The Alliance Has no Candi? date For Senator. Butler, lake Tillman, it "Unalter? ably Opposed" ta Some Features of the Ocala Platform-A New Man Needed. WASHINGTON, D. C., May 12,1894. Mr. T. B. Mitchel!, Chairman Ex. Co?. P. S. A. Woodard; S. C. My Dear Sir :. Some days ago I received the following letter from you : "Hon. M. C. Butler, Washington. D.C. DEAR SIB : As chairman of the exe? cutive committee, of tbe State Alliance it was made my duty by resol ut iou to propound tbe following questions to all candidates and request a written an? swer to some, and as jon are a candi? date for tbe United States Senate I sub? mit them to you and would be pleased to bear from you at your earliest con? venience. "1st. Will you discuss tbe Alliance demands in tbe coming campaign, par? ticularly those relating to the finances of the^oultry and^eifend them against the enemies oFour otwr? * v ^* 2nd. Will you pledge loyalty to the demands of tbe National Farmers' Alli? ance and Industrial Union, above loy? alty-to party caucus and vote against any and all candidates who decline to commit themselves to this extent? Yours respectfully, (Signed) "THOS. P. MITCHELL. Chair. Ex; Com. F. S. A." In reply to a request from me, you transmitted the following as tbe plat? form or demands of the Farmer's Alli? ance of South Carolina : Finance-We demand a natiooal cur? rency, safe, sound and flexible, issued by the government only, a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that without the use of banking corporations ; a just, equitable aod effi? cient means of distributing direct to the people at a tax not to exceed-per cent, be provided as set forth by the sub-treasury plank of the Farmers' Al? liance, or so me better system ; also by pay men ta rn discharge of i ts obligation for public Improvement. a. We demand the free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the legal ratio of 16 to 1. b. We demand that the. amount of the circulating medium be increased to. at least $50 per capita exclusive of legal reserves. c. Wc demand a graduated income tax. d. That our national legislation shall be so framed in the future as not to build up one industry at the expense of another. e. We believe that the money of the country should be kept as much as possible in tbe bands of the people, and hence we demand that all natiooal and State revenue shall be limited to the necessary expenses of the govern? ment, economically and honestly ad? ministered * f. We demand that postal savings banks be established by the govern? ment for the safe deposit ol the earn* ings of the people and to facilitate ex? changes. Land-The land, inducing all the natural resources of wealth, is the her? itage of all the people and should not be monopolized for speculative purpo? ses, and alien ownership of land should , be prohibited. All lands now held by railroads and other corporations io ex? cess of their act asl needs, and lands now owned by aliens should now be re? claimed by tbe government and sold for actual settlers only. Transportation--Transportation being a means of exchange and a public ne? cessity, the government should own and operate the railroads in the interest of the people. a. The telegraph and telephone, like the postoffiee system, being a neccessity for the transmission of intelligence, should be owned and operated by the government in the interest of the peo? ple. Taking up the questions of your let? ter in their order, 1 beg to say in re? sponse to the first : * I will discuss any public question the people may desire to have discussed and as the * 'finances of the country" are legitimate and proper subjects for consideration, I will discuss them with pleasure and witbont reserve. I will refer more fully to the last point of your inquiry, whether I will defend them against the enemies of our (your) order, when I come to discuss the Alli? ance platform. I don't quite under? stand, however, whether you mean to ask me whether I will defend the "fin aD ces of the coon try" against the enemies of your order, or the "finances of tbe country" as proposed by the Alliance. I assume you mean the latter. Replying to your second question. I beg to say, that in my politicial life, I have never allowed any caucus, or so? ciety, or organization, to bind my con? science, and shall not do so in the fu? ture. Caucuses, societies, or organiza? tions of any kind which seek to bind tbe politicial consciences of any free American citizen are, in my judgment, inimical to that freedom of conscience and political action so essential to the preservation of free, republican insti? tutions. I bave attended many cau? cuses of the Democratic party, to which I belong, I have never heard the sug? gestion that any man's conscience or political action should be bound by them. I never will, so far surrender my individual judgment as to be bound by any caucus. I am loyal to tbe principles of the Democratic party, and shall maintain that loyally so long as it adheres to principles I think con? ducive to the best interest of the peo? ple-not a day longer. I have been un der tbe impression that the Fare Alliance was ' not a political orgai tion, bat an "Industrial Uoloo" foi protection of the farmers against ii siti?os from other sources. I d< believe in secret political organiza -we had a sad experience some j ago with them. Wate ver co DC tbe political welfare of our pei should be open to the fullest, fr most public discussion. In ordei prevent imposition on the people light must be turned on from ail ?p of view. I recognize nc master in country, axcept the people. Ca rule should not be allowed to usurp rule of the people. I will, there say I will pledge my loyalty to the mauds of the Alliance, so far as meets, the demands of my judgm and I cannot bold them above lo j to party caucus, because P mak< pledges to "party caucuses,'' and < the right of "party caucuses" or other caucuses to command pie from me, to surrender my cousci and judgment to its dictation. Coming now to the demands^ pe me to say by way of'preface, thatf t seems to be a very grave misapprel sion in the minds of some"people a: the power of a caucus over its merni I have attended Democratic cauc since I have been in the Senate, nobody dreamed of binding any m ber of the caucus to vote