University of South Carolina Libraries
* VILLE ENQUIRER. ISSUED SEMI-WEEKLY. 1. a. eusrs son. Pibiiiken. j ? jfatttilg ifiDsjajen ^or ljn ^romotion ojf th< foliliiial, goaial, ^griqaHuital and Commn;cial 3ntar<sts of ?h< gmgla. { ESTABLISHED 1855. "YORKVILLE, 9. C., TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 19Q6. JSTQ. 71. MR. BRYAN'S HOME COMING. Retiming Political Here Gets Great Trloniit). SPEAKS TO MORE THAN 20,000 PEOPLE Great Crowd Works Itsolf to Frenxy of Enthusiasm?Mr. Bryan Affected to Tsars?Tells How Observation * Abroad 8hed Light on Problem at Ui!iL AL._ nomt?9a l lined nun tira mvn?7 Question as Settled If ths Opposition is Satisfied. The welcome extended to Mr. W. J. Bryan In Madison Square Garden, New York, on his return from his trip abroad last Thursday was one of the most remarkable events of the kind ever witnessed in this country. More than twenty thousand people participated. Every person in the great audience was provided with a tiny American flag, and the waving of the flags was accentuated by cheering. So touched was Mr. Bryan by the welcome that as he stood waiting for the cheers to subside his eyes filled with tears, and as the band played "Hail to the Chief," he strode nervously from side to side of the narrow platform. "How can I thank you for this welcome home?" he said. "My heart would be ungrateful if it did not consecrate Itself to your service. It was kind to prepare this reception. It was kind of Governor ifnlk to come here ail the way from Missouri. It was kind of Tom Johnson. that example of the moral courage we so much need In this country, to lend his presence here. "It was kind in you to fully recompense me In being absent so long from my native land. I thank you. I return t-> the land of my birth more proud of my citizenship than ever before." The address of welcome was dellverv ed by Governor Folk of Missouri, and Tom L. Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio, delivered the introductory speech. Mr. Bryan spoke as follows: Like all travelers who have visited other lands I return with delight to the land of my birth, more proud of its people, with more confidence in its government and grateful to the kind Providence that cast my lot in the United States. My national pride has been increased by abundant evidence I have seen of the altruistic interest taken by Americans in the people of other countries. I return more /IaavvIv imnrocoaH than PVPP hpfnpft with the responsibility which rests upon our nation as an exemplar among: the nations and more solicitous that we, avoiding the causes which have ted other nations to decay, may present a higher ideal than has ever before been embodied in a national life and carry human progress to a higher plane than it has before reached. Each nation can give lessons to every other, and while our nation is in a position to make the largest contribution, as I believe to the education of the world, it ought to remain in the attitude of a pupil and be ever ready to profit by the experience of others. The first message that I bring from the old world Is a message of peace. The cause of arbitration is making real progress in spite of the fact that the nations most prominent In the establishment of The Hague tribunal have themselves been engaged in wars since that court was organized. There is a perceptible growth of the sentiment in favor of the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. It was my good fortune to be present at the last session of the Interparliamentary Union which convened in London on the 23rd of July. I believe that if our nation would propose to make, with every other nation, a treaty providing that all questions in dispute between the parties should be submitted to The Hague court or some other impartial international tribunal of investigation and report before any declaration of war or commencement of hostility it would And many nations willing to enter into such a compact. I am sure from the public utterances of the present prime minister of Great Britain. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, that such a treaty could be made between the two great English-speaking nations and their example would be followed until the danger of war would be almost, if not entirely, removed. To take the lead in such a movement would establish our position as a world power in the best sense of the term. And what argument can be advanced against such action on the part of the United States? Shall we yield to any other nation In the estimate to be placed upon the value of human life? I confess that my aversion to killing increases with the years. Surely the Creator did not so plan the universe as to make the progress of the race dependent upon wholesale > blood letting. I prefer to believe that war instead of being an agency for good is rather an evidence of man's surrender to his passions and that one of the tests of civilization is man's willingness to submit his controversies to the arbitrament of reason rather than force. I venture to suggest that we may not only promote peace but also advance our commercial interests by announcing as a national policy that our navy will not be used for the collection of private debts. While protecting the lives of our citizens everywhere and guaranteeing the personal safety of all who owe allegiance to our flag, we should. In my judgment, announce that persons engaging in business and holding property In other lands for business purposes must be subject to the laws of the countries in which they engage in business enterprises. Many profitable fields of Investment are now closed because the people of the smaller nations are afraid that an investment of foreign capital will be made an excuse for a foreign Invasion. Our nation has lost prestige, rather than gained it. by our experiment in colonialism. We have given the monarchist a chance to ridicule our Declaration of Independence, and the scoffer has twitted us with inconsistency. A tour through the Philippine Islands has deepened the conviction that we should lose no time in announcing our i purposes to deal with the Filipinos as we dealt with the Cubans. Every consideration. commercial and political, leads to this conclusion. Such ground as we may need for coaling stations or for a naval base will be gladly conceded by the Filipinos, who simply desire an opportunity to work out their own destiny, inspired by our example and aided by our advice. In so far as our efforts have been directed toward the education of the Filipinos we have rendered them a distinct service but in educating them we must recognize that we are making colonialism Impos. sible. If we Intended to hold them as subjects we would not dare to educate them; self-government with ultimate independence must be assumed if we contemplate universal education in the Philippines. As soon as opportunity offers I shall discuss the Philippine question more at length and I shall also refer to English rule In India for It throws light upon our own problems In the Philippines but these subjects must be reserved until I can speak of that in detail. In several of the nations of