.i
tt
hi
m
r
I.
III
i,
15,
l!
'1 :
!
: t.
i
2
r
of labor and of capital; no unequal discrim
ination; no abuse of the powers of law for .
favoritism or oppression."
Senator Allison has a reputation of being
nblo to walk on eggs without breaking them, and
this plank, if it appeared anywhere else than m
a democratic platform, might bo attributed to him
for it is about as nice a piece of balancing as has
appeared In many a day. The party stands "im
partially" between labor and capital. If any dis
crimination Is made, it must not bo an "unequal
discrimination. That is, if the party discriminates
in favor of ono side, it must offset It by an equal
discrimination in favor of the other side. There
must be no abuse of the powers of the law, either
for favoritism or oppression. "Why this prodigal
ity in tho uso of type? If the convention had said
that it was in favor of doing right as between
capital and labor, the plank would have been
just as clear and just as useful as a guide to the
party. In fact, the whole platform is so non
commital, so absolutely colorless and so capable
of being construed in any way that "we will cio
. right" would have answered as well for the whole
platform. A republican could run on that plat
form and after the election construe it as mi
. Indorsement of every policy for which tho re
publican party stands, or at least he could find
nothing in tnat platform that would rebuke him
for doing anything that a republican might want
to do.
What arc the issues before the country? The
trust question is certainly an issue, and yet there
. Is nothing in that platform that gives any en
couragement to the opponents of the trusts. There
is not a word or syllable that binds a peison
elected on such a platform to do anything that
tho trusts are unwilling to have done. The Kan
sas City platform stated tho party's position on
tho trust question, but tho Now "fcork platform
not only fails to indorse tho last national plai
. ferm, but also fails to propose any definite or
positive plan of relief.
Imperialism is an issue. Our government is
now administering a colonial policy according to
the political principles employed by George 111.
a century and a quarter ago, and yet .there is not
in this platform a single word relating to the
question of imperialism, not o, plank that defints
tho party's position on that subject, not a pro
test against the surrender of tho doctrines of
self-government. The Kansas City platform stated
tho party's opposition to a colonial policy, but the
Now York platform not only falls to indorse the
Kansas City platform, but fails to take any posi
tion at all on this important question.
Tho labor question is an issue. The laboring
men have been before the committees of congrcos
endeavoring to secure three important measures.
One, the arbitration of differences between cor
porations engaged In interstate commerce and
their- employes. Both the Chicago and Kansas
City platforms declnred in favor of arbitration,
but tho New York platform not only fails to re
fer to the arbitration plank of these platforms, but
it fails to write a new plank covering this subject.
Tho laboring men are also trying to secure
an eight-hour day, but the New Yorjt platform is
silent on this subject
The laboring men are trying to secure tho
abolition of government by injunction. Both the
Chicago and Kansas City platforms contained
planks on this subject, but the New York plat
form dodges this as it does all other vital ques
tions. As the capitalists now have what they
want and arc in the position of defendants in a
suit, while tho laboring men are in the attitude
of plaintiffs seeking relief, tho failure of the New
York platform to advocate -what the laboring men
desire is 'really a declaration against them.
On tho tariff question no issue is joined. It
was reasonable to suppose that on this question,
at, least, something would bo said, but Mr. Hill
and Judge .Parker seem to bo as much atraid of
Mho. tariff question as of other issues.
The money question is ignored entirely. No
reference is made to bimetallism at any ratio
not oven to international himetalllsm to which
Mr. Hill seemed to bo so attached in the Chicago
convention. No reference is made to the nleasuie
, now before congress to melt up nearly six hun
, dred million legal tender silver dollars Into sub
sidiary coin that is only a limited legal tender.
- Nothing is said about tho asset currency which is
' -a part of the scheme of tho financiers Nothing is
' said about tho Aldrich bill which proposes to sub
sidize the banks into opposition to tax reduction
by loaning them the surplus mono in the treas
ury. There is nocondemnation of the corruption
that such a system would lead to. The platform
does not antagonize tho proposition now beloio
congress to give thenational banks unlimited con
trol over the volume of paper money, in other
The Commoner.
words, there is not a line in the platform that is
written in behalf of the people; not a line tnat
will excite criticism in Wall street.
