Funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services
supported the electronic publication of this title.
Text transcribed by
Apex Data Services, Inc.
Image scanned by Matthew Kern
Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc. and Natalia Smith
First edition, 2002
ca. 280 K
Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
(title page) Republican Hand-Book North Carolina. Republican State Executive Committee 1906
Republican Party (N.C.). Executive Committee
107,  p.
Call number C329 R42 c. 3 (North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH
digitization project, Documenting the American South.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.
Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as " and " respectively.
All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ' and ' respectively.
All em dashes are encoded as --
Indentation in lines has not been preserved.
Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.
Library of Congress Subject Headings
LC Subject Headings:
[Title Page Image]
The Republican party of North Carolina is not on trial; it is the Democratic party that is to give an account of its trusteeship to the people. In the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments of the State Government, Republicanism, representing two-fifths of the white voting strength, has no place or power. The disfranchisement features of the amendment of 1900 have extended in spirit to very nook and corner of the State government.
Of the 97 counties of the State, all those having the smallest proportion of negro population are either decidedly Republican sentiment, or contest for county supremacy with their Democratic neighbors upon something like an equal footing. The most progressive parts of the State show the greatest Republican increase. Were the hands of the poorer classes in east and west, now tied by the poll tax requirement, once free, not so much of the amount of tribute as of the skilfully devised methods of its exaction, no reasonable doubt remains but that the State would have a Republican Governor, if not a majority in the Legislature.
The conceded knowledge of these facts renders especially cruel and indecent the exclusion of all Republican representation from exery Charitable or other Executive Board having charge of State work. It cannot be that of more than 80,000 white voters, contributing at least their fair share to the States taxes and the State's wealth, there should not be found fit representatives from whom selection could be made to Supervise the distribution of their taxes, and the care of the State's unfortunates. Yet such has been the unchallenged status in North Carolina for the past ten years.
It is government in which a large minority, pressing at the very gates of power, and apt in any election to become the majority, have had no voice or influence or consideration. We believe that similar conditions prevail nowhere else in self-governing communities, outside the narrow circle of certain Southern states. The charge should be kept distinct and clear in mind.
It is not that we are denied patronage. The places referred to are in no sense lucrative, though of great responsibility
and influence. There is no complaint that Democracy, faithful to its long history, maintains the tenet that to the victors belong the spoils. It is true that the Republican party committed thoroughly to the theory of civil service reform, throws open all the lesser offices to competition, and has on its pay-rolls, in many instances, more political opponents than friends. It is not expected that now, if ever, our Democratic friends should raise to this height; but it ought to be a matter of challenge that they discriminate against men as good as themselves in the selection of juries, in the conduct of the common schools, in the administration of the charities, in the supervision of the States great schools, in ways other than these, but easly suggested by the mention of these.
The result of this policy has been to provincialize the State Democracy, and to nationalize the State Republicans.
A Watts law is passed at Raleigh; it is administered upon and respected in its integrity by Washington. Its home friends have merely meant it as a tub to the whale, a soothing panacea to an aroused clerical conscience which possesses vast vote-getting power. This great moral question is now to be used by the Democratic party as the best available substitute at hand for the loss of the negro cry, once all potent in election years.
Not that it would do to give up Mumbo Jumbo all at once. That asset has been too valuable in the past for instant renunciation, and hence we see in the recently issued Democratic Hand Book for 1906, a very awkward attempt to inject the negro question hyperdermically, so to speak. He is put in by way of historical survey, along with our old friend the three days election under Canby, and the count at Charleston, S. C.
We were at one time minded to hunt up the old Twenty-negro conscript-exemption law of 1864, four years earlier in date than Canby, and the $50 per diem of the Legislature of 1864, with $11 a month for the soldier in the field, but we thought, in pleading the forty year statute of limitations we should in turn respect it, and hence forbore. Then we read the old bond story of 1868, and had Swepson in mind, but as he and Canby and all the other actors wer dead, and a generation had since arisen, who were now heads of families, we thought something fresher shoudl be offered to men who are to decide the election of 1906.
Bryan and Hoke Smith occurred to us as lievlier subjects of investigation and reflection.
It there be to-day living two men, who represent in concrete form the settled purposes and secret hopes of the great party they represent in the North and in the South, surely it is these masterful characters. The one a native North Carolinian (how fruitful and old State of brain), has just carried off the governorship of Georgia upon a platform which in brutal frankness says damn the negro and down with the rairoads.
Law was painfully moulded through sweating centuries to care for both of these. The one represents two-fifths of that State's people, and the other one-fifth of its property. The negro has never given the Georgia politicians any trouble; his suppression was in response to no actual need of the State's welfare, and the much abused corporations have placed that State in the very front rank of the Gulf sisterhood. The old Missouri platform of border days of "Free-liquor, good roads and no hell" raises almost to respectability compared with this Georgia declaration of war upon the weak and the rich, leaving the fulness of the earth to a self-constituted aristocracy of shiftless landlords.
Mr. Bryan, imbued by recent travel with the New Zealand civilization of leveling down to an average, goes a bowshot beyond the wildest dreams of the most advanced men of his party, and declares for Government ownership of railroads. He is not one to go back after once putting his hand to the plow, and we may confidently count upon the railroads helping him to the Presidency, for their desire to unload upon Uncle Sam is not for a moment to be doubted.
Cleveland's bond issues, which used to scare us in the old days of Morgan's domination, are but pebbles on the beach compared with the groaning presses a Bryan government will employ in issuing mortgages upon our wealth to take over the properties of a dozen or two gentlemen, who eat at Delmonico's and worship at Old Trinity, for mark you, it is only great through lines that are first to be taken.
The startling effect of Mr. Bryan's declaration in favor of this wild scheme of centralization upon the sober thought of the country was so pronounced that hedging was at once resorted to, but we have so far seen no open rebellion upon the part of followers, who see in the scheme boundless fields of most pleasant pasturage, and long for the prospective flesh
pots, as one only can long, who belongs to a hereditary office-holding family, and has been robbed of this perquisites by upstart Republicans risen to prominence since slavery was abolished.
As to State ownership of the local lines, the Bryan program will find North Carolina fully posted and sadly experienced.
The people, who expect to see Government ownership realized in any other manner than that before pointed out, decieve themselves.
It is an open secret that the Cleveland election of 1892 was secured through Mr. Gorman's deal with Havemeyer on the eve of elction, and while the Sheriff promptly repudiated the deal of his lieutenant, yet the trade was carried out in good faith by the Marylander, though it destroyed the party in the effort. Mr. Bryan fell heir to the resultant hostility against Grover Cleveland. History may repeat itself, but not otherwise will Domcracy win the Presidency during the memory of men now living. The old snap, which once belonged to that party vanished, seemingly never to return, when it trusted its destinies to Secession,
"That fateful and perfidious bark,
Built in the eclipse and rigged with curses dark."
Mr. Bryan's efforts merely galvanize the corpse into seeming life, sporadic and fitful, but the spectrum of popular inquiry develops moribund conditions easily read by the most ignorant layman. One ruling passion remains unchecked and in full Jacksonian vigor--the lust for office. The literary supremacy once enjoyed, through their Bancrofts, Hawthornes, Iirvings and Bryants gone, the statecraft of Calhoun and Forsyth, Marcy and Van Burn a memory, there is left the love of a job, which waits not for the grave to make vacancies, but, as we have just seen in Alabama, the party holds an election for the Senatorial shoes of venerable men, whose age is taken as offense. The wound deepest in Hamlet's heart, was "that the funeral baked meats did voldly furnish forth the marriage supper." Alabama Democracy are seemingly below the level of old-time Danish lust.
We are more decent in this State. Here our Democratic friends are guilty of no more heinous offense than pre-empting the choice seats on the floor of the Senate and House at Raleigh immediately upon receiving nominations, and of declaring themeslves candidates for Speaker before the people
have as much as signified a wish that they should have seats on the floor.
"When I catch this bird and one more, I will have two", said a young sportsman, who came home at night with an empty game bag. This bit of homely wisdom is commended to more than one ambitious statesman, who has forgotten the surprises of 1894--to be more than repeated this year.
Governor Aycock was the champion leader in the election of 1900, and stood sponsor for his party in promising that with the passage of the constitutional amendment the cry of negro domination, never true in fact, should caese to be a battle cry in election years. This promise attracted thousands of voters to the Democratic ticket in that year; yet in 1906, the Campaign Committee of that party, speaking through its Senator-Chairman, whose victories in the past have been won on that issue, goes back on Governor Aycock's pledge. "Negro Suffrage on People", "Pandemonium Reigned," "Overthrow of Carpet Bag and Negro Government," "Shame on a Horror," which same is that Jim Young was a fertilizer inspector under Russell, and remains a clerk under Duncan--these and headlines like these follow page after page in the Hand Book of this year of grace. Really the old editorial of Joe Turner is refreshing literature compared with this. And the purpose of it? Is it believed to be a vote-getting proposition? Surely not! It must be meant to carry the mind of the average Democrat instinctively back to the name of the Senator Chairman, who comes up for re-election this year.
One other reference to this work of art. We have reason to suspect most of its matter to be the leavings of old News-Observer editorials, and great-to-do is made of the Democratic care for the insane, and the desire to reform young criminals. The State owes it to the News-Observer and its henchmen that the insane were not properly cared for by the last Legislature, and Senator Scales of Guilford carefully matured a bill for a Reformatory which, after passing the Senate, was killed in the House by these same henchmen. Yet, with unparalleled cheek, speakers of the Democratic party will have these broken pledges again in pawn for this campaign.
It is the acknowledged merit of Republican platforms that they foreshadow corresponding action, and on both the Reformatory and the Care of the Insane we stand committed to the most liberal appropriations.
Coming into the sunlight from these dusty chambers of the past, what has the Republican party of North Carolina to offer the voter of 1906 by way of contrast to Democratic methods at present in vogue. We make answer and say--absolute respect for the will of a majority, ascertained upon an honest count, upon every question concerning which there is dispute.
If it be temperance, the falsely clad name of Prohibition, let the people of each community settle the matter to suit themselves, instead of having it settled for them by some local Democratic boss, who manages to get into the Legislature instead of into the State Asylum.
If it be the education of children, let the fathers and the brothers of those children by vote say in each county to whom shall be committed the management and distribution of the large tax fund raised for a holy purpose, but too often diverted in rewarding local favorites of the Democratic managers.
If it be the regulation and control of corporations, especially common carriers, let the people decide whether confiscation is meant as outlined by Bryan, or fair treatment as advocated by Roosevelt, and we stand with Roosevelt.
On other matters not so directly subject to popular vote, let the decision be made between platform promises that are kept, and those that once broken are again offered.
As to the personnel of the two tickets offered North Carolina voters this years, we are not aware that any issue is being made. Children of a common mother, differently trained, with opposing prejudices and conflicting ambitions, it may be assumed that patriotic regard for the State's welfare would be the dominating influence controlling the action of each of them in the event of election.
For ourselves, we pitch the key-note of the contest upon another octave, a higher one too we trust, to-wit that our opponents are not in harmony with the present conditions of society, except as they have advanced too far in the direction of socialism, and that both the genuine reformer and the conservative defender of property, whatever its species, are alike interested this year in the success of the State Republican party.
The Republican party of North Carolina in convention assembled at Greensboro, N. C., July 10, 1906, congratulating all the people of the State upon prevaling conditions, as the unqusetioned offshoots of Republican policies enforced since 1897, resolve and declare the following to be a summary of their beliefs upon the more vital questions of present interest and of the action they will take if given power by the state:
1 We claim for the adminstration of President Roosevelt that it has satisfied every reasonable demand of the patriot, the reformer and the worker in every field of human endeavor; that it has established the currency upon a basis not to be shaken; that it has vastly extended our foreign commerce, and so added largely to the nation's wealth; that it has kept the peace at home and promoted it abroad; that it has expended the national revenue wisely and with absolute honesty; that it has laid bare and punished with iron hand every species of official or corporate corruption, brought to light by vigilant agents of its own choosing, that it has hearkened to the voice of the oppressed in all alnds and given sympathy when forbidden by law to give more; that it has aimed with true and constant purpose to reflect in its every act the highest and finest aspirations of the American people, northern and southern, eastern and western.
2. We state with regret the acknowledged fact that the laws of own State have not been enforced by the Democratic administrators in state and county affairs.
The legislation upon the subject of temperance, so dear to a large part of our best people, is confessedly a dead letter as relates to its enforcement by State officials--Republican officials of Internal Revenue bearing the whole burden of commanding for it popular obedience.
Yet the amazing spectacle is presented of a party, which has kept the promise to the ear and broken it to the hope now masquerading as Prohibitionists in such sections of the State, as they deem ripe for that experiment in law-making.
The Republ can party insists that every county and every town should be allowed to determine for itself by vote the
question of whether, and if so, how whiskey shall be sold in its limits as well as who shall hold its offices, and that they shall, none of them, be appointed by the Legislature or justices of the peace or any other authority than the people.
3. We refute, in the proper spirit of just indignation, the frequent threat of danger to the State from our coming into power, made by Democratic speakers and newspapers. The merest novice in political conditions must know that victory for us can come from the addition of one constituency alone--the men of the Farmers' Alliance and the People's party, to whom alone, or in conjunction with the Republicans, the State owes the great upward movement in railroads regulation, in female education, in common school education, in the preserving, care and encouragement of the University, A & M. College and other State institutions, threatened then as now with ghost stories of their destruction.
We pledge ourselves to continue and perfect the common school system begun by the republic until a good English education is in the reach of every child.
We shall advocate one or more reformatories for youthful criminals, and pledge the people that, given power, no insane man or woman, white or black, shall lack the State's care, be the cost what it may.
4. We congratulate the people of the state upon the removal of the Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad from the sphere of active politics, but denounce the refusal of State Democratic officials to let the light of publicity shine upon the evidence taken behind closed doors, which led to the lease of that piece of State property.
Graft was admitted, but never suffered punishment, thus showing in marked contrast a national Republican, as against a state Democratic administration. We further denounce the method of the Democratic party in appointing an investigating committee of strictly partism Democrats.
5. If Democratic testimony is to be taken, the present Corporation Commission exists chiefly for the purpose or drawing salaries. We pledge ourselves to make it efficient. At present it is the laughing stock of well-informed people, but no less a burden upon the tax-payer.
6. The Democratic party for years has vaunted its friendship for the Confederate soldier, while leaving him, in many cases, an object of charity. The Republicans by their votes in the General Assembly have ever shown their friendship
for this most honored class of our countrymen, now daily lessening in number.