Europe, the legislative department of govern*> ment Is more quickly responsive to public sentiment than Is our congress. In England for Instance, where the ministry is formed from the dominant party, when an election is held upon any important issue the government proceeds to put into law the will of the people expressed at the polls. While our system is superior in many respects it has one defect, viz., that congress does not meet in regul&r sesslon until thirteen months after the election. During: this period there is uncertainty, long: drawn out, which to the business community is often more damaging: than a change of policy promptly carried into effect. Would not the situation be improved by a constitutional amendment convening the session of congress within a few months of the election and compelling the second session to adjourn several days before the following election? Such a change would not only serve legitimate business interests and give the public the benefit of that prompt relief through remedial legislation but it would protect the people from the jobs that are usually reserved for the short session which is now neia arter me eiecuun vuu ?nc? mati; of the members feel less responsibility because of defeat, at the polls. I return more convinced than ever before of the importance of a change in the method of electing United States senators. There Is noticeable everywhere a distinct movement toward democracy in its broadest sense. In all the countries which I have visited there is a demand that the government be brought nearer to the people. Throughout Europe the movement manifests itself in various forms. In the United States this trend toward democracy has taken the form of a growing demand for the election of United States senators by a direct vote of the people. It must be difficult to overestimate the strategic advantage of this reform. Since every bill must receive the sanction of the senate as well as the house of representatives before it can become a law, no important legislation of a national character is possible until the senate is brought in| to harmony with the people. I am within the limits of the truth when I say that the senate has been for some years the bulwark of predatory wealth, and that it even now contains some men who owe their elections to favorseeking corporations and are so subservient to their masters as to prevent needed legislation. The popular branch of congress has four times declared in i fnons nf fhn rafArm hv o tu'A.th 1 rHa tatui vi nit +* j ? " ?? ww vote and more than two-thirds of the states have demanded it, and yet the senate arrogantly and impudently blocks the way. The Income tax, which some in our country have denounced as a socialistic attack upon wealth, has, I am pleased to report, the endorsement of the most conservative countries in the old world. It is a permanent part of the fiscal system of most countries of Europe and in many places it is a graded tax, the rate being highest upon the largest incomes. England has long depended upon the income tax for a considerable part of her revenues, and an English commission is now investigating the proposition to change from a uniform to a graded tax. I have been absent too long to speak with any -authority on the public sentiment in this country at this time, but I am so convinced of the justice of the income tax that I feel sure that the people will sooner or later demand an amendment to the constitution which will specifically prbvide for an Income tax and thus make it possible for the burdens of the Federal government to be apportioned among the people in proportion to their ability to bear them. It is little short of a disgrace to our country that while it is able to command the lives of its citizens in the times of war, it cannot, even in the most extreme emergency, compel wealth to bear Its share of the. exnan?u>a nf tht> o-nvprnmont which nrn tects It. I have referred to the Investigation of international controversies under a system which does not bind the parties to accept the findings of the court of inquiry. This plan can be used in disputes between labor and capital. In fact, it was proposed as a means of settling such disputes before it was applied to international controversies. It is as important that we shall have peace at home as that we shall live peaceably with foreign nations, and peace is only possible when it rests upon Justice. In advocating arbitration of differences between large corporate employers and their employees, I believe we are defending the highest interests of the three parties to these disputes, viz, the employer, the employees and the public. Employee cannot be turned over to the employer to be dealt with as the employer may please. The question sometimes asked: "Can I conduct my business to suit myself?" is a plausible one, but when a man in conducting his business, attempts to arbitrarily fix the conditions under which hundreds of employees are to live and determine the future of thousands of human beInpu T anmvpr wltHrmt hpaitntlnn that he has no right to conduct his business In such a way as to deprive his employees of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To support this position I need only to refer to the laws regulating the safety of mines, the factory laws fixing the age at which children can be employed, the usury laws establishing the rate of Interest. The efTort of the employer to settle differences without arbitration has done much to embitter him against those who work for him and to estrange them from him?a condition deplorable from every standpoint. But if it is unwise to make the employer the sole custodian of the rights and interests of the employees it Is equally unwise to give to the employees uncontrolled authority over the rights and Interests of the employer. The employees are no more to be trusted to act unselfishly and disinterestedly than the employers. In their zeal to secure a present advantage they may not only do injustice, but even forfeit a larger future gain. The strike, the only weapon of the employee at present, Is a two-edged sword, and may injure the workman as much as the employer. and when wholly successful, it is api 10 leave a ranKiing in me du?uiu of the wage earner that should not be there. Society, moreover, has something at stake as well as the employer and employees, for there can be no considerable strike without considerable loss to the public. Society, therefore, is justified In demanding that the differences between capital and labor shall be settled by peaceful means. If a permanent, impartial board is created to which either party of an Industrial Mspute may appeal, or which can, of its own motion, institute an inquiry, public opinion may be relied upon to enforce the finding. If there is a compulsory submission to investigation, it is not necessary that there shall be compulsory acceptance of the decision for a full and fair investigation will in almost every case bring about a settlement. No reference to the labor question is complete that does not include some mention of what is known as government by Injunction. As the main purpose