The platform ignores the income tax; it rails
to Indorse the election of senators by direct vole
and also omits tho plank of the Kansas City plat
form denouncing corporate domination in politics.
Tho New York platforni is a dishonest plat
form, fit only for a dishonest party. No one but
an artful dodger would stand upon it. The buo
mission of such a platform to the voters of a
state is an insult to their intelligence, for it is
intended to deceive them, and a deliberate at
tempt to deceive especially so clumsy an attempt
as this platform is is a reflection upon the
brains of those to whom it is submitted.
This platform proves that the opposition to
the Kansas City platform is not opposition to
silver, but opposition to every needed reform and
opposition to all that the masses desire.
I had expected that a platform prepared by
Mr. Hill for Judge Parker would be evasive and
lacking in frankness, but I did not conceive that
any body of men calling themselves democrats
would present such a platform as a recommenda
tion of a candidate. If we are to take the New
York platform as an indication of what the next
democratic platform is to he, in case the reorgan
izes control the convention, then who will be ,
able to deny the secret purpose of. the reorgan
izes to turn the party over to predatory wealth?
It is to this danger that I desire to call your
attention tonight. With such a platform and a
candidate who would be willing to run upon Jt,
the party could secure "as large a campaign-fund
as the republican party has ever secured, but in
securing it it would, like the republican party,
secretly pledge the administration to a construc
tion of the platform satisfactory to the corpora
tions and the combinations. If you would know
why the corporations contribute to campaign
funds, read the testimony given by Mr. H. O.
Ha'yemeyer before the senate committee in the
spring of 1894. The answers made "by "Mr. Have
meyer to Senator Allen's questions are conclusive
as to the purpose of the campaign contributions
made by the great corporations; '
Senator Allen: "Therefore, you feel at lin
er ty to contribute to both parties?" '
Mr. Hayemeyer; "It depends. In .the state
of New York, where the democratic majority is
between 40,000 and 50,000, we throw it their
way. In the state of Massachusetts, where tho
republican party is doubtful, tney probably have
the call."
Senator Allen: "In the state of Massachusetts
do you contribute anything?"
Mr. Havemeyer: "Very likely. .
Senator Allen: "What is your best recol
lection as to contributing made by your com
pany in the state of Massachusetts?"
Mr. Havemeyer: "I could not name the
amount."
Senator Allen: "However, in the state of
New York you contribute to the democratic party
and in the commonwealth of Massachusetts you
contribute to the republican party?"
Mr. Havemeyer: "It is my impression that
wherever there is a dominant party, wherever
the majority is very large, that is the party that
gets the contribution, because thaU is the pariy
which controls the local matters."
Senator Allen: "Then, the sugar trust is a
democrat in a democratic state, and a republican'
in a republican state?"
Mr. Havemeyer: "As far as local matters are
concerned, I think that is about it."
Senator Allen: "In the state of your nativ
ity, or the nativity of your corporation, New Jer
sey, where do your contributions go?"
Mr. Havemeyer: "I will have to look that up."
, Senator Allen: "I understand New Jersey is
invariably a democratic state. It would naturally
go to the democratic party?"
Mr Havemeyer: "Under the theory T nave
gogtgotem''tUey WGre therG " W6uld
Here we have the head of the sugar "trust ad
mitting that his corporation contributes to cam
paign funds and that its contribution ls de?S
mined, not by political convictions but bv iL"
desire to stand in with the winnine nartv L?