We advocate doubling the pittance now received by these veterans and, if we secure a legislative majority, shall vote as we promise.
7. We favor rigid restriction of the servile immigration now coming to this country from Europe, and shall aid by every means in our power to uphold the dignity and manhood of native American citizenship.
We rejoice that sectionalism is a thing of the past.
8. We favor the establishment of te Appalachian Park, and pledge any Republican congressman elected from this State to be its friend; but its establishment must be the work of Republican statesmanship and those its friends miscount who look to see it come from discredited Democratic bunglers in administration.
9. We charge that the Democratic State administration has been costly beyond precedent without being efficient; that the dockets of the courts in very many counties remain clogged, through judges and solicitors have been increased in number and in pay.
We are unalterably opposed to frauds upon the suffrage, and we believe that the great amount of crime and lawlessness that prevail and seem to be on the increase in our State, including lynchings, are due to the licentious tongues of Democratis orators and others who teach that it is right to commit crime and fraud for the Democratic party. Honest men can see no difference between stealing a ballot and a horse--between a false return of the result of an election and a false oath in the court house, a false verdict in the jury box.
10. That it is the sense of this convention that town and city poll tax in North Carolina should not exceed one dollar.
And whereas, some dissensions has arisen among Republicans on account of contest over appointment to federal offices, which with charges and counter charges have been given undue prominence by the Democratic press, and whereas the Democratic party has been enabled to retain its hold upon the State government by appeals to race prejudice,
reference to the disorders and confusion resulting from the war and "the days of '68," as well as the manifold repetition of the statement that all Republicans are officeseekers; it is therefore now
Resolved, That the State Executive Committee of the Republican party be and is hereby instructed to assemble, and each and every member thereof, in Greensboro, N. C., on the first day of September, 1906, and on the first days of March and September in each and every year thereafter, and shall then and there before adjournment consider application for appointment to all federal offices in North Carolina, the terms of which shall expire in the next six months, and to recommend to the appointing power in each instance a suitable person for each position, except in such districts as are represented by a Republican congressman. That no application shall be considered unless the applicant shall state in his application that he will submit to the action and recommendation of the committee without further contest.
Resolved, That the executive committee in making recommendations for appointment to federal positions shall observe well that the applicant has the support of his local party friends, in addition to being well qualified for the position.
Resolved, That the Republican party of North Carolina is in favor of extending the operations of what is known as the "grandfather clause" in the recently adopted amendment to the constitution of North Carolina, to the year 1920, and pledges itself to do all in its power to carry out this resolution and have the same enacted into law.
In the matter of State expenses the contrast between the Republican administration and the Democratic administration is very glaring indeed. The total expenses in 1898, the last year of the Republican administration, was $1,287,641.18, while the expenses last year of the State Government were $2,563,018.80, which is within $12,000.00 of just twice what it cost to run the State under Republicans, and is more than was spent by Gov. Jarvis in the entire four years of his administration.
It is due the people whose taxes are becoming burdensome that the Democratic party should account to them for this vast increase which is greater in amount over and above what was spent by the Republicans than was spent by Gov. Jarvis any two years of his administration. These were the days when Vance and Jarvis and Marmaduke Robbins and men of that type were in control of the Democratic party, and had to depend for their control of the State upon the fact that they were true to the people for majorities were too close during those days for such recklessness as these figures show to have been allowed.
What has become of this enormous amount of money which would have been sufficient to have run the State Government the entire four years of 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1880? It has been wasted and squandered in a thousand ways,by increasing the force and expenditures in all departments, by the multiplication of offices and office holders, by increasing the judicial districts and judges, by the employment of additional help in almost every branch of the Government and by extravagance and waste in every department.
A better understanding of how these State expenses have been increased can be had by a few illustrations, as follows:
The Republicans spent in running the Agricultural Department in 1898, $61,377.94, last year the Democrats spent $96,523.06. The Auditors Departmetn cost in 1898, $3,500.00 last year it cost $5,494.31. The care of the Governor's Mansion and grounds in 1898 cost $1,883.43, last year it cost $9,306.78. The Judiciary which cost in 1898, $63,061.88 cost last year $77,326.59. Legal services that cost in 1898, $5,206.00 cost last year, $7,061.80. Laborers pay-roll around the Capitol which cost in 1898, $5,723.84, cost last year $7,615.39. Public printing which cost in 1898, when the Democrats said we were extravagant with it, $10,596.69, cost last year, $30,916.78. The Treasury Department which cost under the Republicans $6,250.00, cost last year $7,700.37. The State Department which cost under the Republicans when the entire corporation and Insurance business was transacted through that Department, $3,980.54, cost last year $5,330.03, for the State Department alone and $3,600.00 additional for the Commissioner of Insurance which really made that Department cost $8,930.03, as against $3,980.54, under the Republicans. The Department of Public Instruction which cost under the Republicans $3,000.00, cost last year $4,453.73.
The total for these purposes under the Republicans is $164,581.03. Under the Democrats it is $255,330.84, making a difference in these items alone in favor of the Republican Administrations of $90,749.89, and just as in these items we see where more than $90,000.00 of our money has gone, just so it is in every other branch of the Government. This showing is bad enough, but it is even worse when we examine and compare the expenditures in the charitable institutions which will appear as follows:
For the care of the deaf, dumb and blind at Raleigh we spent in 1898, $40,000.00 and took care of 311 children. In 1902 the Democrats spent $80,000.00 and took care of 331, and that is just 20 more than the Republicans took care of in 1898, and for which an additional $40,000.00 was spent. For 1903 and 1904 they spent $143,727.21 on an average of $71,863.60 each year, and took care of 334 children in 1904, or 3 more than in 1902.
For the care of the inmates of the Insane Asylum at Raleigh, the Republicans spent in 1898, $55,450.00 and cared for 393 insane; the Democrats spent in 1902, $78,750.00 and cared for 397, or just four more than the Republicans had; and yet they spent $22,300.00 more than the Republicans. In 1904 they spent $82,563.70 and took care of 380, or 17 less than in 1902, and yet they spent $3,817.70 more money.
In caring for the Insane at Morganton, the Republicans spent in 1898 $88,821.08 and had 754 patients; in 1902 the Democrats spent $109,491.61 and cared for 763 patients, or just nine more than the Republicans had, yet they spent $20,670.53 more in caring for these nine extra patients. In 1904 they cared for 1002 and spent $131,947.67.
In caring for the asylum at Goldsboro, the Republicans spent in 1898 $39,990.41 and had 461 patients; in 1902 the Democrats spent $52,742.32 and had 481 patients, that is just 20 more than the Republicans had, yet to care for these they used $13,751.91 more of the peoples money than the Republicans had used. In 1904 they cared for 529 patients and spent $58,658.46, or nearly $6,000.00 more than in 1902.
In runing the deaf and dumb asylum atMorganton in 1898 theRepublicans spent $35,000.00 and had 252 children; in 1902 the Democrats spent $40,000.00 and had 302 children. In 1903 and 1904 they spent $99,758.72 or an average of $49,879.36 each year and cared for 317 children in 1904.
Thus we see that in these five institutions, with but few
more patients and pupils, the increase under the Democrats in 1902 over the amount paid by the Republicans in 1898 is the enormous sum of $102,722.44, with a still further increase for 1904.
The extravagance and recklessness of the Democratic party isagain shown by the fact that they have increased the State's indebtedness $820,000.00, since 1898 thereby increasing the yearly, interest to be paid by the tax payers $32,800.00.
The Democrats in 1898 were loud in their abuse of the Republican party because their Legistlature of 1897 cost $70,760.75, whereas their Legislature last year, as shown by the Auditor's report, cost $72,013.90. This again shows that even here they were grossly extravagant if they were just in the complaint they made against the Republicans in 1898. All of this would be bad enough and we could possibly stand this enormous increase in our State expenses if we had the money to pay them, but an examination of the Auditor's report shows that while our expenses last year were $2,563,018.80 our total income was only $2,509,896,30; this shows that we spent last year $53,122.50 more money than we actually received, which condition can only be met and remedied by another sale of bonds in the near future, which in turn will mean an additional burden upon the tax payers to meet the interest on these bonds.
The enormous increase of State expenses under the Democrats can possibly be better understood by the following general summary and comparison.
The Republicans spent in 1898 their last year, $1,287,641.18. The Democrats spent in 1899, $1,597,066.08, an increase in one year of $310.000.00 in round numbers. The Democrats spent in 1900, $1,648,012.74, another increase of over $37,000. In 1902 they spent $1,866,795.18 which is another increase of over $181,000.00. In 1903 they spent $2,322,404.24, which is a still further increase of more than $450,000.00, while last year they spent $2,563,018.80, which is a still further increase of more than $240,000.00, and is practically twice what the Republicans spent the last year of their Administration. Again we ask what have they done with it, and the answer is, what? The unfortunate have gotten it as is shown by the figures given, which, while showing much larger amounts spent, show but few more of unfortunates being cared for. This tells it own story, that these greatly increased appropriations must have been used i ncaring for Democratic
Supernumeraries and in reckless expenditures under the hyprocritical cry of caring for the unfortunate. But had all this been true it would still have accounted for only a small part of this vast increase in the State expenditures by the Democratic party. The people demand an answer to what have you done with our money. This answer they shall have when the Republicans have a chance to look at the books and publish the truth.
It is with regret that this subject is mentioned. The old saying that only a foul bird soils his own nest suggest itself, and instead of exploiting the shame of the State, we would Japhet like rather cover her nakedness with the mantel of oblivion. But the Democratic platform recently adopted at Greensboro boasts of existing conditions as related to this subject, and leaves no alternative other than a plain statement of the truth. It says "we congratulate the people of the State that under Democratic auspices there has been established throughout the border of the State a reign of law and liberty, peace and progress."
This was not meant for the satire but in view of facts known to every one is it not satire in all its purity? The press of the State is weekly burdened with a list of homicides occuring among both the whites and colored races, and more rarely in the case of race against race. Lynching has reared its awful front to such an extent that the boldest among us stand aghast as to the possibilities of the future. The Anson County case was quickly followed by the Salisbury horror and what the next defiance of civilization will be is a thing to be guessed as to locality, but which may be safely prophesied. Good men are asking when is this condition to end? For what reason do we maintain a State Guard? Are the sixteen judges of the Superior Court and their adjunts, the sixteen solicitors powerless to accomplish what half their number twenty years ago successfully did? The Democratic boast in their platform is belied by every newspaper of that faith in the State. As examples, we quote from the Sandford express "There seems to be an epidemic of homicides and crime in this State. One can hardly pick up a State paper without finding the accounts of a number of murders and attempts to murder. The criminally inclined are handy with
the pistol and the knife and use them on the slightest provocation. They have contempt for the law and carry these weapons and use them with impunity." These remarks are copied editorially by the Rockingham Anglo Saxon, and of course approved.
The Charlotte Observer, the leading Independent paper, admits that "Lynch law is on the increase in North Carolina." How does this statement consist with the platform boast of the Democrats?
Again it says "There is no negro vote, no negro legislature now; but there is a growing disrespect, not to say contempt on the part of the white people for the laws, which they themselves make. There must be an end to this or worse days will come."
And yet the aforesaid platform congratulates the people upon the reign of law. There was one judge on the Superior Court bench (Shaw by name), who practiced what this platform preaches and acquired great repute thereby among all law-loving people, whatsoever might be their political affiliations. He came up for renomination this year, and was ignobly defeated, and on this account too. How does that action square with the above recited platform declaration?
The Bishop case at Charlotte is fresh in the minds of all householders, who have young daughters. The Wilson County tragedy occurs to every commercial traveller, who deems his hotel a safe resting place. The Anson lynching of an insane man has put that defence, still good in the courts, of no avail against the mob. The negroes, who are nothing if not imitative, rarely slew each other in slave days or in the years just following the war, but are now rivals with the whites in homicides. The Haywood case is simply unmentionable.
There can be no politics in a question of this sort. The plain duty of all good citizens is to stand together in defence of the law and its authorized agents of whatever political faithsuch agents may be. But it cannot escape notice that the Democratic party put a premium upon one sort of crime, when a Legislature of that party's choosing voted State money in defence of ballot box thieves. Nor did the Red Shirt campaign of 1900 pass without its aftermath of easy defiance of constituted authority and the successful triumph of lawlessness as applied to things political. How easy the step to crimes social and racial!
We all agree that there must be a change or our State will sink in the world's esteem, and what is even worse, in its own esteem.
Men of property and correct lives will not take themselves and their families to States where human life is not held more sacred than it now is in North Carolina and we are never weary of extending invitations to such settlers. Our own people will more than ever flock to the towns of the State for that safety, which is denied them in the sparsely settled rural ditricts. The growth of highway robbery in recent years is one of the most alarming circumstances of the present situation. An attempt has been made to fasten the blame for our growing criminal record upon what is known as the factoyr population, the small tenant farmers who have left the country for the towns.
The contention is absurd upon its face. Steady workers are rarely criminals. The advance in material comfort which has come to the class in question by reason of their new life is the best of all incentives to correct conduct and respect for law.
Men mounting in the world, acquiring humble homes seeing their children better dressed and better fed than formerly, rarely descend the ladder to mingle with the criminal classes. At least such is not the rule.
The truth lies elsewhere. What is it? Let us see. For a generation the fiercest racial passions of our people have been excited against the negro by a well trained corps of Democratic speakers and editors.
In numbers we doubled him, and while we were spread over the whole surface of the State, he was numedically strong in but a comparatively small area. In all the accomplishments and defences which civilization gives over semi-barbarism there was left no room for comparison. His was the most docile of races as proven in two hundred years of subjection to us. The irritation caused by his enforced and unnatural political elevation was not his own fault, nor the fault of any man among us. The cause came from beyond the Potomac from victors in war, who thought thus to secure the fruits of their success. That this was a great mistake in statesmanship is now generally conceded; but it was not met by a counter-stroke of statesmanship, but by relentless denunciation of all men who submitted to it as the law of the land, till by law it could be changed. Then first was drawn the line
cleavage between the law-abiding and the lawless, so far as concerned the leaders, and the masses qucikly caught the lesson of despising the courts taught them by Democratic speakers. When in course of time the courts were held by Democrats, the lesson could not at once be unlearned. So sure as the sowing of the wind brings the harvest of the whirlwind, in like manner will the lynching of negroes lead to the lynching of white men and for causes incerasing in numbers and lessening in digity. It is not argued that because the cock crows, daylight comes; but we do say that the type of Democracy known as the Bryan-Hearst type favors Socialism and inculcates lessons destructive of property rights, the protection of which is one of the chief functions of all law. At present, the assault is confined to corporation property, but all property stands on the same footing in the eye of the law and the downward path ever easy leads irrisistibly to Communion, which would have but one property owner, the all embracing State.