of the writ is to evade trial by jury, it is really an attack upon the jury system, and ought to arouse a unanimous protest. So long as the meanest thief is guaranteed a trial by jury, a jury ought not to be denied to wage earners. However, as the writ is usually invoked in case of a strike, the evil of the subject would be very much reduced by the adoption of a system of arbitration, because arbitration would very much reduce, even if it did not entirely remove. the probability of a strike. Just another word in regard to the laboring man. The struggle for an eight-hour day is an international struggle and it is sure to be settled in favor of the workingmen's contention. The benefits of the labor saving machine have not been distributed with equity. The producer has enormously multiplied his capacity, but so far the owner of the machine has received too mnf>h nf thf incrcasp ;irn1 the laborer ton little. Those who oppose the eighthour day. I am convinced, do so more because of ignorance of the conditions than for lack of sympathy for those who toll. The removal of the work from the house to the factory has separated the husband from his wife and the father from his children while the growth of our cities has put an Increased distance between the home and the workshop. Then. too. more is demanded of the laboring man now than formerly. He Is a citizen as well as a laborer, and must have time for the study of public questions, if he is to be an Intelligent sovereign. To drive him from his bed to his task and from his task back to his bed is to deprive the family of his companionship, society of his service and politics of his influence. Thus far I have dwelt upon subjects which may not be regarded as strictly partisan, but I am sure that you will pardon me if in this presence I betray my Interest in those policies for which the Democratic party stands. I have not had an opportunity to make a Democratic speech for almost a year and no one, not even a political enemy, could be so cruel as to forbid me to speak of those policies on this occasion. Our opponents have derived not only partisan pleasure, but also partisan advantage from the division caused in our party by the money question. They ought not, therefore, begrudge us the satisfaction that we Tina in me iaci initi unexpeuieu auditions have removed the cause of our differences and permitted us to present a united front on present issues. The unlooked for and unprecedented increase in the production of gold has brought a victory to both the advocates of gold and the advocates of bl-metallism, the former keeping the gold standard, which they wanted, and the latter securing the larger volume of money, for which they contended. We who favor by-metallism are satisfied with our victory if friends of monometallism are satisfied with theirs, and we can invite them to a contest of zeal and endurance in the effort to restore to the people the rights which have been gradually taken from them by the trusts. The investigations which have been in progress during the past year have disclosed the business methods of those who a few years ago resented any inspection of their schemes and hid their rascality under high sour ding phrases. These investigations have also disclosed the source of the enormous campaign funds which have been used to debauch elections and corrupt the ballot. The people see now what they should have seen before, namely, that no party can exterminate the trust so long as It owes its political success to campaign contributions secured from the trusts. The great corporations do not contribute their money to any party except lor immunity expressly promisea ur clearly implied. The president has recommended legislation on this subject but so far his party has failed to respond. No important advance can be made until this baneful influence is eliminated and I hope that the Democratic party will not only challenge the Republican party to bring forward effective legislation on this subject but will set an example by refusing to receive campaign contributions from corporations and by opening the books so that every contributor of any considerable sum may be known to the public before the election. The great majority of corporations are engaged in legitimate business and have nothing to fear from hostile legislation and the officers should not be permitted to use the money of the stockholders to advance their own political opinions. Contributions should be individual, not corporate, and no party can afford to receive , contributions even from individuals when the acceptance of these contributions secretly pledge th.? party to a course which it cannot openly avow. In other words, politics should be honest and I mistake political conditions in America if they do not presage Improvement in the conduct of campaigns. While men may differ as to the relative Importance of Issues, and while the next congress will largely shape the lines upon which the coming presl dential campaign will be fought, I think it is safe to say that at present the paramount issue in the_ minds of a large majority of the people is the trust Issue. I congratulate President Roosevelt upon the steps which he has taken to enforce the anti-trust law and my gratification is not lessened by the fact that he has followed the Democratic rather than the Republican platform, In every advance he has made. It has been a great embarrassment to him that the platform upon which he was elected was filled with praise of the Republican party's record rather than with promises of reform. Even the enthusiastic support given him by the Democrats has enabled the champions of the trusts to taunt him with following Democratic leadership. He has probably gone as far as he could without incurring the hostility of leaders of his own party. The trouble is that the Republican party is not in a position to apply effective and thoroughgoing reforms because it has built up, through special legislation, the very abuses which need to be eradicated. Before any intelligent action can be taken against the trusts we must have definition of a trust. Because no corporation has an absolute and complete monopoly of any important product, me apoiogisis lor me irusis seem iu insist that there are in reality no trust. Others insist that it is impossible to legislate against such trusts as may exist without doing injury to legitimate business. For the purpose of this discussion it is sufficient to draw the line at a point where competition ceases to be effective and to designate as a trust any corporation which controls so much of the product of any article that it can fix the terms and condition of a sale. Legislation which prevents a monopoly not only does not injure legitimate business but actually protects legitimate business from injury. We are indebted to the younger Rockefeller for an illustration which makes this distinction clear. In defending the trust system he is quoted as saying that as the Amferican Beauty rose cannot be brought to perfection without pinching the ninety-nine buds so that the one hundredth bud can receive the full strength of the bush, so