a
-
MARCH 29, 1912
enumerated information as to the property pos
sessed by him. -
After the facts were all secured Holmes, who
had charge of the compilation of this informa
tion divided the people of this country into
three classes; class one, two and three, which
is very appropriate. He might have said caste
one, two and three, and then his language would
have agreed with the division of the population
of India. In India the population is divided
into three classes; eighty per cent of them never
havo enough to eat; sixteen per cent of them
have barely enough, and four per cent live in
unlimited wealth and luxury.
Holmes, from the census of 1890 shows that
4,000 families in the United States, less than
three one-hundredths of one per cent of our
population have an aggregate wealth of one
fifth of all the wealth of the people of the
United States; that 1,139,000 families; or less
than nine per cent of our population have an
aggregate wealth of $30,000,000,000, making a
total for these two which he places under the
head of class or caste one, of $42,000,000,000,
or seventy-one per cent of 'the wealth of the
people of the United States, leaving twenty-nine
per cent of the wealth for ninety-one per cent
of our population.
In class two there are 3,600,000 families who
own $12,000,000,000 of the wealth or more
than one-fourth of our population own the same
amount as is owned by 4,000 families of the ex
tremely rich. Six million six hundred thousand
families or fifty-two per cent of our population
had only $3,000,000,000 of the wealth or one
fourth of the wealth of the. 4, 000 families who
own this country. Therefore, the total of ninety
one per cent of our population owns $17,000,
000,000 of the wealth of this country, and the
rich or nine per cent of the population own $43,
000,000,000 of the wealth of this country.
Mr. Sparr, a writer on the Outlook, and a
lecturer of the New York Law Academy, a man
of decided ability and statistician well known
throughout the world and a lawyer by profes
sion, made an investigation of the probate
records of the middle and New England states,
and his observation produced the same results
as to the distribution of wealth as that obtained
by Mr. Holmes.
These Investigations to which I refer as to
. the distribution of wealth, in this country were
. made in 1890 or twenty-two years ago. Since
.- that time the concentration of wealth has gone
on more rapidly than ever before. Fostered by
privileges granted by congress, assisted by a
president totally in sympathy with the exploiters
'of this country, the statistics would now show
- a far greater concentration of wealth than the
figures of twenty-two years ago. Then fifty-two
per cent of our people owned less than $90
worth of property per capita; did not own their
homes, were possessed of second-hand clothing
and second-hand furniture and but little of that.
Today an investigation would undoubtedly show
a more startling state of affairs. In these
twenty-two years the great billionaires of this
country have appeared. Since 1890 the govern
ment has refused to continue this investigation.
When the bill for taking the census of 1890 was
before the senate I was a member of the com
mittee on census, and I offered an amendment
to the bill to continue the investigation of the
distribution of wealth in this country, and the
committee composed of a majority of republi
cans voted down the amendment. I then offered
the amendment in the senate of the United
States and it was again voted down. In sup
port of the amendment I presented to the senate
the facts with reference to the distribution of
the wealth of this country and the representa
tives of the corporations of this country who
composed a majority of the senate of the United
States by roll call refused to adopt my amend
ment. In 1910 when the census bill was again before
the senate I am informed that Senator La Fol
lette of Wisconsin undertook to secure a simi
lar amendment with the same result.
How has this great concentration of wealth
been brought about? By the granting of privi
. leges to the rich, by refusing to legislate in the
interests of labor, by evading the enforcement
on the part of the government of the anti-contract
labor law, by the craft and cunning of the
men who manage the great corporations of this
country.
It is the duty of democracy tp take this
question vigorously in hand and by proper legis-
lation .brine about, a redistribution among the
people' wh.p earned it of the .wealth thus cor-
rupW 'talcen.frojn, the toilers of the country,
andenacUnto taw such legislation as will pre
vent such accumulations in the future. I will
aot undertake to suggest the remedy, that would
The Commoner.
require too long a discussion of this question,
but undoubtedly the means of-transportation
and distribution must be taken over and
operated by the government in the interests of
service rather than of dividends before any
effective work can be accomplished to givo equal
opportunity to all.