So that when racial antagonism has weakened respect for life and indiscriminate attacks in the press and on the hustings against corporations has weakened respect for property, what else can we expect than what we now witness a condition alarming to every patriot and which calls for a proclamation from the Governor asking the law-abiding people to come to the rescue. The Republican party is the resolute foe of mob law, and in all its history has been the defender of property against the anarchist and the Socialist. If this government of ours is to be handed down unimpaired in strength and faith to the purpose of its founders, it will come through a continued administration of men reared in the faith of Washington, Hamilton and Lincoln. The doctrines of Hearst, Bryan, Altgeld and Tom Taggart are at war with all civic righteousness, and once enforced will bread a following far more dangerous than the authors now are. Far be it from us to argue that the great mass of the Democratic people look with favor or even with tolerance upon present conditions. Many of the best Democratic newspapers have denounced roundly the abuse of the pardoning power by former Democratic Governors, much just criticism has been evoked by reason of the conduct of some of their judges and one excellent paper, the Raleigh Times, published in the great metropolitan County of Wake, and recently endorsed overwhelmingly by the Democratic votens of that county,
speaks of this paragraph by the Democratic voters of that county, speaks of this paragraph in its party platform as "idiotic." Continuing in its issue of August 11th, it says:
"The paragraph was not complete. Some reference might have been made to the lynching of a white man in Wadesboro. The question of whether he was a democrat or a republican was of small moment. He was white. White men butchered him and whitecourts and white jurors practically excused and condoned the crime.
Under 'democratic auspices' the Lyerly family was killed in cold blood at Barber Junction; under 'democratic auspices' the three alleged murderers were lynched at Salisbury. Under 'democratic auspices' the militia was called out with orders not to shoot--for fear that some good white citizen might be injured. A few hot bullets scattered through that mob of hoodlume might have saved the state the teribledisbrace of that shocking event--a few bullets might have shown that under 'democratic auspices' 'God Almighty reigns and the law is still supreme.'
This newspaper does not wish to be misunderstood. It stands on the democratic platform--now and always--but it takes no stock in this demagoguery set forth in the platform of the party. If our leaders claim to be responsible for law and order, so must they shoulder the responsibility of the happenings at Wadesboro and Salisbury. Surely, our party is in a deplorable condition if we seek to triumph always on this talk of a 'reign of law and liberty.' We can redeem ourselves, however, by hanging the lynchers."
No, men and brethern, it is no party question that confronts the people of North Carolina in 1906. It is something far higher. It is whether we shall submit to constituted authority, uphold the courts, enforce the laws and render life and property as safe here as they are in any part of the civilized world, or whether the passions of the mob, inflamed by race appeals and excited to envy against the rich and the well to do shall be allowed to run their course, which ends only in a general anarschy and the loss of our places among the well behaved States.
On that question, the Republican party takes its old and well known stand and confidently relies upon the people being with it. The Democratic position, as stated in their platform, is a mockery of the facts and deceives no one unless he wishes to be deceived.
The Liquor Traffic, as conducted on the open saloon plan, was from twenty-five years-from 1870 to 1895--an important ally (or if the word ally is too strong a term lets say adjunct) of the Democratic Party: And by "Democratic Party" is meant the "machine", the chief committee which controls campaigns and distributes the spoils of victory and the offices amongst the most influential, for, it is not to be denied that there were in the ranks of the Democratic party a large number of voters who were sincere temperance men throughout all those years. In truth, however, it must be said that they had neither weight or influence in their party counsels.
The coalition between the Democratic party managers and the saloon interests during the violent and fraudulent political campaigns of 1898 and 1900 was more helpful to that party than it had been in former years. In fact it is doubtful whether the armed red-shirt clubs, organized by a man who afterwards received a high office for that service, could have successfully carried out the work allotted to them in Eastern North Carolina without the saloons as relay and recruiting stations.
For legislative favors demanded and received by the owners of liquor saloons they, as a rule, like all other special interests, were ready to render a due return in an organized vote of those whom they controlled. Every body in the least familiar with public affairs knows that for all those past years, in the township and county conventions of the Democrats the saloon owners and their friends were not infrequently conspicuous participants in the proceedings; and that true temperance men, when candidates for office, were often defeated by the activities of the liquor force.
It is a fact that after the State election of 1900, a certain element of the temperance strength of the Democratic party began to get noisy--to agitate--and to indulge in ugly threats that very much frightened the "leaders" of the machine, and during the Legislative session of 1903, that influence, through temperance clubs and committees, and individuals, sent from the different sections of the State to Releigh to appear before the Legislative Committee, made itself so seriously felt as to force the machine "to do something". The result of that agitation is commonly known as the Watts Law. The christening
of the Act was a mis-nomer; but sometimes it happens that the real honors are carried off by the undeserved on account of the modesty of the real hero; and such was the case in this instance. Anyway, since that time the Democratic party has claimed to be the only true temperance Party. Is it a valid claim? Let us examine it.
Before the Watts Law was passed (1903) the general law of the State put no restriction upon the place of manufacture of liquor; and the Commissioners of the several counties were authorized to grant retail liquor licenses; and they were required, upon the petition of one fourth of the qualified voters to order an election to ascertain whether or not liquor might be sold in any township, city or town--the form of the ballot to be "Prohibition," "License." The general law was strictly local option. It gave to the people of any city, town or township the right to vote upon the question of the sale of liquor. The Watts Law introduced changes both as to the manufacture of liquor, and its sale by retail. It created Prohibition in the rural districts--in the townships--for, it made it unlawful to sell liquor anywhere in the State except in the incorporated cities and towns. In taking that step the Legislators deprived the country people of a right which they had enjoyed under the general law. But they saw, in that course, that there was not as much real danger to their party as there appeared to be in making that discrimination against the country people the townships. In the first place, because the Act did not specify a minimum population as necessary to the incorporation of towns, and hence any crossroads could become incorporated and avail itself of the rights of the cities and towns under the Watts Law; and in the second place, because a considerable portion of the State was at the time under Prohibition brought about by special legislation and the general local option law. The Legislators, in a quandary between the threats and demands of the temperance agitators and the danger of discrimination against the townships, decided to yield somewhat to the temperance forces and to deprive the townships of their right to settle by election whether or not liquor should be sold in the several townships. The loss of the temperance vote meant more to the party than the probably defection of the rural districts, under the circumstances already mentioned.
It cannot reasonably be thought that the purpose and intent
of the Watts Law was to restrict toany appeciable degree the manufacture of spirits within the State. It is true it destroyed numbers of distilleries outside incorporated cities and towns and provided for their future operation within the towns and cities; but with the increased facilities in the towns and cities for the manufacture of liquor and the wider markets likely to be opened up by the change, the output might have reasonably been expected to be increased. Besides, as we have seen, any handfull of people might become incorporated into a town by a Democratic legislature, there being no minimum population prescribed by the Watts Law as necessary to incorporation. As for instance,at the very time that the Watts bill was in process of passage there was a bill pending to incorporate a territory around a private distillery, the population not numbering more than a bakers dozen, under the name of the town of "Shore". Shore was incorporated, and the distillery not only continued its operations but its owner was given a monopoly of the manufacture of liquor within the town, it being provided in the act of incorporation that no other distillery besides the one man's for whom the legislation was enacted should be erected within the limits of Shore. No such special privilege was ever before that time conferred by the General Assembly of North Carolina upon any citizen.
So the real intent of the Watts Law must have been for another purpose than to destroy, or even to reduce, the quantity of liquor manufactured. What then was, most probably, the real motive underlying the enactment of the Watts Law? Some contemporary political historyof the State will probably furnish the answer. Democratic newspapers and Democratic stump speakers had been, ceaselessly, and then were, characterizng the distilleries, in the western (Republican) counties especially, as hell-kettles", and denouncing their owners as Republican scoundrels and law-breakers; and the declaration was repeatedly made, year in and year out, that if these distilleries "hell kettles"--could be broken up the Republican vote in the State would be greatly reduced. The Watts Law broke up many of the country distilleries! It did not reduce the quantity of liquor manufactured. If the distilleries were "sore spots" and corrupters of public and private morals their powers for evil were but increased when transferred to the cities and towns.
Precisely the views expressed above of the Watts Law were
the views subsequently taken by the temparnce men in the Democratc party at their homes and out of the influence and presence of the leaders of the party whom they met at Raleigh when the Act was agreed on, for, at the next session of the General Assembly (1905) the Ward bill was introduced and passed as an amendment to the Watts Law. The Ward Law contained a requirement that each city and town where liquor might be sold should maintain a city or town government, and a police force of at least two policemen to inspect and report upon the sales and manufacture of liquor. The Ward Law, also prohibited the manufacture of liquor in North Carolina except in incorporated cities or towns having not less than one thousand population.
If there was now, or had been in the past the least attempt to enforce the provisions of the Watts Law as amended by the Ward Law on the part of the Democratic officers, then it might be said that the Democratic party had taken a step towards temperance. But it is well understood all over the State that the law was not to be enforced, and with one or two lone exceptions no Democratic official, sheriff, policeman, justice of the peace, constable or grand jury has undertaken to indict anyone for the unlawful manufacture of liquor in the State or to show the least activity in bringing before the courts offenders against other denouncements of the Watts-Ward laws. The law is known to be a dead letter: and Mr. Ward the Author of the act which bears his name and who was an earnest and sincere advocate of the Bill was defeated recently in his county primary as a candidate for a member of the General Assembly!
(From Speech House of Representatives May 31, 1906, by
Hon. James S. Sherman of N. Y.)
The leaders of all political parties are honest, patriotic and high minded. The Democratic party, the Prohibition party, the Socialist party are each dominated by honorable men. A few scamps in a party, and they exist in smaller numbers in all parties than ever before in our country's history, do not justify universal condemnation, any more than a few scamps in a church, and they, too, exist in smaller number, thank God, than ever before in the history of the church, justify its universal condemnation. But a party
that believes nothing, has no doctrine, is not built around a principle, is as worthless as a church without a belief.
I knew one such so-called church in my State. It was organized by a very reputable gentleman of the legal profession, and its absence of belief was its boast. Its doors swung welcome to those who believed in the divinity of Christ and equally wide to those who denied the miraculous conception. It invited those who believed in the atonement and those who denied the necessity of a Redeemer. Like certain of the opposition parties, it sprang up in protest to some admitted evils and weakness of the churches. It was successful for a time in attracting numbers, and it built a fine edifice, but it died of incoherency, for it believed nothing, taught nothing, had no plans, no policies, no purposes. The eloquence of its founder, his sweet spirit, the influence of his blameless life did not make a church. A church presupposes a belief, and a political party ought to presuppose some political principles. It requires affirmative plans, affirmative policies, affirmative aims to carry the nation forward to higher ideals and to grander consumations.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating adherence to party because of party name, regardless of the political principles which it professes, but loyalty to political principles because they are believed to be correct. The independent voter, the man who sees nothing in political parties but the personality of their candidates, may be a good man and a patriotic citizen, but we are in a sad plight when those who believe in nothing in particular and everything in general, and who vote according to the instinct of the hour instead of according to the principles of a lifetime, control our elections. I have no fear for my country so long as the American people think out their plans, formulate their policies and consistently adhere to them. My fear is of an incoherent, independent, undisciplined aggregation of well-intentioned men following a purposeless though ambitious leader, who promises much impossible of fulfilment, and whose chief argument is an indefinite protest against evils which have existed from the infancy of the race and which will continue while men remain mortal and so long as human nature continues to control the human family.
Permit me to refer briefly to one of the affirmative principles of the Republican party; a principle that was as correct and as capable of definite statement in the days of Thomas Jefferson as in the days of Theodore Roosevelt; a principle that has never been put in operation in this country without bringing prosperity to all our people, and that has never been abandoned without universal ruin. On the historic correctness of these propositions the Republican party stands or falls.
The Republican party believes in Protection to American labor. Originally it was thought that our industries needed Protection until they should become established, and that thereafter they could successfully face world-wide competition. It was not then anticipated that adherence to the policy of Protection would create a standard of wages fully 50 per cent. higher than that of any other country, and more than 100 per cent. higher than the average standard of the world. Had conditions continued as early Protectionists supposed they would, and had all the world opened its markets to all the people on equal terms, the expressed thought of the fathers would have been verified in our experience. Protection, however, has been beneficial in unexpected ways. It has created a scale of wages and established a standard of living to which the outside world is a stranger, and renders necessary the continuance of Protection or the abandonment of these high standards.
Let me state the principle more clearly. Every industrious citizen is a producer. He may produce a day's work which he sells in the labor market. He may be a consumer of labor and a producer of farm or of factory products. He may produce exchanges of merchandise or exchanges of credit, or he may produce transportation. Any one who by his efforts adds to the sum total of our production, or in any way increases the aggregate of our commerce, is a producer. Then we are all, whether industrious or not, consumers. We consume food and clothes and cover. Therefore we have dual interests. We would like to buy that which we consume as cheap as possible. The man who produces a day's work is interested in high-priced labor, while he who buys labor and produces farm or factory products seeks to buy this labor as cheap as possible and to sell his products as high as possible.
Extract from letter of Hon. C. S. Wooten in Caucasian of date May 25, 1905.
In 1899, James A. Bryan was made president, and continued President for five years. He reversed the policy of Chadwick and said the earnings should be put upon the road. He was right in this, but the trouble was he did not make judicious use of the money in his improvements.
Without going into details, I will mention only a few of the improvements he made that were improper. He built a warehouse in Goldsboro for $12,000.00 that was not necessary, for I heard a Goldsboro man say so; he built a large warehouse at Beston, a small station between Goldsboro and Lagrange, that cost $2500.00, when a $500.00 house would have answered; he spent about $30,000.00 at Newbern on a warehouse that was not needed at present. At other small stations he built magnificent warehouses, when cheaper ones would have done. Then he bought the hotel at Morehead and spent fabulous sums on it in improvements. Everybody knows about the free board and drinking at that hotel. A committee was appointed by Governor Aycock to investigate the affairs of the road. One gentleman, who was a witness, admitted that he had free board for himself and his family, but said his services at the hotel were worth it. He was asked what service he rendered, and he said he was general entertains. Free passes were granted indiscriminately.