great industrial organizations are impossible without the elimination of the smaller ones. It is a cruel illustration, but presents a perfectly accurate description of trust methods. The nomncMtir nnrtv chamoions the cause of the 99 enterprises which are menaced; they must not be sacrificed that one great combination may flourish. There must be no mistaking of the issue and no confusing of the line of battle. The trust as an institution will have few open defenders. The policy of the trust magnates will be to insist upon "reasonable legislation" and then they will depend upon their power to corrupt legislatures and Intimidate executives to prevent the application of any remedies which will interfere with the trusts. Our motto must be "a private monopoly Is indefensible and Intolerable," and our plan of attack must contemplate the total and complete overthrow of the monopoly principle in Industry. We need not quarrel over remedies. We must show ourselves willing to support any remedy which promises substantial advantage to the people in their warfare against monopoly. Something is to be expected from the enforcement of the criminal clause of the Sherman anti-trust law, but this law must be enforced, not against a few trusts, as at present, but against all trusts, and the aim must be to Imprison the guilty, not merely to recover a fine. If the criminal clause is not going to be enforced it ought to be repealed. If imprisonment is too severe a punishment for the eminent epntlemen who rob eighty millions of people of hundreds of millions of dollars annually, the language of the statute ought to be changed, for nothing is more calculated to breed anarchy than the failure to enforce the law against rich criminals while it is rigidly enforced against petty offenders. But it is not sufficient to enforce existing laws. If ten corporations conspiring together in restraint of trade are threatened with punishment. all they have to do now is to dissolve their separate corporations and turn their property over to a new corporation. The new corporation can proceed to do the same thing that the separate corporations attempted and yet not violate the law. We need, therefore, new legislation, and the Republican party not only falls to enact such legislation but fails even to promise it. The Democratic party must be prepared to propose new and efficient legislation. Recent Investigations have brought to light the fact that nearly all the crookedness revealed in the management of our large corporations has been due to the duplication of directorates. A group of men organized or obtained control of several corporations doing business with each other, and then proceeded to swindle the stockholders of the various corporations for which they acted. Many of the trusts control prices by the same methods?the same group of men secure control of several competing corporations and the management is thus consolidated. It is worth while to consider whether a blow may not be struck at the trusts by a law making it illegal for the same person to act as director or officer of two cor? - ?? ? ? ? ? >1?i?L A am! **?! V? Ann V* Af K_ I purnuons WHICH ucai nun catii uv..- i er, or are engaged in the same general business. A still more far-reaching remedy was proposed by the Democratic platform of 1900, namely, the requiring of corporations to take out a Federal llcenf? before engaging in inter-state commerce. This remedy is simple, easily applied and comprehensive. If corporations were required to take out a Federal license, the Federal government could then issue a license upon terms and conditions which would protect .the public. A corporation differs from a human being in that it has no natural rights, and as all of its, rights are derived from the statutes it can be limited or restrained, according as the public welfare may require. The control which congress has over inter-state commerce is complete. No party can long be credited with sincerity if it condemns the trusts with words only and then permits the trusts to employ all the instrumentalities of inter-state commerce in the carrying out of their nefarious plans. It is far easier to prevent a monopoly than to watch it and punish it, and this prevention can be accomplished in a practical way by refusing a license to any corporation which controls more , than a certain proportion of the total < product?this proportion 'to be arbl- , a.? ii? a? ?* * ?Aiwi tiiK Is* Vi urlll (Hva i irarny nxeu ai a iiuun nmv>i ..... free operation to competition. The tariff question is very closely allied to the trust question and the reduction of the tariff furnishes an easy means of limiting the extortion which the trusts can practice. While free trade would not necessarily make a trust absolutely Impossible, still it is probable that few manufacturing establishments would dare to enter into a trust if the president were empowered to put upon the free list articles competing with those controlled by a trust. I cannot permit this opportunity to pass without expressing the opinion that the principles embodied in the protective tariff have been the fruitful source of a great deal of political corruption as well as the support of many of our most Iniquitous trusts. It Is difficult to condemn the manufacturers for uniting to take advantage of a high tariff schedule when the schedule is framed on the theory that the industries need all the protection given and It is not likely that the beneficiaries of these schedules will consent to their reduction so long as the public waits for the tariff to be reformed by Its friends. But one of the worst features of a tariff, levied not for revenue but for the avowed purpose of protection, Is that it fosters the Idea that men should use their votes to advance their own financial interests. For a generation the 'fat" has been fried out of the manufacturers by the Republican campaign committee, and then the manufacturers have been reimbursed by legislation. With the public conscience educated to believe that this open purchase of legislation was entirely proper, no wonder that insurance companies have used the money of their policy-holders to carry elections?no wonder that trusts have hastened to purchase immunity from punishment with liberal donations. How can we draw a moral line, between the senator and congressman elected by the trusts to prevent hostile legislation and the senator or con gressman kept in congress Dy me manufacturers to secure friendly legislation? The party which Justifies the one form of bribery cannot be relied upon to condemn the other. There never was a time when tariff reform could be more easily entered upon, for the manufacturers, by selling abroad cheaper than at home, as many of them do, have not only shown their ingratitude toward those who built the tariff wall for them, but they have demonstrated their ability to sell in competition with the world. The railroad question is also interwoven with the trust question. Nearly all the private monopolies have received rebates or secured other advantages over competitors. Absolutely equality of treatment at the hands of the railroads