It is said that in the past, in the days of the
Roman empire, when a wealthy Roman wished
, to build a villa, ho purchased the right to tax
and govern a conquered province in Asia, and
returned to Rome to enjoy his fortune. But
when an American millionaire wishes to build
a villa or buy a title in Europe, ho purchases
a tariff privilege from the congress of the
United States, or corrupts a legislature or a city
council and secures a franchise, and proceeds to
rob his neighbors.
I am of tho opinion that the Roman way was
tho best.
Our banking and currency system organized
by these same exploiters of the people of this
country, has contributed largely to this work of
concentration, and the present Aldrich bill pro
posed by the bankers' taking into consideration
only one class, is but a legalization of tho exist
ing pernicious money trust in this country.
Under its provisions they havo solo control
of tho issue of money. These bankers can
corner gold, contract or expand tho volume of
money at will, raise and lower prices as best
suits their convenience and profit.
It is the duty of democracy to .study this
question and enact such laws as will take into
consideration the whole body of tho people and
build up its industries, rather than allow one
class to fix up their own scheme and confer upon
themselves such vast privileges.
The trouble with our present banking system
is, that one bank is allowed to deposit with an
other bank and count the deposit as a part of
its reserves. So that a bank in western Ne
braska deposits in Omaha, tho Omaha bank de
posits in Chicago, and the Chicago bank deposits
in New York, and thus the money is counted
three times over as a part of the reserve in vari
ous banks.
In my opinion all monoy should be issued
by the government itself and the volume of
money regulated so as to maintain a "steady
range of prices. No bank should be allowed to
loan its deposits or deposit with another bank.
This of course would prevent banks from mak
ing a profit through loans except as a commis
sion charge either of the borrower of tho money
or the person who had it in tho bank to loan,
and would eliminate all panics and remove the
explosive feature of our financial system. No
bank in France outside of Paris is allowed to
loan a dollar of its deposits. There has been
no panic in France for the last seventy-five
years.
Our present banking system and the plan pro
posed by the Aldrich bill would simply center
. all the money of 'the country in tho great centers
and especially in New York. For during the last
ten or twelve years under Roosevelt's and Taft's
administration not only the railroads but the
, industries of the country have been gathered
into great combinations having their financial
center and their treasurers in New York, so
that the growth of the deposits in the New York
banks, has simply been enormous and astonish
ing. In fact our great industries and our trans
. portation companies are all now managed from
New York. Ten years ago the leading fifteen
banks and trust companies ten of them in New
York, three in Chicago and two in Boston, hold
$907,000,000 or forty-three per cent of the total
currency then in circulation. Today fifteen in
stitutions in the same states hold $1,800,000,000
of deposits or more than half of the total actual
amount of money in circulation in this country
on February 1, 1912. In 1895, seventeen .years
ago, New York's share of the deposits of the
fifteen institutions was $200,000,000; ten years
ago it was $722,000,000. Today it is '"lGO,
000,000. The currency' law and the banking law
should be so framed as to keep the money in the
localities where it is deposited. If no bank
was allowed to re-deposit with another bank,
and no bank was allowed to loan its deposits,
and the government issue all the money and
keep its volume sufficient to maintain a steady
range of prices, it would be legislation in the
interests of the whole people. While banking
would not be so profitable, the industries of the
country would be more , stable- Tho banks
should charge a commission for loans secured
hy them for their people and the transaction
would be between the .borrower and the lender,
and thus the banks would not be borrowing
upon call and loaning upon time and thus of
necessity exploding with every approaching
panic. .The granting of special privileges to tho
few to exploit the many, the donation of tho
natural resources of tho country to groat
monopolies that has produced tho universal
feeling of unrost which has and is disturbing
the business interests of this country. Wo pro
test against tho anarchy of wealth.