At the stockholders meeting Mr. Bryan in his report in 1903 said the road was in a deplorable condition and would have to borrow money to put it in a proper condition for business. After reading his report there went up throughout the State a demand for a lease. At a special meeting on the first Thursday in September, 1904, a lease was made to the Howland Improvement Company of Rhode Island.
The lease of the Atlantic and North Carolina Raidroad is still a topic for public discussion. The Charlotte Observer, quoting from the Wilmington Messenger, says:
"Some remarkable facts" were brought out in the hearing at Newbern last Saturday before Judge Long of the suit brought by a man named Hill to annul the lease of the Atlantic
and North Carolina Railroad to the Howland Improvement Company, which now has charge of the property. It is further stated that Mr. Hill himself took little interest in the matter of the lease at the time it was being agitated and did not attend the special meeting of stockholders called to consider it. Mr. Hill at that time, it is stated, owned one share of stock for which he paid $9, and so well pleased was he with the lease of the road that he subsequently purchased another share and is now possessor of two shares. He has declared that his costs in the case are secured by the $2,500 appropriated by the county of Craven to fight the leases. The Messenger says:
"Craven county's representative was at the meeting which made the lease and voted for it, but that county is now a plaintiff in the suit to have the lease set aside and its officials have decided to spend $2,500 of the people's money, if necessary, in an effort to set aside a contract that they helped to make. The market value of the stock of the road has risen from $25 just before the lease to between $60 and $70. Thousands of shares have changed hands at the latter figures.
"One reason the plaintiffs give why the lease should be declared void it that the special meeting ofstockholders which made the contract was advertised in only one newspaper in Newbern, while the charter declares that notice of such meetings shall be published in two papers in that city. The defendant's answer to this is that at that time there was but one paper published there, and that notice of the intended meeting and of its purpose appeared in papers all over the State and that personal notice was sent to every stockholder."
The plaintiffs contend also that there is no power in the charter whereby directors or the stockholders can make a lease. This is challenged by the defendants, who aver that plain and excellent authority is contained in the charter; that the words in this clause in the charter are almost indentical with those in the charter of the North Carolina Railroad, which has been twice leased under the same authority contained in its charter, and such leases have held valid by the Supreme court, and that the Atlantic and North Carolina road was once before leased and no question was raised as to the validity of the contract. The matter is now in the courts, where it will be decided according to the legal points involved, but even though the lease were irregular--which hardly seems possible--we are unable to see why Craven
county and Mr. Hill should desire to annul it. There has, it is true, been a good deal of kicking about one thing and another along the line of the road, but these were doubtless due largely to the cutting off of the free passes, etc. The lease of the road has done great things for that section of the State, and it is to be hoped Judge Long will find that there is no legal reason why the lease should not stand.
The Tar Heel is not familiar with all the facts and is not, therefore, prepared to vouch for the views of the Charlotte Observer. The people have long wanted to know all the facts connected with this road. When the governor of North Carolina sent his commission down to Newbern to investigate and report on all of the facts it was supposed by an anxious public that all the facts would be forthcoming in such a report, but for some reason unknown to the public that report has never been given to the public. The writer has been told that Mr. Henry A. Page, who was a member of that commission and who hesitated and deliberated quite a while before he would sign said report, has a typewritten copy of said report, together with all the evidence elicited in that investigation. It would be interesting history at this time.
There is nothing more intenselyinteresting in its dramatic and romantic features since the thrilling inciednts of Holden's impeachment trial than the startling developments contained in the precious typewritten copy now filed away by Mr. Page among his last year's Sunday school magazines or among the files of his Daily News and Observer. We shall always live in the hope that we may one day be able to see and peruse a copy of this most interesting bit of history.The Tar Heel, March 29th, 1906.
There be some who profess alarm at the large influx of immigration. I suggest one sure way of stopping it. Put the Democratic party in control. Immigrants never seek our shores in large numbers when Free-Trade poliicies have closed our factories. When millions of their families begging bread, there is little temptation for the people of other countries, however unfortunate their condition, to turn their faces this way. And be it known that our doors of trade cannot be opened to the free admission of competitive mercahndise
from abroad without closing the doors of the shops and factories where this merchandise is now produced.
Is there a farmer with so poor a memory as to have forgotten 1894, when we consumed 45 per cent. less wheat per capita than we did in 1892? Is there a farmer who does not now feel the difference between the consumption of more than six bushels of wheat per capita, as against the consumption of less than three and a half bushels per capita during 1894? Is there a farmer with so short a memory as to have forgotten the effect upon him of the loss in the price of live stock, averaging over $4 for every horse, mule, steer, cow, calf, sheep, and pig between the years 1892 and 1896? Is there a farmer who does not not recognize the difference between an average price of $18.34 per head for every horse, mule, steer, cow, calf pig and sheep in 1905, as against an average of only $13.41 in 1896--an average gain of nearly $5 per head?
The undenied figures of State expense submitted by Chairman Adams in his Asheville speech and which the News and Observer has been in labor with since--
1898 Agricultural Dept. $61,377.94, 1898 Auditor's Dep't. 3,500.00, 1898 Governor's Mansio 1,883.43, 1898 The Judiciary 62,061.88; 1898 Laborors around capitol 5.753.84, 1898 Public printing 10,596.69, 1898 Treasury Dept. 6,250.00, 1898 State Dept. 3,980.54, 1898 Public Instruction 3,000.00,
1905 Agricultural Dept. $96,523.06, 1905 Auditor's Dept. 5,494.31, 1905 Governor's Mansion 9,308.78, 1905 The Judiciary 77,326.59, 1905 Laborers around captol 7,615.39, 1905 Public printing 30,916.78, 1905 Treasury Dept. 7,737.00, 1905 State Dept. 8,930.05, 1905 Public Instruction 4,453.73.
In other words the sum total of expenses of the departments, as above enumerated for the year 1898 under a Republican administration cost the State $164,581.05 while under the Democratic last year the same departments cost the State $225,330.84, showing that the Democrats spent $90,649.89 more than the Republicans did.
To be a Congressman and represent two hundred thousand
American citizens in the legislative councils of the Nation is a great calling. It should not be termed a profession, and it must not be considered a trade. The Fathers builded wisely, and, some have suggested, more wisely than they knew. They planned a representative government and not a democracy.
In harmony with the thought of the founders of our government the electors of a given precinct meet and selected a limited number, presumably from the better informed of the precinct, to represent all of the political faith at a county convention. Here similarly selected men from all the precincts of the county gather, and from this body of the better informed of their respective precincts select presumably the best informed to represent all of that faith at a congressional convention. Here representative and well-informed men similarly selected from all the various counties of the district meet and canvass the situation and after due deliberation select, by ballot, a candidate to represent the district. The party he represents is successful at the polls, and he is elected. By this election a hitherto private citizen is invited to step out from his law office, his store, his bank, or his farm, and to give himself to the study of statecraft.
It is a great thing to be thus commissioned. Our friend now goes to Washington and there meets approximately two hundred others similarly selected and holding like commissions, who agree with him politically, and about the same number, sometimes more and sometimes less, who disagree with him politically. Here governmental questions are presented, discussed, views exchanged, and votes recorded.
How shall our friend vote? He represents primarily a district and secondarily the whole country. It is manifestly his duty to listen to the advice of every well-balanced, intelligent man of his district, and also to every unbalanced ignorant man of his district, if such there be. The expressions of opinion from these sources are to be considered and given due weight. But how shall our friend vote? Shall he hold himself responsive to every wave of popuar sentiment which may effect his immediate constituents, or shall he rise in his manhood and intelligence and so speak and so vote as, in his judgement, will best conserve the interests of the people he primarily represents by best conserving the whole country? If I analyze the situation correctly, it is his duty to act always in harmony with his party on fundamental political principles,
and to dissent from the policy of a majority of his political associates only when compelled to do so by an abiding conviction. In helping to shape the course of his party he must voice his own judgement even though it runs contrary to temporary local sentiment.
Having been commissioned to study public questions, and having been a student of statecraft, he has a right to assume that he understands what is involved in pending measures somewhat better than the average man of his district, however much time he may have given thereto, and much better than the man of his district who has been admittedly intensely engrossed with his own individual affairs. If he rises to his plane he will sometimes record his vote otherwise than the majority of his constituents will desire. This he will regret but he will be controlled not thereby but by his enlightened judgement.
But our friend's commission is not yet fulfilled. Having been called to the study of statecraft he is likewise called to be a teacher of statecraft. His constituents have sent him to a great political normal school, and it is now his duty to return to those who sent him and instruct then in matters political and to teach the relation between public questions and the normal, the commercial and the industrial interests of his district and of the country at large.
Some years ago I was at Lexington, Kentucky, and heard the older citizens tell with commendable pride of the days when they used to meet Henry Clay at the Ohio river and bear him home amid an escort of admiring friends. They showed me the balcony of the hotel from which the great statesman of his time used to instruct the people of the hour. Such a course continued through a term of years will produce great statesmen, and such statesmanship continued will develop great constituencies.
It may be that as some contend the trend of the times is not friendly to statesmanship. The temptation may be great to study local sentiment and promptly respond thereto rather than the real needs of the hour and be faithful thereto. The press too generally conveys the impression that it is the consummation of statesmanship to succeed in keeping oneself in office. To believe something and politically perish because of his convictions is painted in disgraceful colors. In some quarters it seems to be impossible of conception that a man does anything except with an eye single to his own political
advancement. If this is to be the standard, if it is to eb approved by the public, then no one must be surprised if the next decade produces quite as many demagogues as statesmen.
Secretary Shaw, speaking at Salisbury, N. C., on Monday evening, September 10,1906, said in part:
Our political opponents lay much stress on the fact that some American manufactures are sold abroad cheaper than at home. That the practice prevails to some extent all must admit, but that it does not prevail generally or to any considerable extent is easily established. A nonpartisan industrial commission was appointed by Congress in 1898, which, after spending more than three years in the investigation, filed its report in 1902, which was published in 18 large volumes. This report contains all available evidence on this subject. After making careful compilations from the date therein contained, Senator Gallinger, of New Hampshire, stated on the floor of the United States Senate, in April, 1904, that approximately $4,000.000 worth of American manufactured products are annuually sold abroad cheaper than in our own domestic market. No one has ever attempted to disprove Senator Gallinger's conclusions, though our political opponents continue to speak of the practice as well-nigh universal. This $4,000.000 worth can be far more than accounted for by the advantage given to exporters under our drawback laws, and it is quite likely the estimate is too low.
It has been the policy of the Republican party for many years to allow manufacturers who export their products the advantage of the cheapest possible rawmaterial. The Dingley tariff law provides two ways by which exporters may avail themselves of this advantageoues privilege. First, the law authorizes the manufacture of merchandise for export in bonded factories and permits to be transferred thereto not not only import ores, iron, and steel billets and other material free of duty, but also spirits and tobacco free of internal-revenue tax. During the last fiscal year approximately $10,000.000 worth of imported spirits and tobacco were thus used and the entire product exported and no duty or internal revenue paid thereon. Had this material been entered for consumption in this country, the duty and internal-revenue
tax would have been quite a large amount, and, to the extent of this saving in the cost of the finished product, the smelter and manufacturer could reduce his export price and still make the same profit.
Under the American scale of wages the value of ordinary American manufacture is about equally divided between material and labor. The conversion into finished products, therefore, of $10,000.000 worth of raw material consumed in bonded factories would justify the sale abroad of twice that amount of refined or manufactured products cheaper than at home. I should not be surprised to learn that most of the output of these bonded smelteries and factories is sold abroad below the price prevailing in the United States.
The other method provided in the Dingley law for allowing manufacturers who export their products the advantage of cheap material authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to pay back to the exporter of manufactured merchandise 99 per cent. of the duty which he has actually paid upon any imported material consumed therein. During the last fiscal year there was refunded to exporters of manufactures produced in the whole or in part from imported dutiable material approximately $6,000,000. The refund of duties averages about 5 per cent of the value of the exported merchandise. This drawback provision, therefore, justifies the sale abroad of $120,000,000 worth of American-manufactured merchandise 5 per cent below the domestic price of similar articles. Both these provisions of the Dingley tariff law were enacted for the avowed and sole purpose of enabling the American employer of labor to put his product on the foreign market at reduced prices. In this way only is he able sucessfully to compete with rivals who always have the benefit of cheap labor and frequently of nondutiable and untaxed material.
The articles on which drawbacks are allowed are numerous and varied. Last year drawbacks were allowed on 18 articles in which dutiable iron or steel was consumed, 9 articles in which dutiable imported lead ore or lead bullion was incorporated, 3 articles in which dutiable tin plate formed a part, 9 articles in which dutiable sugar or molasses was used, 12 different articles in which imported dutiable alcohol was used, several in which imported dutiable hides or leather was used, and no end of articles in which dutiable imported wool was used. Drawbacks were allowed on over 130 manufactured
articles, in the production of which 50 different kinds of dutiable imported materials were consumed.
The policy of allowing drawbacks upon the exportation of manufactures into which dutiable raw material has entered is in strict harmony with the principle of protection. The protective principle avowedly and in fact gives the American producer an advantage within the American market, but no economic policy can give the American producer an advantage over his foreign competitor in the foreign market.
The Treasury Department has many confidential agents in Europe, and I officially meet a large number of people, many of them importers, who annually go to Europe on business. Through these two sources I have sought to find what, if any, articles of American production can be purchased abroad cheaper than at home, and incidentally have accumulated abundant evidence to disprove the claim of our opponents that the practice of dumping, as it is called throughout Europe, is general. I hold in my hand a letter from a business man of New Jersey on the subject. He says he recently purchased at Trenton, N. J., a McCormick mower for $36. This he says, was the price at which anyone could buy, spot cash. He found the identical make and pattern for sale in England at 10 pounds (48.40 our money), and in France for francs 275, or $55. He found Smith & Wesson revolvers, which regularly sell in New York at $10.50, for sale in Paris at the equivalent of $15. He found the Douglas shoe, advertised in every town in the United States for $3.50 per pair, also popular in London, the metropolis of a free-trade country, at the equvalent of $4 per pair, and in Paris at the equivalent of $4.25 per pair. The identical Sorosis shoe, which sells in New York at $4.50, is sold in London at $5.25. My daughters who spent the winter in Europe, wrote their mother who was soon to join them, to bring shoes, for they could not get good shoes as cheap in Paris. My friend says he found a Singer sewing machine at a cheaper price in Europe than in America, but he added that it was a machine made at their German factory, and of much rougher finish and inferior in every way.