would go far toward the crippling of the trusts and I rejoice that the president has had the courage to press this question upon congress. While the law, as it was finally distorted by the senate, is not all that could be wished, it deserves a fair trial. , Rate regulation was absolutely necessary and it furnishes some relief from the unbearable conditions which preovlatert hut we must not for get that the vesting of this enormous power In the hands of a commission appointed by the president introduces a new danger. If an appointive board has the power to fix rates, and can by the exercise of that power increase or decrease by hundreds of millions of dollars the annual revenues of the railroads, will not the railroads feel that they have large pecuniary interest in the election of a president friendly to the railroads? Experience has demontrated that municipal corruption is largely traceable to the fact that franchise corporations desire to control the city council and thus increase their dividends. If the railroad managers adopt the same policy the sentiment in favor of the ownership of the railroads by the government is likely to increase throughout the country as the sentiment In favor of municipal ownership has increased in the cities. I have already reached the conclusion that railroads partake so much of the nature of a monopoly that they must ultimately become public officials in the interest of the whole community in accordance with the well defined theory that public ownership is necessary where competition Is Impossible. I do not know that the country is ready for this change. I do not know that a majority of my own party favor it, but I believe that an Increasing number of the members of all parties see in public ownership the sure remedy for discrimination between persons and places and for the extortionate rates for the carrying of freight and passengers. Believing, however, that the operation of all the railroads by the Federal government would result in a centralization which would all but obliterate states lines, I prefer to see only the trunk lines operated by the Federal government and the local lines by the several states governments. Some have opposed this dual ownership as impracticable but investigation in Europe has convinced me that it is entirely practicable. Nearly all the railroads of Germany are owned by the several states, the Empire not even owning the trunk lines, and yet the inter-state traffic is in no wise obstructed. The ownership and operation of the local lines by the several states governments is not only feasible but it suits Itself to the conditions existing in the various states. In those stales where people are ripe for change, the local lines can be purchased or new lines be built at once, while private ownership can continue in those states In which the people still prefer private v V> I1CI nm^j. As to the right of the governments, : Federal and state, to own and operate railroads there can be no doubt. If we ] can deepen the water in the lakes and build connecting canals in order to ; cheapen railroad transportation during half of the year, we can build a , railroad and cheapen rates the whole year. If we can spend several hundred ] millions on the Panama canal to lower trans-continental rates, we can build 1 a railroad from New York to San Francisco to lower both trans-conti- . nental and local rates. The United States mail is increasing so rapidly . that we shall soon be able to pay inter est on the cost of trunk lines out of the money which we now pay railroads for carrying through mails. If any of you question the propriety of my mentioning this subject, I beg to remind you that the president could not have secured the passage of the rate bill had he not appealed to the fear of the more radical remedy of jjorvernment ownership, arid nothing will so restrain the railroad magnates from attempting to capture the interstate commerce commission as the same fear. The high handed manner Ln which they have violated law and Ignored authority, together with the corruption discovered in high places, has done more to create sentiment in favor of public ownership than all the speeches and arguments of the opponents of private ownership. Just a word more In regard to the uuBis. some ueienu inein un uie ground that they are an economic development and that they cannot be prevented without great Injury to our Industrial system. This may be answered In two ways: First, trusts are 1 political development rather than in economic one; and, second, the trjost system cannot be permitted to ?(jnlinue even though It did result in i net economic gain. It is political bemuse It rests upon the corporation, ind the corporation rests upon a statutory foundation. The trust, Instead if teing a natural development, is a form of legalized larceny and can exist only so long as the law permits It to' eilst. That there is an economic advantage in production on a large scale may be admitted, but there is a point beyond which the economic advantage of large production ceases, rhfe moment an industry approaches the position of a monopoly it begins to lose in economic efficiency, for a monppoly discourages Invention, invites deterioration in quality, and destroys a most potent factor in production, "iz: individual ambition. But the political objections to a trust >vercome any economic advantage which It can possibly have. No economic advantage can justify an industrial despotism or compensate a nation For the loss of independence among Its producers. Political liberty could not long endure under an industrial rystim which permitted a few powerful magnates to control the means of livelihood if the rest of the people. Landlordism, the curse of Europe, Is an innocent institution in comparison with the trust, when the trust is carried to its logical conclusion. The man who argues that there is an economic advantage In private monopoly Is aiding socialism. The Socialist, as*erting the economic superiority of the monopoly, insists that its benefits shall accrue to the whole people, and his conclusion cannot be denied if the superiority of monopoly is admitted. The Democratic party, If I understand its position, denies the economic as (veil as the political advantage of private monopoly and promises to oppose t wherever It manifests Itself. It offer* as an alternative, competition, A'here competition is possible and public monopoly wherever circumstances are such as to prevent competition. Socialism presents a consistent theory, but a theory which, in my judgment, does not take human nature Into account. Its strength is in its attack upon evils, the existence of which is confessed. Its weakness is that it tvpuld substitute a new disease?if not tt worse one?for the disease from ivhich we suffer. The Socialist is honest in the belief that he has found i remedy for human Ills, and he must he answered with argument, not with ibuse. The best way to oppose socialism is to remedy the abuses which frave grown up under individualism, hut which are not a necessary part of ndivlAualiem, and the sooner the remedy is applied the better. As T was eavlng