mullet heads
who do their thinking by proxy and
never get farther than to say, "Yep.
That's soo," when a republican spell
binder speaks.
A QUESTION OF PROFIT
Republican Comparisons of Steel Trust
and the Farmer are Deceptive. SMI
Per Cent fer the Trust, 6 for
Farmer.
(Democratic Congressional Com.)
Just now a story is going the rounds
if the republican press of the country,
purporting to show that the . farmer
makes more money for the amount of
capital he has invested than the steel
trust does. It goes on to state: "While
unable to dispute -the fact that the
United States has been enjoying most
remarkable prosperity, the opponents -of
the republican party insist that such
prosperity. Is confined to a considera
ble extent, if not entirely, to the man
ufacturing classes. . This is another
of the little fictions which the census
completely explodes. According to
census, figures, 'the farmers of the
country have reaped ; the largest re
turns of any industrial class, and have
consequently shared more generally
in the prosperity than have even the
manufacturers. Here are some fig
ures: - There are twenty billions of
capital invested in farms and farm
equipment, and during the census year
that invested capital earned on an
average 18.3 per cent. The billion
dollar steel trust during the past year
earned 10 per cent on its Invested cap
ital, and that fact has been made the
text of innumerable democratic edi
torials on the extortionate profits
which it has wrung out of the people.
Yet the jsteel trust earned on its in
vested capital but littleover one-half
as much proportionate interest as did
the average American farmer.''
All of -this is good campaign litera
ture mayhaps, but the conclusions are
as false as were the intentions of the
man who wrote them. No farmer .will
be buncoed by such cheap campaign
poppy-cock as it. The facts in ' the
case are these. The dividend oik 10
per cent which the steel trust has de
clared is on the ostensible value of the
steel trust properties, which is $1,400,
000,000, making the dividend $140,000,
000. Now the fact is that experts tes
tify ' that while ostensibly the steel
trust Is worth one billion four hun
dred million dollars; "yet in fact they
have not got a cent over five hundred
million Invested. If that statement Is
true, and every bit. Of evidence goes to
prove that it is, then . the trust is in
reality making 28 per cent clear
money oh their investment each year,
or, in other .words, they will doable
their money in considerably less than
four years. , :
On the other hand, the census bulle
tin shows the farmer, makes 18.3 per
cent on his capital, but it expressly
states" that ''As no reports of . expendi
tures for taxes, interest, Insurance,
feed for stock and similar items have
been obtained by any census, no state
ment of 'net farm income can be giv
en." Therefore the census figures
show the" gross Income of the farmer.
Out of this he must deduct his feed
bill, his taxes, his insurance,- the wages
he has to pay, and all the rest which
run that gross Income down to a mere
pittance. The fact is, and thousands
of farmers will tell you so, that if the
average farmer can live and make C
per cent interest on his money, throw
ing in the labor of his whole' family,
he thinks he is doing well. The writer
has heard hundreds of our best farm
ers make this statement. Good crops
help him up' some years, but taken
year, in and year out you will find that
by careful economy he Is enabled to
make about 6 per cent. Contrast, this
with the real dividend of 28 per cent
of the steel trust and ', you will see
how palpably false .are the statements
of the article referred to.
THE PACIFIC CABLE
BOTHA ON BRITISH TACTICS
The Three Famous British Generals Will
goon Visit the United States. :
Generals Botha, De Wet and Delarey
will visit the United States and ap
peal for help for the Boer widows, or
phans and the ' burghers crippled or
ruined by the war.
General Botha, on being pressed for
his opinion of British tactics and the
British army, has given it in a fash
ion little relished in England, i
To the question, "How did the Boers
regard the blockhouses?" he answered.
"I think they were useful in finding
employment for men who could not bo
trusted with horses. The blockhouse
lines never stopped me from going
anywhere I wanted to go. They never
stopped De- Wet." I
' "Did , De - Wet break barbed wire
fences with cattle?" he was askod.
"Never," he answered. "Cattle won't
run in a mass unless men are lead
ing them." , i
"What particular British arm did
you find the most efficient?" I
"I got on pretty well with all of
them. I found no difference between
the colonials and the rest." 1
'What about our Intelligence de
partment?" '
Botha seemed amused as he replied:
"I interrupted a good many dispatches-
and quite often, found them
reliable." : ' ' - " ',' -' ;
"How could it? We were fighting
thousands of miles away while they
talked and wrote to the papers. How
could that help?" t jf
Uncle Mark has been keeping i very
quiet lately, most of his time being
given to watching Tom Johnsonj and
keeping the courts cn his side lq the
street car matter In Cleveland. j-The
last, heard fxm him was this : J'The
-'pfeye't jn Cuhoin annexation."
Ifonorraph of Treasury Bureau of StatU-
. tics Gives Interesting Facts Regard
ing Submarine and Iad
' Telegraphs, .'.