against judgment For instance, Dem oe and Republicans differ widely am themselves, OB financial questions, caucus is held for consultation, financial topics are discussed, but in Senate and in the House each 1 votes as bis judgment dictates; s< may favor the free and uolimited c< age of silver at one ration and anoti Some may favor the sub-treasury r of the Alliance, and after a consultai in caucus they vote for or against eit proposition, when the occasion arii Nobody is bound by tho caucus, un he chooses voluntarily to be so bou No oaths are administered, no pied are enacted as requisites of party feat If there were I would never at tem party caucus. . In iregard to demand "first" of Alliance, I will say the sub-treast plan" has been abandoned, and the j fore it is unnecessary to discuss it. I my judgment a "better system" wot I be attained by the repeal of the 10 \ cent, tax on State banks of circulate and I trust tbe Alliance will take tl up and make it one of the "demands I cannot, of course, discuss this pi position at length in this connectic but take the liberty of haodiug you 0 of my speeches, delivered in the Sem at the last extra sestton, in which I ha attempted to elaborate the argument favor of the repeal, and beg you to me the favor to examine it. I tbii that you will find that if this tax shoo be repealed we should have "a st sound, flexible currency," and enouj of it. I favor the free and un limit coinage of silver and gold at the prese legal ratio of 16 to 1, and advocated before the Alliance was organized, ai am gratified to know that the Allian has adopted my platform 00 this subjec Fifty dollars per capita is not too mut currency for a country like ours, b the trouble with our present financi system is not so much the per capi amount of currency as the inequality its distribution, some sections of tl country have much more than fifty dolla; per capita, while in our section, I doul if we ?ave two dollars per capi ca. If i our State we could be guarai teed twenty dollars per capita, if c much was needed for the transaction < our business, I would compromise 0 that : we should theo have about twent millions of currency in 'circulation whereas I doubt if we now have tw millions. If by the repeal of the 1 per cent, tax the States should be pei mitted to authorize banks of circulation we should have just as much currenc as our local wants required, and n more, but we should have enough/ favor an income tax, and shall have ai opportunity to vote for it io the peod ing tariff bill. I concur io th "demand" "that the money of tb country should be kept as much as poss! ble in the hands of the people, and tba all national and State revenues shall b limited to the necessary expenses of tbi government, economically and honestly administered." This is good, sou ru doctrine, and I heartily subscrible to it I can see no objection to Postal Saving! Banks," although a measure of tba kind would be largely tentative in tbii country, and should be adopted witt caution and circumspection. The second general "demand," as tc the public lands, is sound and in ac? cordance with true Democratic princi? ples. The third general "demand" "thal the government should own and oper? ate the railroads in the interest of thc people," and that the "telegraph and telephone should be owned and oper ated by the government in the interest of the people," would, in my judgment, be impolitic, and unwise. I have al? ways uuderstood that the Alliance was opposed to the further increase of the "bonded debt" of the government, and I agree with the Alliance in that prop? osition. The government could not pay cash for the one hundred and ninety odd thousand miles of railroads, and the vast mileage of telegraphs and tele? phones. The rate of taxation necessary to arise the cash would destroy the peo ! pie, and the only alternative to put the government io ownership of the rail? road, telegraphs and telephones would be to issue eight billions of bonds to buy the railroads and nobody knows how many millions to buy the telegraph and telephone systems of the country. Is the Alliance prepared to urge the crea? tion of such a bonded debt on the pres eot aod futura generations aod thereby perpetuate the national banking system indefinitely ? If PO, I cannot go with it. The government now has control and supervision of the railroads by and through the interstate commerce com? mission, and the experiment has not realized the expectation of its friends. The ownership of railroads in despotic governments is justified on the ground that they are military necessities for the rapid mobilization and trans? portation of armies. It has not redounded to the interest of the people ; for freight rates are fifty per cent, higher in those countries than in this, and they are consequently a great burden upon the masses of t he people. I believe I have cow made full and complete answers to your inquiries in general and in detail. If anything has been omitted, I will gladly supplement what I hare said, if you will call it to my attention. Very truly yours, M. C. BUTLER. The Dispensary Decision. On last Monday the Supreme Court filed its opinion of the Florence liquor case, thc decision tn which was render? ed orally not long since, at which time the Chief Justice staled that the opinion would be written out in full and filed later. The opinion is as follows : The State of South Carolina, . In the Supreme Court, April Term, 1894. S. L. Barringer, et al., vs. The City Council of Florence, ex parte J. Ellis Brunson. Opinion, Mciver, C. J. These two cases instituted in the ori? ginal jurisdiction of this court though not involving the same questions, were heard and will be considered together. The sole question presented by the case first named is whether the city council of Florence bas any authority to grant licenses for the sale of spir? ituous liquors, within the corporate limits of said city. Inasmuch as this court bas twice decided-first in the case of tbe State vs. Town Council of Chester, 17 S. E. Rep., 752, and next in thc case of McCullough-vs. Brown, 19 S. E., Rep., 458-that so much of the Act of 1892 entitled "An Act to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, within this State except as herein pro? vided, ' approved December 24, 