home, I set forth my reasons fer opposing the socialist doctrine, :hat the government should own and iperate all the means of production ind transportation; my observations i urine the oast year have strengthen ;d my convictions on the subject. Because I am anxious to preserve individualism, I am earnest in my desire ;o see the trusts exterminated root md branch, that the door of opporunlty may be open to every American .itlzen. On another occasion I shall call atention to the rapidly growing expeniitures of the Federal government, jut at this time I desire to center your houghts upon the overshadowing evil )f the day?the trust?with the pluiccracy tendencies that result there'tom. Its demands are immediate, md the people are preparing to administer heroic treatment. The Demjcratlc party offers a solution which s both reasonable and adequate, a caution in which time honored prlncljles are applied to new conditions. The Democratic party is not the en;my of property or of property rights; t Is, on the contrary, the best de'ender of both because it defends human rights, and human rights are the )nly foundation upon which property ind property rights can rest securely, rhe Democratic party does not menice a single dollar legitimately accumulated; on the contrary, it insists ipon the protection of rich and poor ilike In the enjoyment of that which :hey have honestly earned. The Dem>cratlc party does not discourage :hrift, but, on the contrary, stimulates ?ach individual to the highest ena noei.wlwcr him that Ha will jtravui uy aooui nig mm ?. iot be deprived of the fruits of his toll. If we can but repeal the laws vhich enable men to reap where they lave not sown?laws which enable :hem to garner into their overflowing tarns the harvests that belong to others?no one will be able to accumuate enough to make his fortune danjerous to the country. Special privieges and the use of the taxing power for private gain?these are the twin pillars upon which plutocracy rests, ro take away these supports and to ;levate the beneficiaries of special legslation to the path of honest effort >ught to be the purpose of our party. non on ff or Ininrv hv lust avatton, Imrartlal laws and tlm application of the Jeffersonlan doctrine )f equal rights to all and special privleges to none? Only those whose accumulations are stained with dishonesty and whose Immoral methods have riven them a distorted view of business, society and government. Accunulatlng by conscious fraud more money than they can profitably use apon themselves, wisely distribute or safely leave to their children, these lenounce as public enemies all who luestlon their methods or throw light jpon their crimes. Plutocracy is abhorrent as a repubic; it is more despotic than anarchy, more heartless than aristocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It prays jpon the nation in time of peace and conspires against It in the hour of its 'alamity. Conscienceless, compassionless and devoid of wisdom, it enervates its votaries while it impoverishes its victims. It is already sapping the strength of the nation, vulgarizing social life and making a mockery of morals. The time is ripe for Its overthrow. Let us attack it boldly, making our appeal to the awakened conscience of the nation in the name of the counting room which it has defiled, In the name of business honor vhich It has sullied, In the name of the people it has oppressed, in the name of the homes which it has despoiled, and in the name of religion, upon which It has placed tne stigma f hypocrisy. And. if I may be permitted to suggest a battle hymn, I propose a stanza but slightly changed from one of the stropgest of the poems of Scotland's Semocratlc bard: 'Columbia! My dear, my native soil! For whom my warmest wish to heaven is sent! Long may thy hardy sons of rustic toil, Be blest with health and peace and sweet content! And O, may Heaven their simple lives prevent From Luxury's contagion, weak and vile; Then, tho' unearned wealth to wickedness be lent, A virtuous populace may rise and stand, A wall of fire around their much loved land." SOUTH CHROiM _Tj How the Spirit of Liberty Unconquera Dy REV. ROBER1 From the Torkvllle Enquirer of 1871. INSTALLMENT XVIIL Battle of Fiehdam Ford. When. In September 1780, the British commenced to advance into North Carolina, Colonel (afterwards general) Sumter, with the remnant <tf his troops which had escaped Tarleton at Fishing creek on the 18th of August, was encamped on Clem's Branch. On the approach of the Qrltlsh, Sumter found ii necessary 10 move ins camp. ne was not able to resist the onward movement of the enemy and wisdom dictated to get out of his way as soon ' as possible. Before the movement from Clem's Branch commenced. Colonel James 1 Williams with a small force which he had collected in North Carolna, Joined Sumter. Williams it is said, had but a short time previous, received a brigadier general's commission from Governor Rutledge of South Carolina. Williams claimed the right to command the whole force, but the men under Sumter refused to submit to him. The whole force notwithstanding the bad state of feeling which existed among them on account of the claim set up by Williams, marched together and crossed the Catawba at Wright's ferry. Rawdon and Tarleton were ' pressing them closely. So near were the two armies together, that the Americans had scarcely effected the crossing of the river when the British appeared on the other side and commenced firing. To settle the dispute between Sumter and Wllliama. a convention of- officers, with Col. William Hill as chairman, was called. The convention decided to send Wchard Winn, Henry Hampton, John ' Thrmas and John Mlddleton. as commissioners to Governor Rutledge. who ' was at that time some where In the neighborhood of Salisbury. North Carolina. These commissioners were In-, structed to lay the facts before Gov- J ernor Rutledge and report his decision. In the meantime Sumter was to re- ' tire from the army and the command of all the troops, except those brought by Williams from North Carolina, devolved ui>on Hill and Lacey. What decision Governor Rutledge made, If any at all, never so far as 1 we know, was made public. The battle ' of King's Mountain occurred soon af- ' ter and Williams was mortally 1 wounded. At King's Mountain we hear 1 nothing of any claim set up by Williams as an officer of higher rank than Campbell or any one else. On the contrary, if any one was first In command at King's Mountain that one was by the consent of all, William Campbell 1 of Virginia. After the battle(of King's Mountain, 1 the troops from western North Carolina and Virginia returned beyond the 1 mountains. Hill and Lacey led the 1 remainder of the a:*my down to what 1 was then Wright's (now Wm. Burrls') ' mill on Turkey creek. Here the pa- 1 triots lay encamped, when Tarleton : who had been sent by Cornwallls to ' look after Ferguson, lay encamped for 1 twn d?vs on the hill west of Ross' ' (now Robert Carnes') mill. On the 16th of October, Tarleton was ordered 1 to join Cornwallls at the National ford ' on Catawba. Sometime about the first ,of November or last of October, 1780, Sumter 1 joined Hill and Lacey, then encamped ( at what Is now Burrls' mill. The brave ' and patriotic Williams was dead and 1 all cause of dispute among both offl- ' cers and men was removed. Sumter 1 by general consent, took the command and led the troops against the British ' and Tories on the west side of Broad 1 river. In order to keep open commu- 1 nicatlon between Camden and Ninety- 1 Six, the British had erected small 1 stockade forts at several points in the counties of Union and Spartanburg. 