ort A1en tried to ascertain tSe amfi'
tee, lenVK
ator Allen in calling th "matter to'hl i? ??a"
of the attorney geferal to The Di trlct oT r!n
lumbia. Senator Allen individnnn f 5 "
. resolution in fayor of ' caliC til reP0i;te2 a
the senate for contempts fenaCaytnd
VOLUME 4, NUMBER i5
Senator' Lindsoy, both gold" democrats, present
a minority report in which they opposed taking
any action in regard to the witnes. Kin
If you -desire iurther testimony in ream in
the purpose of corporations in contributing v
will find it in a letter sent by Mr. A. B. HepbuJn
of the National City Bank of New York to 1
man J. Gage, secretary of the treasury. The lnf
ter bears date of June 5, 1807, and is published in
House Document 264 of the first session of th
GGth congress. In closing the letter, after ask In"
for deposits, Mr. .Hepburn says: "Of course f'io
bank is very strong, and if you will take the naiiis
to look at our list of directors you will see th t
we also have great political claims in view of
what was done in the campaign last year."
Here is the president of the most infiuenthl
bank in the" country calling attention to politird
service rendered by the directors of the bank as
a reason why the bank should be remembered m
the distribution of government money. Now with
the testimony of tho head of one of the 'great
trusts and the testimony of an official of one cf
the great hanks, can any one douty that contri
butions are made by the corporations for the pur
pose of controlling the policy of the party after
the election? Can any one doubt that with such
a platform as was adopted in .New York, and
with a candidate whose conscience would permit
him to run upon such a platformdoes any one
doubt that with suoh a platform and candidate
the party "would ho mortgaged heforehand to the
corporations that are now using the government
as a private asset and plundering the people at
will?
But there is another reason why the demo
cratic party cannot afford to go before the coun
try with an ambiguous platform and an uncertain
candidate. No matter how people may differ,
as to the relative importance of issues, all mubt
recognize that the trust question today presents
an important phase of the great conflict between
plutocracy and democracy. "We have recently had
a supreme court decision on the merger case. This
decision was rendered by a hare majority of one.
and that one (Judge Brewer) in a separete opin
ion has stated his position in such a "way as to
leave no doubt that in the first case involving a
trust he may join the minority and defeat the
Sherman law". Judge Brewer construes the anti
trust law to apply only to reasonable restraint of
trade. He would have the court decide whether
the restraint is reasonable or Unreasonable. His
decision, taken in connection with the dissenting
opinions of Justices Fuller, Peckham, White, and
Holmes, shows that the appointment of a new
judge might throw the decision to the one' side
or to the -other. The judges of the supreme court
are appointed by the president, and the president
to be elected this fall will doubtless have the ap
pointment of one or two, and possibly three, su
preme court judges. If his sympathies are with
the corporations he will doubtless appoint judges
satisfactory to the corporations--especially if he
is obligated to the corporations by large cam
paign contributions and theso judges enn
make it impossible to secure any remedial
legislation for years to come. If, four years
hence, the people should secure a president, a sen
ate, and a house opposed to private monopolies,
they may find themselves unable to get any
remedial legislation past the supreme court lor
( several years.
The opinion filed by Judge T "White and con
curred in by the others denies the power of con
gress over monopolies organized in a state. These
dissenting judges insist 'that congress has no
power to regulate or restrain the creation of a
monopoly wimin a state. It will be remembered
that the decision in the Knight case, known as
the sugar trust case; turned upon that very ques
tion. It was admitted in that case that tho su
gar trust controlled tho producion of sugar, hut
tho court held that the Sherman law did not pre
vent the buying up of the individual refineries
even though the product pf the' refineries mteht
ultimately enter into interstate commerce.
The division of 'the supreme court In tlio
merger case shows the cleavage on the trust
, question. The dissenting judges, would deny tlio
power of congressto prevent, a private monopoly
and when the power of congress to destroy mo
nopolies is' denied the people are left helpless
because some of the states, uch as Pelaware ana
New Jersey, find it profitable to; permit the cre
ation of these monopolies and so long as they,
are created and can evade federal laws no sep
arate state car fully protect itself against them.
The dissenting judges in the merger case re
fuse to draw a distinction between an Individual
and a corporation. Justice White says: ine
principle that tho ownership of property is em
braced within the power of congress to regular
.W- ritnM.. M ,