A certain professor has said that ho did not
wish to disturb business, but the people do wish
to disturb business.
It is tho duty of democracy, to ovorturn the
present system of business and reorganize it on
tho basis of equal rights for all and special
privileges to none.
Democracy should favor tho recall of judges.
So far as the state and local courts are con
cerned it is a state question, but tho recall of
tho United States judges or rather tho judges
of the United States circuit and district courts
could bo best accomplished by abolishing tho
courts and conferring their jurisdiction upon
tho courts of tho various states, with a pro
vision that the decision of tho supreme court
of a state should be final upon all subjects.
The constitution of tho United States pro
vides: "Tho judicial power of the United States
shall bo vested in ono supremo court and In
such inferior courts as congress may from time
to timo ordain and establish."
These inferior courts were established by con
gress upon the theory that a cltizon of one state
could not get justice in the courts of another
state. Wo all know that a citizen of Masschu
setts can secure justice in the courts of Illinois.
If a citizen of the United States goes to a foreign
country he and his property submit to the courts
and tho laws of the country where ho happens
temporarily to reside, and therefore there is no
reason why these United States courts should
exist. The judges are appointed for life, re
sponsible to nobody, out of touch witli the people
and they use their power to misconstruo the
constitution, overturn the acts of congress and
have become the tools of the groat corrupt in
terests of this country. In fact as a rule cor
poration lawyers who have spent their lives
conniving with cunning skill to enable the great
combinations to evade the law of the land, alone
are selected to be the judges of the United
States courts.
A concrete illustration of this state of affairs
arose in Now York in 1895: a general traffic
association which was a combination of all
railroads between New York and Chicago, was
attacked by the United States district attorney
for the southern district of Now York, on the
ground that it was a combination in violation of
tho Sherman anti-trust law. Mr. McFarland, tho
United States attorney, for the southern dis
trict of New York, appeared before tho inter
state commerce committee of the United States
senate, and under oath, made the following
statement:
"When tho pase came up Judge Lacombe
stated that in. his opinion he was disqualified to
hear the case or any proceedings in it as at that
time he owned bonds or stocks in some of the
defendant railroads, and he also stated that he
understood that most if not all tho judges of
that circuit were under the same disqualifica
tion." It was finally decided that Judge Wheeler, tho
district judge of the Vermont district, was ap
parently the ortly judge in the circuit who was
not under a disqualification similar to that
which Judge Lacombe had stated he was under,
namely, the holding of some bonds or stock in
some of the defendant railroads. The case was
finally tried before Judge Wheeler, and as he
was a creature of the political system in vogue,
that is, had been appointed through the in
fluence of the senators from Vermont. Senator
Edmunds then In tho United States senate, was
employed by the railroads as one of thoir attor
neys and filed a brief in tho case.
Judge Wheeler decided the case in favor of
the railroads. An appeal was taken by the
United States to the circuit court and then
Judge Lacombe stated from tho bench that ho
was now qualified to try tho caso because ho
had disposed of his stocks and bonds in the
defendant railroads. He thereupon affirmed the
decision rendered by Judge Wheeler and the
case went to tho supreme court of the United
(Continued on Page 10.)
0
'
Tho speeches of Congressmen Robert
li. Henry, of Texas, and Frederick Tp.wn-
send Martin of New York, will bo pub- ill
lished in next week's issue of.jflHio 0
Commoner. f , ,
0 - " 0
000
- ' ' 1
t, .
mdnmmymmf -i rmmi I'jnrip. iniDimi urn jii j im riijimnnni niniijtnii w n ni rift j'i"" f if '"yij-'rrTTyfliif,i'nfhi in hi' "i ' i i " " " '
i tf M.
.tMammntui i -ilt-rNmiiii If
-i.1
rMX?''M'i",""9"i: ("" ' V fflrnBWj f-tn " W-r-