1 These posts Sumter and his men annoyed greatly. They gave the British 1 and Tories j>o rest. The heroic Elijah Clark. John- Twiggs and Andrew Pickens, with small parties of Georgians, were In the same region operating In a way similar to that pursued by Sum- J ter. On meeting Clark and Twiggs, It was determined to unite the South Carolina forces, under Sumter, with the Georgians, under Clark and ?*?? - -J ?? ottonlr itnnn ' 1 W18KS ttiiu maac an anavi> _r... Ninety-Six. Each of the three officers agreed to 1 furnish a certain number of men. Sumter foupd that before he could meet his engagement with Clark and Twiggs, he must raise at least one hundred and fifty men. On consulta- ' tlon with the officers of his command, it was determined to send a 1 number of individuals on a recruiting i expedition into what is now the coun- 1 ties of York and Chester. The inhabl- 1 tants of this region of country were ' known to be true patriots, who neither 1 asked for British protection nor ac- ' cepted it when offered them. As the ' settlers were all or nearly all, ScotchfHsh dpscpnt four native born Irish- 1 men and Edward Lacey were sent out to beat up the needed recruits. The names of the four Scotch-Irish recruiting officers were Billy Wylie, grandfather of Dr. A. P. Wylie of Chester; Jimmy Johnson, the grand-father of James E. Johnson of Blackstock, Chester county, S. C.; Patrick McGrlff and James Martin. The selection was made with great wisdom. Billy Wylie was a man of great good sense, joined with a droll manner; Jimmy Johnson was a witty Irishman who took everything easy; Patrick McGriff was brave to a fault; and James Martin was prudent. Edward Lacey was one of those impetuous creatures who never do anything by halves. Whatever he undertook, he did with all his might; daringly reckless but admirably suited for the kind of warfare In which he ? * ^ - * *? was engaged, un me om ui nuvcm ber, 1780, these five recruiting officers 1 set out to raise one hundred and fifty ' men. They were given three days to ' accomplish the work. The arrange- 1 ment was that, In the mean time, Sumter would act as if he were about to 1 advance In the direction of Camden, ' but would In fact, camp at Flshdam 1 ford on Broad river. 1 I ft HI IKREVOUmM r Wan Kept Aliye By an ble People. r LATHANi I>. r>. At this time, Comwallis with the main body of the British army In the south, lay at Winnsboro. On hearing of the operations of Sumter, he determined to send out a detachment to cut him off. The individual chosen to put this determination into execution was Major Wemyss. The troops put under his command for the capture of Sumter. were the 83rd r?iHm#nt nf tnnt soldiers and forty of T&rleton's cavalry. All were mounted, and on the evening of the 8th of November, 1780, the detachment set out for Sumter's camp on Broad river. The Intention of Wemyss was to make the attack upon Sumter at dawn of day on the 9th, but having procured good guides and his horses being fresh, he arrived at Flshdam ford about one o'clock. Late In the afternoon of the same day on which Wemyss left WInnsboro, the recruiting officers sent out by Sumter, returned according to previous appointment. As the new recruits were on their way to camp, It was ascertained that there was a barrel of whisky a few miles west of. the oresent site of Chester. Men and and officers all agreed that they were entitled to their share of this whisky. Their course was sootl turned In that direction and on arriving the barrel was, without any great deal of ceremony, rolled out; and to expedite matters, It was raised up on one end and the head knocked out of the other end. Every man was Instructed to help himself liberally as he saw flt. A halt of only some thirty minutes was made, but many of the men were full. The order was given to mount This was promptly obeyed and men and officers dashed off at a brisk canter for Fishdam ford. A few miles before reaching the camp, a squad of British scouts was discovered. No one knew how many British there were or anything about them. So far as either the men or officers knew, the whole of a British brigade might be In the neighborhood. It made no difference whether there were many or few. The men and officers too, no doubt, all felt the effects of the whisky they had recently drank, and no sooner were the British scouts seen, than a deafening shout was raised and away all dashed in the utmost confusion. The British took to flight at once and no doubt thought they were ruined. Farm horses were urged by their spirited riders, over the Sandy river hills, at such a fearful gait, that It was not long till they were completely exhausted. The British scouts got out of sight and the new recruits reached Sumter's camp without a scratch and flushed with victory. By some means Sumter had received Intimation that he would probably be attacked on the night of the 8th. Colonel Thomas Taylor, who after the fall it Charleston had joined Sumter at Clem's Branch, was connected with Sumter's army. To Taylor's vigilance Is mainly due the repulse of Wemyss. Sumter had no Inclination to lay plans by which he might entrap his enemy. He was a brave man and dashing sollier, but not remarkable for strategy. So soon as it became probable that Sumter's camp would be attacked, Col. Taylor began to make preparations for Its defence. The horses were all sadiled and tied some distance in rear of the camp. An order was made to have the guns all freshly primed. Taylor was placed in command in an advanced ?uard oi twenty-eight men. At a short distance from the camp of Sumter was a small field. On the border of 11113 neiu, I njiui iiou utigc mca acyi burning from an early hour In the evening. Behind the fence and at gun shot distance from the fence, the vigilant Taylor placed his picket of twentyeight men. Sumter lay near the river with his horses bridled and saddled, ready for whatever might be required in the event the British made an -attack. All was silence. Sumter's men were waiting with sleepless anxiety. Vbout midnight the sound of horses feet in the distance, were heard. Taylor's pickets were wide awake. Their commander ordered them not to fire until the signal was given. When Major Wemyss came in sight of the ramp fires, he saw that his plans of >peration could not be carried out. He expected to come upon Sumter off his Tuard, as Tarleton had come upon him it Fishing creek two months before. Rut for the sleepless vigilance of Thomas Taylor, this no doubt would have been the case. So soon as Wemyss discovered that the Americans were apprised of his approach, he determined to make the attack at