But what shall be said of this practice as a policy? Is the practice bad per se? Who suffers because of it? Does the American laborer? Go ask the man who produces these exported wares thus dumped abroad. I have been criticised for saying that I would prefer to have the American manufacturer
sell his products abroad cheaper than at home rather than have the foreign producer sell his wares in America cheaper than at home. This is the same as saying that I would prefer to have the products of our factories close foreign shops rather than have the products of foreign shops close our factories. I wish all the world well, but if anyone has to be out of employment, if there must be suffering somewhere, then I will use my best efforts that it come not nigh my country. If, to accomplish this, it shall be necessary that I pay more for my clothes, more for my shoes, more for sewing machine, more for my typewriter, more for the barbed wire used on my Iowa farm than is paid for the same articles in Europe, then I will not object so long as the products of American farms feed, and the products of Amercican looms clothe, and the products of American labor generally supply every need of, those who produce these things thus sold abroad at reduced prices. I will consent to pay a little more than otherwise would be necessary to the end that the products of American labor shall be put on foreign markets.
The coolie laborer is unpopular, largely because of his inexpensive habits. He neither feeds himself, clothes himself, nor houses his family as do Americans. Living on a lower plane, he can of course afford to work cheaper than Americans, and his presence is a menace, not so much to American morals as to American labor. To the extent that he secures his pro rata share of American wages and fails to contribute proportionately to the consumptive capacity of the country his presence is undersirable. The Republican party therefore says to him: "Unless you consent to be an American consumer you shall not be an American producer. You must be an American in both respects or in neither."
Republican laws against contract labor are of the same class. But for these laws manufacturers would go abroad, hire laborers at the European scale of wages, and bring them to this country under contract to work below the American scale. This was once the practice to the prejudice not only of labor but to the prejudice of the American farmer as well. Low wages compel poor living and poor living harms the farmer and the manufacturer also, for it restricts the consumptive capacity of the country.
The Republican party gives the American manufacturer for the foreign market, every possible advantage except that of cheap labor. No law can protect the American producer in the foreign market, hence the exporter of the product of American labor is given the cheapest possible raw material. If it be said that this is to the advantage of the exporter, I reply that it aids quite as much those whom the exporter employs, while those who supply the ordinary needs of these employed artisans are benefited also.
When a party comes to the people and asks for their suport, it should be able to show that this support is deserved because of pledges fulfilled, and public duty well and faithfully done, which has redowned to the welfare of the whole people. If the Repubiclan party can show such a record, then it deserves and should receive the support of every voter of the county. If the Democratic party cannot show such a record, then it does not deserve and should not receive such support. Every voter owes it to himself, to his family and to his ccountry to vote to endorse and continue those government policies which have proven best for the peace and prosperity of all.
If the voters of the country should fail to do this with their ballots, then to that extent would we show we were wanting in intelligence, in patriotism and in capacity for self-government. This being true, then let us look at the record of the Republican party and also at the record of the opponent and decide how each of us should cast our ballots.
In the last Republican National Platform the party declared for:
1. A just and courageous enforcement of private and public rights in all controversies between thepeople and corporate combinations.
2. Maintainance of the well established principle of protection for the fostering of home industries, and the protection of American labor against the competition of foreign pauper labor.
3. The extension and increase of our foreign trade by all practicable methods.
4. Stable expansion of our currency and the preservation of the public credit.
5. The building of the Isthmian Canal.
6. The regulation of imigration and the enforcement of the laws pertaining thereto.
The people believed in these principles and they believed in the wisdom and patriotism of the Republican party to carry them out in good faith.
Was their faith well founded? Have these platform pledges been kept by the adminstration of Theodore Roosevelt? The humblest American knows that they have been kept and that too, without fear or favor. The rights of the poorest and humblest have been as zealously guarded as those of the rich and powerful. All that was promised has been faithfully done and even more.
Agitation against the principle of "Tariff for protection" has been rife, but the Republican party has stood "pat", demanding that the present stable business conditions must be preserved, and that the tariff tinkering of the Democratic agitators, whose destructive tariff legislation has involved the country more than once in industrial depression and ruin, must be shunned and avoided if we hope to preserve our present national prosperity. The Republican party will foster no evil that may creep in under the protection system, but pledges the public to correct the same as fast as practical and as often as they may arise. Wisdom and prudence demands that such correction must be by the friends of protection and not to be trusted to the enemies of protection, whose hope would be, not to cure any evil of the system, but to destroy it. No evil has ever existed under the Republican tariff that was equal to the wide spread evils thatsprang up to blight the country under the Democratic tariff. Do the voters perfer present prosperous conditions, or do they want to return to conditions of depression and hard times under the Cleveland tariff? On this question the Republican party confidently asks and expects the people's approval.
During the years of the Roosevelt administration our trade has expanded at home and abroad. The South, and particularly the State of North Carolina, have been chief beneficiaries of this expansion through the policy of trade encouragement,
and new markets for our cotton and other raw materials has been opened up in the Orient. And by reason of our well paid skilled labor, we are sending ships loaded with American-made goods all over the civilized world. The surplus product of our factories has found a market and at a remunerative price.
Our party's pledge to promote these conditions has been kept inviolate. Compare the price of cotton now with the price under the Cleveland administration and look at the increasing number of factories of all kinds, all busy and none closed down. Is there a voter in the whole state who would like to return to the conditions under the Cleveland administration? If so, then that person may have some reason for voting the Democratic ticket.
Under the leadership of the President, and over the groundless objections of the Democratic leaders in Congress, the Republican party has enacted legislation and appropiated money for the construction of thegreat Canal,across the Isthmus ofPanama,--a commercial dream cherished by our country for more than a century. This gigantic and pregnant enterprise is now actively begun and will, in due and proper time, be completed and thus become one of the greatest governmental achivements ever accomplished in history. It wil mean a developement of national and international trade, and will be of the greatest advantage tothe industrial and material progress of the South. Already impetus has been given to the coast-wise traffic of our Atlantic and Gulf ports, and the improvement already noted is but an earnest of the remarkable development that may be expected when the ships of the world make the Isthmus of Panama their route for carrying the trade of the Orient from the eastern to the western world
The people of the United States have not forgotten, and will not forget, with what singleness of purpose and patriotism endeavor the President entered upon negotiations for the cession of the Panama Canal strip tothe United States, nor have they forgotten how he was ruthlessly attacked by Democratic leaders for his actions, in spite of his wonderful success. He stood firm, completed his negotiations, and secured Congressional approval, and is now by his own great zeal inspiring 20,000 employees on the Canal to make the dirt fly
and open it as rapidly as possible for the use of the world.
When it is completed there will be opened the greatest waterway for the international trade in the world, and its completion will signalize the most wonderful accomplishment in the realm of practical statesmanship ever before realized. If he had done nothing more, this alone would have placed Theodore Roosevelt among the greatest men in the World's history.
There have been so many other legislative and executive accomplishments during the administration of our affairs by President Roosevelt that to mention them in detail is impossible. It is only possible to speak of them briefly and ask the people to refer, for details, to the publications of public history since the Roosevelt administration began.
After our successful war with Spain, which gave to us the dominion of Cuba, the Philippine Islands and Porto Rico, the duties of carrying our policies of equity and justice to the people thus placed under our flag were numerous, delicate and important. The great administrative genius of President Roosevelt has established order and promoted theinterests of the natives of these islands, and there has been formed south of us, under the guiding hand, the Republic of Cuba, to which we are cemented by all the ties of freindship and national gratitude.
Through the influence of the Roosevelt administration the principles of non-interference by European powers with the status of the various countries of the Western Hemisphere, known as the Monroe Doctrine, has been greatly strengthened. The sending of the controversy between Venesuela, on the one hand, and England and Germany on the other, to the Hague Arbitration Tribunal was a striking instance in point. Also the settlement upon the basis of equity on the Alaskan Boundry question between the United States and Canada are only a few coses in point.
The handling of the questions enumerated above were all duties which fell upon the President under the Constitution. Each problem was met and solved upon the highest principles of patriotism and conservative statesmanship. The results
achived have made every loyal American citizen prouder of his country and more loyal to the highest ideals of citizenship, upon which our Republic is founded. President Roosevelt however, unlike most Presidents, has not been content to perform solely the duties he was bound by law to perform. He has been willing to perform all duties which he felt attached morally, as well as legally, to the high office of President of our Republic. Note a few instances:
While the rulers of all nations of the world were watching in seemingly helpless way, the death struggle between Japan and Russia, which not only threatened the Commercial life of both nations as well as effecting seriously the commerce of the world, but which was also dealing death to thousands of brave soldiers daily, our President, with prestige of his high office, stepped between the combatants and urged them to lay down their swords and be at peace. Both mighty nations paused, the world held its breath, and both nations ceased hostilities, sent Peace Commissioners to our shores, where they met, conferred and agreed to terms of peace. Probably no other man in the world could have accomplished this result. It was the imposing personality of the President as much as the commanding position of our government that crowned the effort with success. The full significance of this stupendous act, fraught with such world wide significance, is beyond our comprehension. It will be left tothe historians of the future to record its mighty effect upon the world's progress towards the banishment of war, and the realization of a world-peace.
It is fresh in the public minds how only two years ago the whole United States was threatened with a coal famine, and all the horrors that such a calamity would have entailed upon every class of our citizenship. The coal barons, steadfast in their determination not to yield an inch, were threatening a remorseless war of extermination upon the laboring millions who existed upon the results of their toil in the coal fields. Organized labor and organized capital faced each other with a purpose equally determined, and the helpless public lay prone and at the mercy of the two contending forces. No one could see a way of avoiding the untold misery and want which was certain from a long continuance of the strike, and its many attendant evils of riot, bloodshed and hunger. President
Roosevelt, however, feeling that to be the President of a great people, demanded that he save the country from the dire disaster of a war of such great interests, if possible, so he called the capital and labor to the White House and with consummate tact secured a peaceful settlement, not only to the reliefof the contending powers, but to the whole country. As the representative of 80,000,000 American citizens he demanded of both labor and capital that they settle their controversy by making mutual concessions in the interest of the great masses, and as in all his splendid endeavors for the good of all the people, he won a significant victory, proving that the victories of peace are, in fact, greater, in an untold degree than those of war.
The President did not have to undertake this mighty task. No law called upon him to do it. No citizen could have criticised him justly if he had left it undone. Yet his love of humanity, and his desire to serve the people who had honored him moved hom beyond the strict requirements of writen law into the wider fields of universal human needs and seeing that there was need for work to be done, he used his own forceful personality and the prestige of his high office to do it. But it took a deep patriotism backed by great courage to undertake such a task.
The Republican party had its birth in a desire to secure and perpetuate human freedom. Since it's "baptism of fire" in '61--'65, it has stood foremost for a broader liberty among the peoples of all nations. "Equal rights to all' has been its motto at home, and it has sought to spread the same Gospel by legitimate means to other nations. Our party has always declared for manhood sufferage, and for individual liberty. It has always looked with horror upon the violation of these fundimental principles, and has striven to enforce them universally. These principles are the hope of the world-civilization, and although a technical interpretation of international law might suggest our silence when they were violated by other nations, yet when the world was horror-struck with news of the heartless and merciless massacres of Russian Jews, President Roosevelt did not keep silent, as did all the other rulers of civilized nations, but in his own bold way, he cut the Gordian Knot of effete diplomacy and called on the Russian Tzar and the Russian people in the name of outraged
humanity to desist from their barbarous deeds of blood. Such a deed required imperial courage, and the effect of his bold denunciation of Russian outrage has been heard around the world, and its echoes had,no doubt, some effect to arouse the dull-minded Russian peasant until to-day there is prospect of such a revolt by the common people of Russia against the tyranny of the Russian Tzar as to bring about at least a measure of self-government for the Russian people.
In the approaching campaign which will be heard upon the subject of aggression of trusts, money powers and corporate greed. On these subjects Republicans can stand defiant and meet their political opponents upon every stump and vanquish them with a magnificant record of wise Republican legislation fearlessly enforced by Republican Presidents. It is universallyknown that the only effective anti-trust legislation ever enacted has been placed upon the statute books by Republican Congressmen and signed by Republican Presidents, It is equally known that during the administration of President Cleveland when the Democrats were in full power in this country, that no effort to prosecute the trusts, which were as aggressive then as now, was made, and that President Cleveland's Attorney General expressly declared his inability to punish violators of the anti-trust law, and his helplessness to protect the rights of the people. How different have been the conditions under the Roosevelt administration. Time after time time the Attorney General of the United States has gone into the courts, proved violations of the anti-trust law before juries, secured convctions and judgments of thet court dissolving the trust organizations and punishing the offenders, and in all classes where the courts have appealed to, secured such adjunctions as established and guaranteed the rights of the public.
The President has gone further than enforce existing laws. Where he has found a weak point in existing law, has called upon Congress to amend and strengthen the same. An instance in point is the recent Railroad Rate Regulation Bill, and the Pure Food Laws passed by the session of Congress.
These wise measures are a great step forward and guarantee in a large measure protection of the public from the impositions of the Greedy Meat Trust and the domination of the Commercial world by the great Railroad Trust which has had unrestrained sway for so many years. This legislation was the result of the deliberations of the Republican administration, and this administration is now determinedly enforcing these enactments, and in all cases are safeguarding the rights of the American public.
During the last four years there has been a great uplifting in the moral tone and business methods of our governmental administration of public affairs. Graft and corrupion have been hounded down and rooted out every where, and public servants have held to a higher sense of official obligation than ever before in the history of the country. The splendid personality of President Roosevelt has been largely responsible for this great reform along moral lines. He has stood for the highest official probity, and has made a violation of official duty the unpardonable sin in official life. His administration has indicated officials of his own and the Democratic party and punished them without regard to any question but their guilt. He has set a higher standard than ever before in making appointments, and has demanded a stricter performance of official duty for the public good.
Secretary of the State, Elihu Root in speaking of President Roosevelt before the last Republican National Convention, paid him the following tribute:
"No people can maintain free government who do not in their hearts value the qualities which have made the President of the United States conspicious among men of his time as a type of noble manhood. Come what may here, come what may in November, God grant that these qualities of brave, true manhood shall have honor throughout America, shall be held for an example in every home, and that the youth of generations to come may grow up to feel that it is better than wealth, or office, or power, to have the honesty, the purity and the courage of Theodore Roosevelt."