1892, as forbids the granting of any license for the sale of spirituous liquors beyond the date therein designated, that is 30th of June. 1893, is constitutional and valid, it follows necessarily that the said city council would have no. author? ity to grant such a license unless by some subsequent valid legislation, it has been reinvested with the power so to do. This, as we understand it, is not, and certainly cannot be disputed It is urged, however, that by "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act to incorporate the city of Florence,'" approved 22d December, 1893. the said city council has been re-invested with the power to grant licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors within the corporate limits of said city. The fifth section of the Act just mentioned does purport to confer such a power upon the city council of Florence but it is upon a certain condition which bas not, and cannot be complied with, under the present conditioo of the law ; for in the proviso to that section it is expressly declared that in no instance shall the price of each license be fixed at a less sum than is established by the j laws of this State. Now as there is no law of this State fixing the price of a license for tbe sale of spirituous liquors, and on the contrary the law of the State, at the time of the passage of tbe Act amending the charter of the city of Florence, absolutely forbids the granting of any such license', it follows necessarily that the power purporting to be conferred upon the city council of Florence cannot be exercised, because j the condition upon which such power j ; was conferred, cannot be complied with. , j It cannot be claimed that resort may be i had to section 1736 of the General Sta- , tutes, in order to ascertain the price of a j licensefor the sale of spirituous liquors, as ! established by the law? of the State, for j the very obvious reason that such sec- j tion is so clearly in cooflict with that I provisioo in the Act of 1892 above j referred to, which has been declared j constitutional, as to deprive such sec- i tion of airforce as law. Besides it can scarcely be supposed j that the Legislature, by the provisions j of the fifth section of the Act, amending j j the charter of the city of Florence, in- j j tended even if they had the power to j ; do so, (as to which we do not now pro- j ! pose to express au opinion) thus to dis- j j criminate in favor of the city council) j ; of Florence, against all the other muni- j j cipal corporations in the State. We are j i therefore of opinion that no power has i ' been conferred upon the city council of j Florence to grant a license for the sale of spirituous liquors within the corpor? ate licaits of said city ; and as it is well settled that a muocipal corporation has no powers except such as are conferred by its charter, it follows necessarily that any attempt on the part of the said city council to grant such a license would be ultra vires and void. In :he second case mentioned in the title of this opinion tbe petitioner was arrested under a warrant, issued by the mayor of the city of Florence, charging him with violating an ordiaoce of said city, as well as the law of the State, by selling spirituous liquors with the cor? porate limits of said city without a license ; and being in tbe custody of the chief of police of said city under such arrest, was brought before this court by writ of habeas corpus, where he bas moved for his discharge from arrest. The ground upon which be bases his motion j is that there is DOW DO law making it a criminal offense to sell spirituous liquors. We do oot think such a posi? tion can be sustained. While it is true that the Act of 1892, commonly called the "Dispensary Act," did cootaiB clauses purporting to repeal all previous Acts regulating the sale of spirituous liquors, yet as all the provisions of that Act, except the one hereinabove re* ferred to, which does not affect the pres? ent inquiry, have been declared uncon? stitutional and void, io the case of Mc? Cullough vs. Brown, supra, it follows necessarily that the repealing clauses of the Act of 1892 never bad any force and effect as law, and hence the law relating to this subject remains as it was prior to the passage of the Act ; and therefore any person who violates such pre-exisiting law subjects himself to indictment and punishment. Besides there can be no doubt that the petitioner may be lawfully prose? cuted for the violation of the ordinance of the city forbidding the sale of spir ituous liquors within the corporate limits of said city. It is clear, therefore, that the peti? tioner is not entitled to a discbarge. In accordance with these views an order has heretofore been filed granting thc injunction as prayed for in the case first named and refusing the second, and remanding the petitioner in the sec? ond case. I concur : S. MCGOWAN, A. J. SEPARATE OPINION OP POPE, A. J. I concur in the result. The con? stitution of this State makes the concur renee of two judges of this court its judgment. I bow to such a decision as all other citizens must do, but in doiog so I deem it my duty to say that I still adhere to the view expressed io my dis? senting opinion in the case known as the dispensary case and found in 19th Southeastern Reporter, 458. WASHINGTON LETTER. WASHINGTON, May 21, 1894. There is nothing like presenting a united front to tbe enemy for convincing them tbat business is meant. The Senate just now pre? sents a striking confirmation of this assertion. Just AS soon as every democratic Senator in town signed an agreement to remain in their seats each day uoiil Senator Harris should move to adjourn the republicans saw that the filibustering jig was up, unless they were pre? pared to remain in their seats foran indefinite period to keep it op and there was little prob? ability of success even then, as the silver re? publicans publicly gave notice of their inten? tion to aid the democrats in keeping a quorum and in getting a vote on the bill, and there are other republican Senators who privately expressed the same sentiments. The filibus? tering died hard, bot wheo Senator Harris's motion for the Senate to meet, beginning to? day at 10 o'clock was made, no negative votes were cast. This does not, of course, me