"The Submarine and Land Tele
graphs of the World" is the title of a
monograph prepared by the treasury
bureau of statistics which will appear
in the forthcoming monthly summary
of commerce and finance. It presents
some information regarding the sub
marine telegraphs of the world which
is especially interesting at this tlm
in view of the prospective construction
of an ail-American cable across th
Pacific. It, shows that the submarine
telegraphs of the world number 1.750.
Their aggregate length is nearly 200.
000 miles; their total cost Is estimated
at $275,000,000, and the number of
messages annually transmitted over
them is more than 6,000.000. All the
grand divisions of the earth are now ,
connected by their wires and frnm ,
country to country and island to isl
and the. thoughts, and words of man
kind are Instantaneously transmitted.
Beneath all oceans save the Pacific
theUmiversal language which this sys
tem' has created flows uninterruptedly,
and man talks as face to face with hU
fellow-man at the antipodes. Dark
est Africa now converses dally with
enlightened Europe or America, and
the great events of the morning are
known in the evening throughout tho
inhabited world. Adding to tho sub
marine lines the land telegraph sys
tems by which they are connected and
through which they bring interior
points of. the various continents into
Instantaneous communication, the to
tal length of telegraph lines of tho
world is 1,180,000,000 miles, tbe length
of their single wires or conductors
3,800,000 miles, and the total numher of
messages annually, sent over them Im
about 400,000,000, or an average of
more than one million each day.
In the short half century since th3
practicability of submarine telegraphy
was demonstrated, the electric wires
have invaded every ocean except the
Pacific. Nearly a score of wires have
been laid across the Atlantic, of which
no less than thirteen now successful
ly operate between the United States
and Europe, while three others span
the comparatively short distance be
tween South America and the African
and south European coast lines.
Throughout the Indian ocean lines
connect 'the far east with Europe and
America via the Red sea, the Mediter
ranean, the western coast of Europe. ,
and the great trans-Atlantic lines. The
Mediterranean Is crossed and re
crossed in its entire -length and
breadth by numerous cable lines, and,
the "Mediterranean of America," the
Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean sea,
is traversed; In all directions by lines
which bring its islands and colonies
into speaking relations with each
other and with South' America, Cen
tral America, the United States, and
thence with Europe, Africa, Asia the
whole, world. Along the eastern coast
of Asia, cable lines loop from port to
port, and inland to Island, receiving
messages overland from eastern Eu
rope via the Russia-Siberian land
lines and forwarding tlmm to Japan,
China, Australia. New Zealand, the
Straits Settlements.- Hong Kong, and
the Philippines: and receiving others
in return. South America 'is skirted
with cable lines along its entire border
save the extreme south, where they
are brought into intercommunication
by land lines. Along the entire coast
of Africa, cables loop from place to
place and from colony to colony,
stretching along the entire circumfer
ence and penetrating the interior by
lard lines at varioits points.
Every body of water lying between
the inhabited portions of the earth,
with the, single exception of the Pa
cific ocean, has been crossed and re
crossed by submarine telegraph line?.
Even that' vast expanse of water ha&
been invaded along its margin, sub
marine wires stretching along Its west
ern border from Siberia to Australia,
while its eastern borders are skirted
with lines which stetch along the west
ern coasts of the two Americas. Sev
eral adventurous pioneers In Pacific
telegraphy have ventured to consider
able distances and depths in that gTeat
ocean, one cable line running from
Australia to New Zealand, a distance
of over 1.000 miles, and another ex
tending from Australia to the French
colony of New Caledonia, 800 miles
s'eaward. A cable which is to connect
Canada with Australia across the Pa
cific is now being laid at the joint ex
pense of the United Kingdom, Cannda
and the Australian commonwealth and
has already been completed from Van
couver. British Columbia, to Fanning
Island, just south of the Hawaiian isl
ands, and it is expected that the en
tire line will be completed by the end
of the present year.
The chief obstacle in the past to th
construction of a grand trans-Pacific
cable wa3 found in the fact that mid
ocean resting places could not be sat
isfactorily obtained or arranged for.
no single, government controlling a
sufficient number of suitable landing
niaces to make this seem practicable,
in view of the belief that the distance
through which messages could be spnt
and cables controlled was limited.
With landing places at. Hawaii. Wake
Island, Guam, and the Philippines,
however, no. section of a cable stretch
ing from the United States to Asia
and touching at these points would
have a .leneth equal to that now in
daily operation, between France aid
the United States. The leneth of the
French cable from Brest, France, to
Cape Cad. Mass.. is 3,250 miles, while
the greatest distance from land to
land on the proposed Pacific route
would be that from San Francisco to
Hawaii. 2.0S9 miles; that from Hawaii
tn'Wake Islnnd being 2.00 miler;. from
Wake Island to Gu?m 1.20 'roil0'?, from
Guam to Manila 1.520 miles, and from
(Continued on Page 2.)