The great Republican majority at the last election was the tribute of the people to these qualities and to the great work which President Roosevelt's administration had begun. Since the last election, the Republican party under
his leadership has accomplished many fold more great reforms, and besides the President himself has grown in the love, esteem and admiration of the people of this country, and indeed, of the whole world as never before. Then the people will but be doing themselves honor in endorsing the President and the work of his administration by rolling up another great majority at the poles next November. And it is time that North Carolina was also getting in line with her endorsement.
They increased the School term 2 1-3 weeks in one year without increasing the schooltax. By changing the school law and economic management saved the state over one-half million dollars annually.
The Democrats make false charges for campagin purposes.
Commissioner Varner in his report for 1904 & 1905, shows that the educational conditional of the State is "POOR" and is growing worse.
The democratic platform adopted at their state convention in Greensboro 1906, has the following to say of the record of the democratic party in education:
"We express hearty approval of the great results accomplished through educational work during the past six years of democratic rule, and the great improvement made during that time in our educational conditions, and we promise a continuance of a 4 months school term for all the children of the state." The above statement sounds modest enough, and might be accepted as true by those who are not well informed, but when this statement from the democratic platform is considered in connection with the facts taken from the official records, and fully given elsewhere in our discussion of the record of the democratic party in education for the past six years, then this claim made in the democratic platform appears
to be absurd, but for unadulterated gall, let us quote a few passages from the Democratic Handbook of 1904, to see the kind of stuff that was dished out by the democraitc press and democratic spell-binders to the uninformed voters during the last campaign. We quote from the Democratic Handbook for 1904: "Fusion rulechecked educational progress, and the fusionists by their law, under which negro committeemen could control white schools, they effectually checked educational progress, and lessened educational interest. On account of this law, and the general lack of confidence in the administration of, and respect for it, there was naturally a decided decraese in the enrollment and attendance of the white schools"?
If any democratic candidate was elected to office in the state in 1904 by virture of the above statement, or if any democrat should succeed this year in deceiving the people by any such false and deceptive argument, in the face of the facts that can be found by an examination of the official school records of the state, he should be prosecuted and convicted for obtaining goods under false pretense. Now let us briefly review the work of the Fusionists on education when they had charge of the state government, and from the official records we can determine whether or not the above charges of the democrats are true or false.
The legislature of 1897 did not increase the rate of taxation for public schools, nor did it borrow money and issue bonds for that purpose, but by abolishing the old Democrat school law, and enacting a new one, they increased the school term in North Carolina two and one-third weeks, and this without one cent of cost to the tax-payers of the State. This law was pased by the legislature of 1897, but the effect of the law on the schools of the State was not felt until the following year, 1898. Supt. Mebane's Report, on page 159, and Supt. Joyner's Report, on page 339, sow that the school term of the state in one year, from 1897 to 1898, made this remarkable increase. To show that increase was entirely due to the repeal of the old school law and the enactment of a new law the above reports on the pages cited show that the school term had not increased prior thereto, notwithstanding the successive legislatures during this period had increased the rate of taxation for public schools form 12 1-2 to 18 cents on property, making about 50 per cent. increase in tax.
The Legislature of 1899 was a Democratic Legislature and they amended the school alw, appointed their own Board of Education and school Committeemen, and made an appropriation of $100,000 for public schools, and promsied the people to thereby provide for them a four month's school. What was the result? The reports of the State Superintendents, on pages cited above, show that the white schools of the State did not increase a day by this extra appropriation, and the colored schools only about one hour. Think of it! The negro schools apparently got all of this $100,000 in 1899, and for that only one hour extra school term for the entire year! In 1899 it cost about $13,000 to run the white and colored schools in the State for one day, and for this extra $100,000 the school term for both should have increased one and one-half weeks, but the reports show only one hour increase for the negro schools, and no increase whatever for the white schools!
The same reports show that the tax-payers of the State were required to pay $134,795.98 more for public schools in 1900 than in the year 1899. See Mebane's Report, pp. 157 and Joyner's Report, page 337; and these same reports show on pages 159 and 339 respectively, that this enormous sum increased the length of the white schools three days and the colored schools about one and one-fourth days, making te average cost of one day's school for both races about $63,433.34. If the money had been wisely and judiciously expended, it should have not cost more than $13,000 per day. What became of this money, we are unable to explain. Another strange fact shown in the report of Supt. Joyner, on page 338, is, that the average attendance of the children in the public schools of the state in 1898 was greater than in 1900. The exact number is 6,322. Think of it--6,322 fewer children in average attendance in the public schools in the state in 1900 than in 1898, not withstanding the increase in population and with the increase of 100,000 in appropriation.
Supt. Joyner's Report on page 337, shows that $588,389.38 more money was put in the public schools during the year of 1902 than there was in 1899, yet the school terms for white schools in 1902 was only two and two-fifths longer than in 1899. Estimating the cost of the public schools at $13,000 for one day, this enormous increase in the school fund should have increased the school term nine weeks--thereby giving us
a six-months' school term in 1902 throughout the state, instead of a four-months term as we now have.
The school term in 1898 was two and one-third weeks longer than in 1897, without increasing the rate of taxation or appropriating an extra dollar for schools. This was done by the Fusion Legislature of 1897, who gave North Carolina the best school law of any Sstate in the South, and if that law had not been tampered with by subsequent Democratic Legislatures, North Carolina to-day would have had a four months school term without an extra dollar of appropriation, and North Carolina would have saved its credit and over one-half million dollars in money.
Now as the Democratic charge that, "Fusion rule checked educational progress." The school law of 1897 was endorsed by every prominent educator in North Carolina, and the Teachers Assembly of 1897, gave the law their hearty approval, and it was favorably commented upon by the Press Association of the state, which met at Morehead City that Summer. The law gave North Carolina the greatest educational impetus it has had since the Civil War. The Legislature of 1899, did not dare to repeal that law, but tried to do so, but were prevented by the leading educators of the state. They did amend the law and thereby weakened its effectiveness. Chairman Simmons said in his Handbook for 1904 and circulars, as quoted above, that, "That law caused a decided decrease in the enrollment and attendance of the white schools." Let us see what Supt. Joyner's Report, on page 338, shows: The enrollment in the white schools in 1898 were 261,223 children, in 1899 it was only $260,217, or a falling off of 1,006 white children. Taking all the schools there was a falling off in enrollment in 1899 of 8,759 children in the public schools. The average attendance was even worse. There were 144,345 white children in 1898 and only 140,162 white children in 1899, making a difference of 4,184, and in 1900 there were 6,322 fewer children in average attendance than in 1898. The Democratic school law, prior to 1897, had in office 7,620 negro school committeemen, who had the dispensing of nearly one half of the school fund of the State. The school law of 1897 removed from office over 7,000 of these negro committeemen, leaving the others for the purpose only of taking the census of the negro children. Only one negro committeemen was left in each township so that white men would not be required to take the census of the negro
children. Prior to the Fusion law of 1897 the negroes had entire control of all the negro schools and had the disbursing of their part of the school fund, which often resulted in extravagance and corruption. The fusion law of 1897 placed the entire control of both white and colored schools in the hands of competent white men, leaving only one negro committeeman in each township to take the census of the schools of his race. This change in the school law by adopting the township system, and by grading the schools and placing in charge fewer, but more intelligent school officials, gave North Carolina two and one-third weeks longer school term without extra tax or cost, and saved the tax-payers of the state more than one half million dollars annually. From 1885 to 1897 the school term in the state did not increase one day under Democratic administration but the rate of taxation for public schools did increase 50 per cent. From 1897 to 1900, without any increase in tax the school term increased two and one-third weeks. Since 1900 the Democrats have more than doubled the school fund and yet the school term has not increased any more than it did under the Fusion administration without a dollar extra tax, and to show the condition of education in North Carolina to-day we have only to examine the last annual reports of the Bureau of Labor and Printing on pages 20, 21 & 22, showing the educational and moral condition of the various counties of the state. Commissioner Varner's Report of 1905, on the pages named states that the educational condition in 48 counties in the state is "Poor" and in five counties it is "Bad" and in 34 of the balance it is only "Fair". In his report for 1904, on page 22, he states that the educational condition in thirty four counties is "Farir" and in forty nine counties "Poor", but does not state that it is "Bad" in any county, therefore the educational condition seeems to have gone backward from 1904 to 1905, yet the available school fund in 1905 was $307,213.98, more than it was in 1904.
The conditions have never been so favorable for educational progress in the state than for the past few years, and never was so enormous a sum expended for public education, yet, never has such a poor showing been made with the opportunities given, than the one made by the party now in power. With 105,004 children in the state between the age of ten and twenty years who cannot read and write with over 120,000 males of voting age who are still illiterate, and the constitutional
amendment to become operative in 1908, there is going to be trouble ahead for the democratic party, who is responsible for this condition and is wasting the people's money without giving any substantial relief. If Commissioner Varner's Reports are true the condition is growing worse instead of better. If the people are wise they will demand a change and place those men in power who saved the people's taxes and increased their school term by honest and economical managment when they had charge of our school affairs.
The Republican party is the pioneer in educational reform in North Carolina, and the official records of the State will verify this statement.
Don't try to falsify the records Brother Democrat; you had better lose the State than public confidence and your own self respect. The records speak the truth. Read the records and you will verify all I have said.
The Democartic party returned to power in the State in 1900, and since then has had complete control of the state government, and this party bases its claims for a continuation of this control upon their educational policy and the wonderful growth of the public schools under their administration! Since 1897, the public term in the state has increased a little more than four weeks, and one half of this increase was due entirely to school legislation of the Republicans and Populists in the Legislature of 1897, and the other half of this increase is due to the school legislation by the democrats since 1900.
Now let us compare the methods employed by the Republicans and Populists to increase the school term, with the methods employed by the Democrats. The Legislature of 1897 found that the Democrats since 1888, had increased the rate of taxation for public schools 50%, but they had not increased
the school term during this period one hour, but to the contrary the school term in 1896 was two days shorter than in 1888. This was on account of poor management under an antiquated school law. In 1897 when the Republicans and Populists turned their attention to the school legislation, they abolished this antiquated school system, under which the Democrats had operated, and passed a modern, up-to-date school law, displaced a hoard of incompetent school officials, put a stop to the drains and losses in our school fund by incompetency and bad management, and thereby put new life and vigor in our public schools, which resulted in a genuine educational revival all over the state. The result was that our school term in 1898, increased two weeks, without an extra dollar of tax or any extra appropriations. By wise legislation we did in one year what our Democratic friends had failed to do in a decade prior thereto, yet they had increased the tax 50 per cent. When the democrats returned to power in 1900, they at once began to tamper wth the school law that we had put inoperation, and in a great measure lessened its effectiveness. They elected what they cvalled an educational Governor, and for four years from 1900 to 1904, attempted a campaign of education in the state. Having passed a constitutional amendment to disfranchise the illiterate whites and blacks after 1908, by an educational qualification, they pledged the people that all the children of the state should be educated. This pledge to the people, if it had been sincere, and if their efforts had been properly directed, would have been commendable, but let us look at the results.
There are in North Carolina 295,000 white males of voting age and 125,000 colored males of voting age, making a total of 420,000 of both white and colored of voting age in the state. Of ths number there are approximately 52,000 white voters, and 68,000 colored voters who cannot read and write. There are in the state male illiterates ten years of age and over 175,000, and female illiterates ten years of age and over 200,000, making a total of 375,000 people in the state over ten years of age who cannot read and wriate. They have not, and now cannot, fulfil their pledge to the people to qualify these illiterates for the election franchise by 1908.
But let us revert to their school legislation. We have said that the Republicans and Populists revised the school law in 1897 and gave the state thereby an extra two and one third weeks term of school without any cost tothe state, but
to the contrary at a great saving of expense to thestate by abolishing at least 15,000 unnecessary and incompetent school committeemen and other useless officials. Since the Democratic party returned to power in the state they have increased the school term two and one-third weeks, but this increase has been a tremendous cost to the state. Let us compare the figures. In 1898 the school fund was in round numbers $988,000 and the school term was a fraction over 14 weeks. In 1904 the total available school fund all sources, including local taxes, bonds, loans, and state appropriations amounted to $2,308,728.98, and the school term was only 17 weeks. It will be seen from these figures that the school fund has been more than doubled, and should have given us at least 36 weeks school term, or nine months in every district in the state, but instead of that in many counties now we have not given the constitutional requirements of a four months school term.
In 1900 when Mr. Aycock was elected governor theschool fund was in round numbers $1,031,000, and the school term 14 2-3 weeks. In 1904, as we have just shown the fund was $2,308,728.98, and the school term just 17 weeks, or an increase of 2 1-3 weeks, which is exactly the same increase we made from 1897 to 1900, under a Republican administration without an extra dollar of money. Could any figures be more startling than these? Is it not strange that the Democartic officials and a Democratic press should parade to the world the wonderful strides this state has made in education under Democratic rule, with such figures as these gathered from the official reports of the State Superintendent?
They base their claims on carrying the state in the coming election largely upon their record on public education. If this be the issue, we will willingly accept it, and will meet them before the tax-payers of the state, and exhibit this record and will rely confidently upon their verdict at the polls. We have no school statistics since 1904, for the State Superintendent's last report was filed at the end of 1904, and no other report has been filed by him since, hence all our comparisons and figures are from the report of 1904. From this report the amount raised annually from local taxation for schools is $388,141.33. From loans and bonds $138,521.05. From the annual appropriation from the State Treasury $200,566.65. The increase in the amount of property in the state, and the higher assessment of the property has greatly
increased the general school fund in the state, until the sum total for school purposes are nearly three times the amount which was available when we were in power in the state, yet with all this increase from taxable property in the state, from higher assessments of property, from local taxation, from loans and the sale of bonds, from the annual appropriation of more than $200,000.00, making a total increase since 1898 of $1,320,728.98, and yet the school term has not increased a day more than it did from 1897 to 1900, under a Republican administration, without any increase in taxation, or an extra dollar appropriation from the State Treasury. This is a true record and can be found by an examination of the bi-ennial report of the State Superintendent of Public Instructions. If their record on public education in North Carolina, either since 1900, or any time prior thereto, be an issue of the Democratic party in this campaign, then we accept the issue and challenge them to meet us in its defense before the people.
A State System Needed and Not a County System.
Extravagance and Incompetency of County School Officials.