once, and not wait as had been previously arranged, until daylight. He feared that by postponing the attack, Sumter would cross the river during: the night and by morning be put of his reach. At one o'clock Major Wemyss, at the head of his detachment, charged the pickets under Taylor. An order had been given not to fire until the enemy came in full view. The moment the British came within ?unshot distance, the order was given to fire. The keen crack of five rifles was heard echoing among the Sandy river hills. The aim had been unerring. One ball entered the arm and anather the knee of Wemyss. The British were thrown into confusion and dashed In among the blazing flres of Taylor's pickets. This brought them into full liew and volley after volley was poured In by the picket? conceited behind the fence. The British could only discover the hiding place of thi Americans by the flash of their guns. They fired in the direction of the blrze but only killed one man. Wemyss having counted certainly on victory had not communicated his plans to any of his subalterns. When he fell the command pf the detachment devolved upon a lieutenant, who ordered a precipitate retreat and hastened with the party back to Winnsboro is fast as possible. The British left oa the field twentythree men killed and wounded; two officers wounded?Major Wemyss and Lieutenant Hoverden. The Americans lost but one man. Wemyss was not found until the next morning. He was greatly exhausted from the loss of blood. In his pocket was found a list 0/ the patriots he bad hanged and the bouses he had burned. Notwithstanding his notoriously brutal conduct on a multitude of occasions, his bleeding wounds were bound up and at his own request, the document which contained an enumeration of his Infamous deeds was destroyed. About the time that the British after having been disordered by the lire of the Americans, were preparing for a second charge, an accident took place which contributed to the advantage of the patrlota By some accident a cart load of cartridges became Ignited. The burning cartridges kept up a continual cracking which the British mistook for platoons of Americans. They could hear nothing but a continual roar, and could see nothing but a continual blase. The cart load of ignited cartridges frightened some of the new recruits among the Americans. These fled to the river and concealed themselves he. neath Ita banks. Making a similar mistake with the British they concluded the battle was still raging when it was only the exploding of burning cartridges. This little fight threw the British camp in Winnsboro all in .confusion. Cornwallls wrote Immediately to Tarleton, who was in the low country looking after Marion, to return. In his letter which is dated Winnsboro, November 9th, 1780, he begs Tarleton "to return immediate1/." Evidently he began to fear not only for the post at Ninety-Six, but for the no less important at Winnsboro. He began to feel that his own cu"riss was in danger. TO BE CONTINUED. COMMERCIAL MOTOR WAQON8. Their Growing Use For Agricultural and Other Purposes In England. In many rural districts the agricultural communities are looking to the motor wagon as a panacea for their troubles, and there is no doubt, where railway facilities are few or rates high, that the motor wagon will enable them to get their produce tn mflrkflt wtrh tha laoaf Ac lav anil at a low cost. One of the many such projects under consideration Is that at Essex. In this case arrangements are being made to supply London with agricultural produce by means of an organization which Is to collect the various goods at centres situated In Chelmsford, Bralntree, Dunmow, Epplng, Ongar, Wltham and many other towns. These collecting centres are to be furnished with slaughter- . houses, chilling rooms, creameries and grading and selecting departments to deal with the produce brought to them from the surrounding country by motor or otherwise, and thence It will be forwarded to London by motor wagon. A somewhat similar system of collecting is meeting with success In Berkshire. Another promising outlook for the Industry Is the rumor that the colliery owners are comtemplating a system of direct deliveries of coal from pit mouth to consumer by steam lorry. It is remarkable that such a system has not been more in vogue where coal fields are within easy reach of industrial- centres as, for example, in Lancashire. The mode of procedure at present is for the colliery owners to load trucks on viit? ituiwuy, nave inein imuieu iruu twenty to twenty-five miles by rail, unloaded to carts and eventually delivered to the consumer, sometimes three or four days being occupied in this manner, when by employing steam wagons as many hours would probably be occupied and the cost reduced to a minimum. The present solution of the traffic problem in London apd provincial towns no doubt lies greatly in the employment of motor goods vehicles in. conjunction with motor omnibuses, and it has been predicted that in London in ten years time not a horse will be employed in traction work. Whether this is too sanguine a view or not cannot be determined, but that the fact that the supply of horses will soon cease to be available owing to the Increase of self-propelled vehicles has occurtod to the war office authorities is evident by their letter recently addressed to the Motor Van and Wagon -Users' associa tion desiring to Know wnetner tney would support a scheme for registering heavy motor cars for the service of the country in time ol war in the same manner in which horses have hitherto been subsidised.? Cassier's Magazine. A WOMAN'S* INVENTION. How the Wife of an English Manufacturer Discovered Blue Paper. "A woman," said a paper maker, 'Invented blue paper. It was by accident that she did It, though. Before her , time all paper was white. "She was the wife of William Eastea, one of the leading paper makers of England In the eighteenth century. In passing through the paper plant one day she dropped a big blue bag Into a vat of pulp. Eastes was a stern chap, and so, since no one had seen the accident, Mrs. Eastes decided to say nothing about It "The paper In the vat which should have been white, came out blue. The workmen were mysterlfled. Eastes raged, while Mrs. Eastes kept quiet. The upshot was that the paper was sent to London, marked "damaged," to be sold for whatever It would bring. "The selling agent In London was shrewd. He saw that this blue tinted paper was attractive. He declared It to be a wonderful new invention, and he sold It off like hot cakes at double the white paper's price. "Eastes soon received an order for , more of the blue paper?an order that he and his men wasted several days In trying vainly to fill. "Then Mrs. Eastes came forward and told the story of the blue cloth bag. There was no difficulty after that In making the blue paper. This paper's price remained very high, Eastes having a monopoly in making it"?St Louis Globe-Democrat tar "What are you going to call your verses?" asked Joakley. " 'A Broken Vase," " replied Rimer. "Ah! that reminds me of a little thing a servant girl of ours dashed % off the other day."