DEFICIENCY. See under "Wilson Bill." DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Modern War Cries against "The Moneyed Classes" were Sounding Phrases in Washington's Days. It must not be supposed that the hue and cry, of Democratic origin, about "the moneyed classes," and the arraignment of class again class, likewise of Democratic birth, are comparative novelties in American politics. They were just as prevalent under the first Administration as they have been under recent Administrations. The term most popular in the early days of the Government, to designate those who were supposed to be inimical to the "plain people," was "aristocrat." Washington was accused of being an "aristocrat." His neutrality doctrine was decidedly unpopular, and the same element which in the present generation vociferously denounces conservatism in our government, denounced President Washington for refusing to take part in the wars between England and France. His policy was characterized as a betrayal of the masses, who were clamoring for war. But when that policy was vindicated by time, and the neutrality doctrine was shown to have brought prosperity to the people of the United States, the Democrats of that day conveniently forgot their former hostility to Washington's wise statesmanship, and Jefferson, the leader in this hostile attitude, officially proclaimed a policy against "entangling alliances." "A curious phase of prejudice, as already noted, was instilled into the minds of the unintelligent Democracy of that day," writes J. Harris Patton, M. A., in his short history of "The Democratic Party" (1884). "They were often led, by the insinuations and hasty assertions of their leaders, to suspect the well-to-do and the educated portion of the community of being hostile to themselves. These leaders, at first, as we have seen, characterized those who sustained the policy of the Government for the first twelve years of its existence as 'aristocrats,' and that term of presumed reproach was used until superseded by that of the 'moneyed power,' meaning by the latter epithet those who continued to sustain the financial principles introduced by Alexander Hamilton and embodied in the policy of Washington's Administration. The policy of neutrality in the meantime became popular, the epithet 'aristocrat,' as originally used was no longer available. But in relation to financial measures, taxes, tariffs, banks etc., 'moneyed power' suited their purpose admirably, and every 'poor man' who worked for wages; was impliedly invited to look upon the well-to-do and the intelligent as having but little sympathy for him. * * * "In order to secure more fully their ends, the leaders in these societies (Democratic) endeavored to array one portion of the community against another. Those who were in favor of neutrality they characterized as 'aristocrats;' every lover of order or supporter of the National Government was denounced as such, and as an enemy of the 'poor man,' a favorer of the hated aristocratic England and not of democratic France. It has been the policy of the leaders of that political organization from that day to this, to proclaim themselves pre-eminently the friend of the 'poor man' as they affectionately designate those who obtain a living by working in any form for wages, but more especially those engaged in manual labor or as employees in manufacturing establishments. They imply at the same time the men of wealth or capitalists-in a word those who employ work-people-are the enemies of the latter. "The epithets which they then used had a meaning and a purpose. The term 'aristocrat' in that day had a peculiarly unpopu lar significance, and was designed to excite prejudice against those who were in favor of Washington's policy. By this term they meant to imply that the advocates of neutrality were imitators of the English aristocracy." In this connection it is but fair to ask workingmen, who are the special object of the appeals of the Democratic party to-day, how they can reconcile this interest in their behalf with the record of the Democratic party in the past, which for many years preceding the war was officered and manned by the aristocratic slave owners of the South. It was this party that put a stain on free labor by maintaining slavery, and it is this party in the South to-day that still looks with scorn and contempt upon factory labor, unable to find a more respectful term than "poor whites" for those who are compelled to make their living by manual labor. The place where labor is respected is in the strongholds of the Republican party, or at least where the Republican party has been able to make its policies felt. DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S POSITION ON SILVER IN 1876. That the clamor for the white metal is of comparatively recent origin, and that "the crime of '73" itself did not for some years after provoke the great indignation which the would-be saviors of the country of the present day pathetically affect, is proved by the speeches of Senators Stewart and Jones, who were still busy in 1874 praising the unfailing blessings of the gold standard. But late as 1876, the Democratic leaders of the House were still sanctioning the crime of '73 by proposing legislation prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury from purchasing silver bullion for coinage, restricting silver coinage to subsidiary coinage, fixing the price of silver by the market value, providing for the transfer of the seigniorage to the Treasury, and finally limiting the legal tender of the standard silver dollar to amounts not exceeding $50. Witness the following: ACT TO REDEEM FRACTIONAL CURRENCY. [Forty-fourth Congress-Proceedings in House.] A bill (H. R. 2450) to provide for a deficiency in the Printing and Engraving Bureau in the Treasury Department, and for the issue of silver coin of the United States in place of fractional currency. Reported from the Committee on Appropriations. March 27, 1876, Mr. Holman submitted the following as a new section: "SEC. 3. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby prohibited from making any further increase in the interest-bearing debt of the United States by the issue and sale of bonds for the purchase of silver bullion for coinage. But silver bullion shall, under regu!ations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, be received by the several mints for fabrication into subsidiary coins, and paid for in such coins at a rate or price per ounce to be fixed from time to time, according to the market rate, by the Director of the Mint with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the basis of the difference between the par value of such coin and the value of such bullion, and an addition not exceeding 1 per cent, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be made to the purchasing price as an allowance for the transportation of coin. And the excess of the par value of such coin over the value of the bullion so deposited, less the amount that shall be allowed for transportation, as aforesaid, determined as above provided, shall be from time to time covered into the Treasury, as the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct: Provided, however, That such silver coins of the denominations aforesaid, and the silver bullion now owned by the United States, shall not exceed in par value the par value of the fractional currency now authorized by law." Mr. E. Wells (Democrat) moved the following proviso to the proposed new section: Provided, That if silver bullion is not provided for coinage in sufficient quantity for the redemption of fractional currency the Secretary of the Treasury may, under the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments, approved January 14, 1875, purchasing silver bullion for the purpose of coinage as provided in said act." Which was agreed to-yeas, 118; nays, 106. Yeas-Democrats, 45; Republicans, 72; Independent, 1. Mr. Reagan (Democrat) of Texas offered the following amendment: Insert as section 4 the following: "That the silver coins of the United States of the denomination of $1 shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not exceeding $50 in any one payment. And silver coins of the United States of denominations of less than $1 shall be a legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not exceeding $25 in any one payment." Which was agreed to-yeas, 122; nays, 94. Yeas-Democrats, 99; Republicans, 22; Independent, 1. March 31, 1876, the amendment offered by Mr. Holman, as amended on motion of Mr. Wells, was disagreed to-yeas, 68; nays, 77. The bill as amended by the amendment of Mr. Reagan was then passed-yeas, 122; nays, 100. Yeas-Democrats, 50; Repulicans, 70; Independent, 2. (For foregoing proceeds see "Congressional Record," Volumes 14 and 15.) (From the speech of Representative Overstreet of Indiana, April 29, 1898.) CLEVELAND'S DO-NOTHING POLICY AND ITS RESULTS. The beneficial activity in legislative and executive matters generally, under President McKinley, contrasts strangely with the do-nothing policy which characterized the Democrats after the election of 1892. President Cleveland, in a speech complained of what he called the "hot haste" with which the Republicans went to work on the tariff, and other leading propositions of their platform soon after President McKinley's inauguration. But this activity, characteristic of the Republican party, is making history. It was more than five months from Mr. Cleveland's inauguration as President in 1893, before his Congress met to consider any of the propositions to which his party was pledged, and within a few days of eighteen months before the leading promise of its platform was fulfilled in the enactment of the new tariff law. The business uncertainties, the long months of suspense in which manufacturers and dealers of all classes were unable to proceed intelligently with business enterprises, and the stoppage of business and loss of employment consequent thereon, make the eighteen months of masterly inactivity in which President Cleveland and his party neglected to fulfill with “hot haste” their promises of legislation, the most disastrous in the history of the business of the country. The following record of prominent events during the eighteen months in which President Cleveland and his party held the country in suspense prior to the enactment of the legislation promised by them, will indicate to some extent whether he was justified in complaining of the "hot haste" with which the Republican party is carrying out its own pledges on this occasion: March, 1893-General strike began among the clothing cutters in New York; strike of employees on Toledo and Ann Arbor road. April, 1893-Strike of 4,000 workers on fair grounds at Chicago. May, 1893-Strike of 20,000 coal miners in Ohio; failure of a large number of Western banks following the failure of the Columbia National Bank of Chicago. June, 1893-Runs on savings banks in Chicago and numerous failures of banks in various parts of the country. July, 1893—Announcement of suspension of work in 300 silver mines of the United States; bank failures; four bank failures in Denver; runs on other financial institutions; numerous business failures; great numbers of bank failures in the West and in all other sections of the country. August, 1893-Failures of numerous commission houses in Chicago; failure of Madison Square Bank in New York; riots in New York and encounters between anarchists and socialists only prevented by police; close of long and unsuccessful coal miners' strike in Kansas. September, 1893-Strike of "Big Four" employees. October, 1893-Troops called out in Alabama to suppress riots of railroad strikers. November, 1893-Strike of railroad hands of Lehigh Valley Railroad, numbering several thousand; strike of 20,000 hat-makers at Danbury, Conn. December, 1893-Riots in Pennsylvania mining region. January, 1894-Strike of many thousand potters in New Jersey against reduction of wages; Secretary Carlisle offers a $50,000,000 loan for public subscription; striking miners in Pennsylvania destroy property at Brantville and elsewhere. February, 1894-Sale of $50,000,000 of bonds by Secretary Carlisle; many large silk factories in New York close on account of strike; all the mines of the Massilon district closed by strikes; riotous assemblages of unemployed workmen in Boston dispersed by police. March, 1894-General strike among the silk weavers at Paterson, N. J.; West Virginia striking miners burn railroad bridges; |