School Facilities Should be Uniform Throughout the State.
Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of North Carolina provides for "A general and uniform system of public schools, wherein tuition shall be free of charge to all the children of the state between the ages of six and twenty-one years." The spirit as well as the words of this section of our State Constitution calls for a general and uniform system of public schools, which evidently means a "State System" and not a "County System" which we now have in operation in North Carolina. Every child in the state, regardless of the section or county in which he may live, pays the same rate of taxation for general school purposes, and should have the same school advantages with every other child in the state. This is the spirit of the law and was undoubtedly the purpose of the framers of our State Constitution. The system in operation
in North Carolina to-day is not "general and uniform," but is a County System, ranging from nine months school term in some counties with well ventilated, well equipped school houses with one or more proficient and trained teachers, to a three months school term in other counties with poorly equipped teachers on a meager salary, teaching in a log school house, poorly heated, seated with wooden benches, and without maps or charts or any of the necessary equipments, conveniences or comforts required for satisfactory work.
Much needed legislation is required to remedy this inequality in educational advantages, and this can be done without any change in our original law, but simply by complying with its plain and unmistakable terms. This condition can be changed and the Constitution complied with by giving each child in the state the same per capita appropriation of the entire school fund of the state. This inequality in school advantages cannot be cured or even improved by the annual appropriation of $100,000.00 out of the State Treasury, which is now distributed per capita to each of the counties. This appropriation undoubtedly aids the schools, and in a slight degree lengthens the school term in the state, yet the larger counties get more of this fund than the smaller and weaker counties, and instead of lessening the inequality in the short term over the state, it has a tendency to increase this inequality. To illustrate, we have selected from the report of the State Superintendent the amount paid out of this fund from the State Treasury for 1905, for a few selected counties:
This money of course is apportioned upon a per capita basis and therefore the last named counties get less of this $100,000.00 than the larger counties, but these larger counties already have more than a four months term without any of this appropriation, and some of them have as much as an
eight months school term without any state aid, yet the smaller and weaker counties do not have the constitutional requirements of a four months school term without this aid, and the amount apportioned to them from this fund is so small, they fail to get the four months term with it. The apportionment of the greater part of this fund to the counties having already a six or eight months school term is useless, and gives them more money than they need or require and widens instead of lessening the inequality of school advantages over the state. The second $100,000.00 annual appropriation from the State Treasury was intended to cure this inequality in the school term among the various counties, but the expenditure of this second large annual appropriation from our depleted State Treasury has utterly failed in this purpose, and at the same time has led to fraud and extravagance in the expenditure of the school fund and in the salary and expenditures of the school officials.
When this second $100,000.00 appropriation was made the State Superintendent was directed to expend it entirely in those counties not having a four months school term, and to be so expended as to give each County a term of four months. Thereupon the State Superintendent called upon the various county officials to furnish him a statement of the amount required to supplement their County school fund in order to give them the four months term. We have selected a few counties from the list that applied for state aid to show how this plan has operated:
Alleghany County in 1902 asked for $1,771.56. In 1904, $2,783.43, and in 1905, $3,499.27. Bladen County in 1902, asked for $1,686.17, in 1904, $3,342.38, in 1905, $4,172.10. Caldwell County in 1902, asked for $937.16, in 1904, $2,037.09, in 1905, $2,419.91. Carteret in 1902, $515.50, in 1905, $2,417.00. Craven in 1902 and 1904, nothing. In 1905, $675.35. Cumberland in 1902, $1,182.74, in 1905, $4,396.00. Hyde in 1902, $538.54, in 1905, $2,227.00. Iredell in 1902, $350.00, in 1904, nothing, in 1905, $3,064.59. Jackson in 1902, $423.60, in 1905, $2,361.00. Northampton in 1902, $394.00, in 1905, $1,006.00. Union in 1902, $1,798.00, in 1905, $2,810.00. Tyrrell in 1902, $232.97, in 1905, $905.25. Watauga in 1902, $1,295.00, in 1905, $2,391.00. Wilkes in 1902, $2,092.00, in 1905, $4,985.00.
There are a few counties in the State that do not ask for State aid, and there are also some that have not made any increase
in their demands, but the majority of the counties have and the above counties are selected indiscriminately from the list, and show that each year they are making greater demands from the State Treasury in order to carry their schools four months. This notwithstanding that there has been a steady increase in the taxable property in these counties, and also an increase in valuation of the taxable assessors, and notwithstanding local taxation in many of these counties. The entire list of the counties in the State showing the amount they are drawing from our State Treasury, in addition to their per capita part of the first $100,00 appropriation paid to them, would furnish interesting information, but space forbids to give the entire list.
This steady increase in their demands upon the treasury, as shown above, shows either fraud, incompetency, extravigance or bad management. No doubt in many instances it show all four of these defects. We are glad to say that none of this fraud, corruption, incompetency and bad management can be laid at the door of any republican school official in this list of counties, for while republican cunties appear in the list, and counties with large white majorities, yet by virtue of a miserable appointive system forced upon the State by a democratic machine, there is not, in the knowledge of this writer, a republican school official in North Carolina, therefore whatever fraud and incompetency that exist in our school machinery, is democratic fraud and incompetency, and they cannot escape the charge. The method by which this last $100,000.00 is expended is a farce and a fraud, and this is fully known by the higher school officials in the State, and when their attention was called to it by certain republican members of the last legislature, they admitted something was wrong, but would not lend their aid to suggest a change, and used their influence against a measure introduced by a republican member of the last legislature, which was designed to remedy this evil and prevent these fraudulent demands upon our State Treasury. These increased demands upon the State Treasury cannot be for legitimate purposes, but the counties see that nothing is saved by not making these demands on the treasury, which encourage extravagance in the salary and expenditures of the county school officials, which are now more than twice what they were prior to 1900, and these officials are the chief beneficiaries of this annual drain upon
school fund, and not the school children for whom this annual papropriation was made.
Fifty years ago the Republican party came into existence dedicated among other purposes to the great task of arresting the extension of human slavery. In 1860 it elected its first President. During 24 of the 44 years which have elapsed since the election of Lincoln the Republican party has held complete control of the government. For 18 more of the 44 years it has held partial control through the possession of one or two branches of the government, while the Democratic party during the same period has had complete control for only 2 years. This long tenue of power by the Republican party is not due to chance. It is a demonstration that the Republican party has commanded the confidence of the American people for nearly two generations to a degree never equalled in our history, and has displayed a high capacity for rule and government which has been made even more conspicuous by the incapacity and infirmity of purpose shown by its opponents.
The Republican party entered upon its present period of complete supremacy in 1897. We have every right to congratulate ourselves upon the work since then accomplished, for it has added luster even to the traditions of the party which carried the government through the storms of civil war.
We then found the country after four years of Democratic rule in evil plight, oppressed with misfortune and doubtful of the future. Public credit had been lowered, the revenues were declining, the debt was growing, the administration's attitude toward Spain was feeble and mortifying, the standard of values was threatened and uncertain, labor was unemployed, business was sunk in the depression which had succeeded the panic of 1893, hope was faint and confidence was gone.
We met these unhappy conditions vigorously, effectively, and at once.
We replaced a Democratic tariff law based on free trade principles and garnished with sectional protection by a consistent protective tariff, and industry, freed from oppression and stimulated by the encouragement of wise laws, has expanded to a degree never before known, has conquered new markets, and has created a volume of exports which has surpassed imagination. Under the Dingley tariff labor has been fully employed, wages have risen and all industries have revived and prospered.
We firmly established the gold standard which was then menaced with destruction. Confidence returned to business, and with confidence an unexampled prosperity.
For deficient revenues, supplemented by improvident issues of bonds, we gave the country an income which produced a large surplus and which enabled us only four years after the Spanish war had closed to remove over $100,000,000 of annual war taxes, reduce the public debt, and lower the interest charges of the government.
The public credit, which had been so lowered that in time of peace a Democratic administration made large loans at extravagant rates of interest in order to pay current expenditures, rose under Republican administration to its highest point and enabled us to borrow at 2 per cent. even in time of war.
We refused to palter longer with the miseries of Cuba. We fought a quick and victorious war with Spain. We set Cuba free, governed the island for three years, and then gave it to the Cuban people with order restored, with ample revenues, with education and public health established, free from debt, and connected with the United States by wise provisions for our mutual interests.
We have organized the government of Porto Rico, and its people now enjoy peace, freedom, order, and prosperity.
In the Philippines we have suppressed insurrection, established order, and given to life and property a security never known there before. We have organized civil government, made it effective and strong in administration, and
have conferred upon the people of those islands the largest civil liberty they have ever enjoyed.
By our possession of the Philipines we were enabled to take prompt and effective action in the relief of the legations at Peking and a decisive part in preventing the partition and preserving the intergrity of China.
The possession of a route for an isthmian canal, so long the dream of American statesmanship is now an accomplihed fact. The great work of connecting the Pacific and Atlantic by a canal is at last begun, and it is due to the Republican party.
We have passed the laws which will bring the arid lands of the United States within the area of cultivation.
We have reorganized the army and put it in the highest state of efficiency.
We have passed laws for the improvement and support of the militia.
We have pushed forward the building of the navy, the defense and protection of our honor and our interests.
Our administration of the great departments of the government has been honest and efficient, and wherever wrongdoing has been discovered the Republican administration has not hesitated to probe the evil and bring offenders to justice without regard to party or political ties.
Laws enacted by the Republican party which the Democratic party failed to enforce and which were intended for the protection of the public against the unjust discrimination or the illegal encroachment of vast aggregations of capital, have been fearlessly enforced by a Republican President and new laws insuring reasonable publicity as to the operations of great corporations, and providing additional remedies for the prevention of discrimination in freight rates, have been passed by a Republican Congress.
In this record of achievement during the past eight years may be read the pledges which the Republican party has fulfilled. We promise to continue these policies, and we declare our constant adherence to the following principles:
Protection which guards and develops our industries, is
a cardinal policy of the Republican party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad. We insist upon the maintainance of the principle of protection, and, therefore, rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions hav so changed that the public interest demands their alteration but this work cannot safely be committed to any other hands than those of the Republican party. To intrust it to the Democratic party is to invite disaster. Whether, as in 1892 the Democratic party declares the protective tariffunconstitutional, or whether it demands tariff reform or tariff revision, its real object is always the destruction of the protective system. However specious the name the purpose is ever the same. A Democratic tariff has always been followed by business adversity; a Republican tariff by business prosperity. To a Republican Congress and a Republican President this great question can be safely intrusted. When the only free trade country among the great nations agitates a return to protection the chief protective country should not falter in maintaining it.
We have extended widely our foreign markets, and we believe in the adoption of all practicable methods for their further extension, including commercial reciprocity wherever reciprocal arrangements can be effected consistent with the principles of protection and without injury to American agriculture, American labor, or any American industry.
We believe it to be the duty of the Republican party to uphold the gold standard and the intergrity and value of our national currency. The maintenance of the gold standard, established by the Republican party, cannot safely be committed to the Democratic party, which resisted its adoption and has never given any proof since that time of belief in it or fidelity to it.
While every other industry has prospered under the fostering aid of Republican legislation, American shipping engaged in foreign trade in competition with the low cost of construction, low wages, and heavy subsidies of foreign governments, has not for many years received encouragement of any kind. We therefore favor legislation which will encourage and build up the American merchant marine,
and we cordially approve the legislation of the last Congress which created the Merchant Marine Commission to investigate and report upon this subject.
A navy powerful enough to defend the United States against an attack, to uphold the Monroe doctrine, and watch over our commerce, is essential for the safety and the welfare of the American people. To maintain such a navy is the fixed policy of the Republican party.
We cordially aprove the attitude of President Roosevelt and Congress in regard to the exclusion of Chinese labor, and promise a continuance of the Republican policy in that direction.
The civil-service law was placed on the statue books by the Republican party, which has always sustained it, and we renew our former declarations that it shall be thoroughly and honestly enforced.
We are always mindful of the country's debt to the soldiers and sailors of the United States, and we believe in making ample provisions for them and in the liberal administration of the pension laws.
We favor the peaceful settlement of international differences by arbitration.
We commend the vigorous efforts made by the administration to protect American citizens in foreign lands, and pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and equal protection of all our citizens abroad. It is the unquestioned duty of the government to procure for all our citizens, without distinction, the rights of travel and sojourn in friendly countries, and we declare ourselves in favor of all proper efforts tending to that end.
Our great interest and our great growing commerce in the Orient render the condition of China of high importance to the United States. We cordially commend the policy pursued in that direction by the administrations of President McKinley and President Roosevelt.
We favor such Congressional action as shall determine
whether by special discriminations the elective franchise in any State hasbeen unconstitutionally limited, and, if such is the case, we demand that representation in Congress and in the electoral colleges shall be proportionally reduced as directed by the Constitution of the United States.
Combinations of capital and of labor are the results of the economic movement of the age, but neither must be permitted to infringe upon the rights and interests of the people. Such combinations, when lawfully formed for lawful purposes, are alike entitled to the protection of the laws, but both are subject to the laws and neither can be permitted to break them
The great statesman and patriotic American, William McKinley, who was re-elected by the Republican party to the Presidency four years ago, was assassinated just at the threshold of his second term. The entire nation mourned his untimely death and did that justice to his great qualities of mind and character which history will confirm and repeat.
The American people were fortunate in his successor, to whom they turned with a trust and confidence which have been fully justified. President Roosevelt brought to the great responsibilities thus sadly forced upon him a clear head a brave heart, an earnest patriotism, and high ideals of public duty and public service. True to the principles of the Republican party and to the policies which that party had declared, he has also shown himself ready for every emergency and has met new and vital questions with ability and with success.
The confidence of the people in his justice, inspired by his public career, enabled him to render personally an inestimable service to the country by bringing about a settlement of the coal strike, which threatened such disastrous results at the opening of winter in 1902.
Our foreign policy under his adminstration has not only been able, vigorous, and dignified, but in the highest degree successful.
The complicated questions which arose in Venezuela were settled in such a way by President Roosevelt that the Monroe doctrine was signally vindicated and the cause of peace and arbitration greatly advanced.
His prompt and vigorous action in Panama, which we commend.
in the highest terms, not only secured to us the canal route, but avoided foreign complications which might have been of a very serious character.
He has continued the policy of President McKinley in the Orient, and our position in China, signalized by our recent commercial treaty with that empire, has never been so high.
He secured the tribunal by which the vexed and perilous question of the Alaskan boundary was finally settled.
Whenever crimes against humanity have been perpetrated which have shocked our people, his protest has been made, and our good offices have been tendered, but always with due regard to international obligations.
Under his guidance we find ourselves at peace with all the world, and never were we more respected or our wishes more regarded by foreign nations.
Pre-eminently successful in regard to our foreign relations he has been equally fortunate in dealing with domestic questions. The country has known that the public credit and the national currency were absolutely safe in the hands of his administration. In the enforcement of the laws he has shown not only courage but the wisdomn which understands that to permit laws to be violated or disregarded opens the door to anarchy, while the just enforcement of the law is the soundest conservatism. He has held firmly to the fundamental American doctrine that all men must obey the law; that there must be no distinction between rich and poor, between strong and weak, but that justice and equal protection under the law must be secured to every citizen without regard to race, creed, or condition.
His administration has been throughout vigorous and honorable, high-minded and patriotic. We commend it without reservation to the considerate judgment of the American people.
The Democratic paarty of the United States, in national convention assembled, declares its devotion to the essential principles of the Democratic faith which bring us together in party communion.
Under these principles, local self-government and national unity and prosperity were alike established. They underlaid
our independence, the structure of our free republic, and every Democratic expansion from Louisiana to California, and Texas to Oregon, which preserved faithfully in all the States the tie between taxation and representation. They yet inspirit the masses of our people, regarding jealously their rights and liberties, and cherishing their fraternity, peace, and orderly development. They remind us of our duties and responsibilities as citizens, and impress upon us, particularly at this time, the necessity of reform and the rescue of the administration of government from the headstrong, arbitrary, and spasmodic methods which distract business by uncertainty, and prevade the public mind with dread, distrust, and perturbation.
The application of these fudimental principles to the living issues of the day constitutes the first step toward the assured peace, safety, and progress of our nation. Freedom of the press, of conscience, and of speech; equality before the law of all citizens; right of trail by jury; freedom of the person defended by the writ of habeas corpus; liberty of personal contract untrammeled by sumptuary laws; supremacy of the civil over military authority; a well disciplined militia; the seperation of church and state; economy in expenditures; low taxes, that labor may be lightly burdened; fidelity to treaties; peace and friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none; absolute acquiescence in the will of the mojority, the vital principle of republics--these are doctrines which Democracy has established as proverbs of the nation, and they should be constantly invoked and enforced.
Large reductions can easily be made in the annual expenditures of the government without impairing the efficiency of any branch of the public service, and we shall insist upon the strictest economy and frugality compatible with vigorous and efficient civil, military, and naval administration as a right of the people too clear to be denied or withheld.
We favor the enforcement of honesty in the public service, and to that end through legislative investigation of those executive departments of the government already known to them with corruption, as well as other departments suspected of harboring corruption, and the punishment of ascertained corruptionists without fear or favor or regard to persons.
The persistent and deliberate refusal of both the Senate and House of Representatives to permit such investigation to be made demonstrates that only by a change in the executive and in the legislative departments can complete exposure, punishment, and correction be obtained.
We condemn the action of the Republican party in Congress in refusing to prohibit an executive department from entering into conthracts with convicted trusts or unlawful combinations in restraint of interstate trade. We belive that one of the best methods of procuring economy and honesty in the public service is to have public officials, from the occupant of the White House down to the lowest of them, returned as nearly as may be, to Jeffersonian simplicity of living.
We favor the nomination and election of a President imbued with the principles of the Constitution who will set his face sternly against Executive usurpation of legislative and judicial functions, whether that usurpation be veiled under the guise of Executive construction of existing laws, or whether it take refuge in the tyrant's pleas of necessity, or superior wisdom.
We favor the preservation, so far as we can, of an open door for the world's commerce in the Orient, without an unnecessary entanglement in Oriential and European affairs and without arbitrary, unlimited, irresponsible, and absolute government anywhere within our jurisdiction. We oppose, as fervently as did George Washington, an indefinite, irresponsible, discretionary and vague absolutism and policy of colonial exploitation, no matter where or by whom invoked or exercised; we believe with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, that no government has a right to make one set of laws for those "at home," and another and a different set of laws, absolute in their charater, for those "in the colonies." All men under the American flag are entitled to the protection of the institutions whose emblem the flag is; if they are nherently unfit for those institutions then they are inherently unfit to members of the American body politic. Wherever there may exist a people incapable of being governed under American laws, in consonance with the American
constitution, the territory of that people ought not to be part of the American domain.
We insist that we ought to do for the Filipinos what we have done already for the Cubans, and it is our duty to make that promise now and upon suitable guarantees of protection to citizens of our own and other countries resident there at the time of our withdrawal, set the Filipino people upon their feet, free and independent to work out their own destiny.
The endeavor of the Secretary of War, by pledging the government's indorsement for "promotors" in the Philippine Islands to make the United States a partner in the speculative exploitation of the archipelago, which was only temporarily held up by the opposition of the Democracit Senators in the last session, will, if succcessful, lead to entanglements from which it will be difficult to escape.
The Democratic party has been, and will continue to be, the consistent opponent of that class of tariff legislation by which certain interests have been permitted, through Congressional favor, to draw a heavy tribute from the American people. This monstrous perversion of those equal opportunities which our political institutions were established to secure has caused what may once have been infant industries to become the greatest combinations of capital that the world has ever known. These especial favorites of the government have, through trust methods, been converted into monopolies, thus bringing to an end domestic competition, which was the only alleged check upon the extravagant profits made possible by the protective system. These industrial combinations, by the financial assistance they can give, now control the policy of the republican party.
We denounce protectionism as a robbery of the many to enrich the few, and we favor a tariff limited to the needs of the government, economically, effectively, and constitutionally administered, and so levied as not to discriminate against any industry, class, or section, to the end that the burdens of taxation shall be distributed as equally as possible.
We favor a revision and a gradual reduction of the tariff by the friends of the masses and for the common weal, and not by the friends of its abuses, its extortions, and its discriminations, keeping in view the ultimate end of "equality of burdens and equality of opportunities" and the constitutional purpose of raising a revenue by taxation towit, the
support of the Federal government in all its intergrity and virility, but in simplicity.
We recognize that the gigantic trusts and combinations designed to enable capital to secure more than its just share of the joint products of capital and labor, and which have been fostered and promoted under Republican rule, are a menace to beneficail competition and an obstacle to permanent business prosperity. A private monopoly indefensible and intolerable.
Individual equality of opportunity and free competition are essential to healthy and permanent commercial prosperity and any trust, combination, or monopoly tending to destroy these by controlling production, restricting competition, or fixing prices and wages should be prohibited and punished by law. We especially denounce rebates and discrimination by transportation companies as the most potent agency in promoting and strengthening these unlawful conspiracies against trade.
We demand an enlargement of the two powers of the Interstate-Commerce Commission, to the end that the traveling public and shippers of this country may have prompt and adequate relief from the abuses to which they are subject in the matter of transportation. We demand a strict enforcement of existing civil and criminal statutes against all such trusts, combinations, and monopolies; and we demand the enactment of such further legislation as may be necessary to effectually suppress them.
Any trust or unlawful combination engaged in interstate commerce which is monopolizing any branch of business or production should not be permitted to transact business outside of the State of its origin. Whenever it shall be established in any court of competent jurisdiction that such monopolization exists, such prohibition shoudl be enforced through comprehensive laws to be enacted on the subject.
We favor enactment and administration of laws giving labor and capital impartially their just rights. Capital and labor ought not to be enemies. Each is necessary to the other Each has its rights, but the rights of labor are certainly no less "vested," no less "sacred," and no less "inalienable" than the rights of capital.
We favor arbitration of differences between corporate employers
and their employees, and a strict enforcement of the eight-hour law on all government work.
We approve the measure, which passed the United States Senate in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused to enact, relating to contempt in Federal courts, and providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt.
Constitutional guaranties are violated whenever any citizen is denied the right to labor, acquire and enjoy property, or reside where interests or inclination may determine. Any denial thereof by individuals, organizations, or governments should be summarily rebuked and punished.
We deny the right of any Executive to disregard or suspend any constitutional privilige or limitation. Obedience to the laws and respect for their requirements are alike the supreme duty of the citizen and the official.
The military should be used only to support and maintain the law. We unqualifiedly condemn its employment for the summary banishment of citizens without trial at or for the conthrol of elections.
We favor liberal appropriations for the care and improvement of the waterways of the country. When any waterway, like the Mississippi River, is of sufficient importance to demand special aid of the government, such aid should be extended with a difinite plan of continuous work until permanent improvement is secured.
We oppose the Republican policy of starving home development in order to feed the greed for conquest and the appetite for national "prestige" and display of strength.
Reclamation of Arid Lands and Domestic Development.
We congratulate our Western citizens upon the passing of the measure known as the new lands irrigation act for the irrigation and reclamation of the arid lands of the West; a measure framed by a Democratic, passed in the Senate by a non-partism vote, and passed in the House against the opposition of almost all the Republican leaders by a vote the majority of which was Democratic.
We call attention to this great Democratic measure, broad and comprehensive as it is, working automatically througout all time without further action of Congress, until the reclamation of all the lands in the arid West capable of reclamation. is accomplished, reserving the lands reclaimed for homeseekers
in small tracts, and rigidly gaurding against land monopoly, as an evidence of the policy of domestic development contemplated by the Democratic party, should it be placed in power.
The Democracy, when intrusted with power, will constuct the Panama Canal speedily, honestly, and economically, thereby giving to our people what Democrats have always contended for--a great inter-oceanic canal, furnishing shorter and cheaper lines of transportation, and broader and less trammeled trade relations with the other peoples of the world.
We pledge ourselves to insist upon the just and lawful protection of our citizens at home and abroad, and to use all proper measures to secure for them, whether native born or naturalized, and without distinction of race or creed, the equal protection of laws and the enjoyment of all rights and privileges open to them under the covenants of our treaties of friendship and comerce; and if under existing treaties the right of travel and sojourn is denied to American citizens or recognition is withheld from Amercan passports by any countries on the ground of race or creed, we favor the beginning of negitiations with the government of such countries to secure by new treaties the removal of these unjust discriminations.
We demand that all over the world a duly authenticated passport issued by the government of the United States to an American citizen shall be proof of the fact that he is an American citizen and shall entitle him to the treatment due him as such.
We favor the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people.
We favor the admission of the Territories of Oklahoma and Indian Territory. We also favor the immediate admission of Arizona and New Mexico as seperate States and a Territorial government for Alaska and Porto Rico.
We hold that the officials appointed to administer the government of any Territory, as well as with the district of Alaska should be bona fide residents at the time of their appointment
of the Territory or district in which their duties are to be performed.
We demand the extermination of polybamy within the jurisdiction of the United States and the complete seperation of church and state in political affairs.
We denounce the ship subsidy bill recently passed by the United States Senate as an iniquitous appropriation of public funds for private purposes, and a wasteful, illogical, and useless attempts to overcome by subsidy the obstructions raised by Republican legislation to the growth and development of American commerce on the sea.
We favor the upholding of a merchant marine without new or additional burdens upon the people and without bounties from the public Treasury.
We favor the upbuilding of a marchant marine without new peoples of other countries where they can be entered into with benefit to American agriculture, manufactures, mining, or commerce.
We favor the maintenance of the Monrre doctrine in its full intergrity.
We favor the reduction of the army and of army expenditures to the point historically demonstrated to be safe and sufficient.
The Democracy would secure to the surviving soldiers and sailors and their dependants generous pensions, not by an arbitrary Executive order, but by legislation, which a greatful people stand ready to enact.
Our soldiers and sailors who defend with their lives the Constitution and the laws have a sacred interest in their just administration. They must, therefore, share with us the humiliation with which we have witnessed the exaltation of court favorites, without distinguished service, over the sacred heroes of many battles; or aggrandizement by Executive appropriations out of the treasuries of prostrate peoples in violation of the act of Congress which fixed the compensation of allawances of the military officers.
The Democratic party stands committed to the principle of civil service reform, and we demand its honest, just, and impartial enforcement.
We denounce the Republican party for its continuous and sinister encroachments upon the spirit and operation of civil-service rules, whereby it has arbitrary dispensed with examinations for office in the interests of favorties and employed all manner of devices to overreach and set aside the principles upon which the civil service was based.
The race question has brought countless woes to this country. The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that it brings no more.
To revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. North, South, East, and West have but recently stood together in line of battle from the walls of Peking to the hills of Santiago, and as sharers of a common glory and a common destiny we should share fraternally the common burdens.
We therfore deprecate and condemn the Bourbon-like, selfish, and narrow spirit of the recent Republican convention at Chicago, which sought to kindle anew the embers of racial and sectional strife, and we appeal fro mit to the sober, common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people.
The existing Republican administration has been spasmodic, erratic, sensational, spectacular, and arbitrary. It has made itself a satire upon the Congress, courts, and upon the settled practices and usage of national and international law.
It summoned the Congress in hasty and futile extra session, and virtually adjourned it, leaving behind its flight from Washington uncalled calendars and unaccomplished tasks.
It made war, which is the sole power of Congress, without its authority, thereby usurping one of its fundamental prerogatives. It violated a plain statute of the United States as well as plain treaty obligations, international usages and constitutional law; and has done so under pretense of executing a great public policy which could have been more easily effected lawfully, constitutionally, and with honor.
It forced strained and unnatural constructions upon statutes, usurping judicial interpretation, and substituting for Congressional enactment Executive decree.
It withdrew from the Congress its customary duties of investigation, which have theretofore made the representatives of the people and the States the terror of evil doers.
It conducted a secretive investigation of its own, and boasting of a few sample convicts, it threw a broad coverlet over the bureaus which has been their chosen field of operative abuses and kept in power the superior officers under whose administration the crimes had been committed.
It ordered assault upon some monopolies, but, paralyzed by its first victory, it flung out the flag of truce and cried out that it would not "run amuck"--leaving its future purposes beclouded by its vacillations.
Conducting the campaign upon this declaration of our principles and purposes, we invoke for our candidates the support not only of our great and time-honored organization, but also the active assistance of all of our fellow-citizens, who disregarding past differences, desire the perpetuation of our constitutional government, as framed and established by the fathers of the Republic.
Judge Parker's telegram to the St. Louis convention stated that he regards "the gold standard as firmly and irrevocably establisehd and shall act accordingly."
How little he is in accord with his party on this subject is shown not only by the fact that the convention declined both before and after his telegram to repudiate in any way the silver platform of 1896 and 1900, but is also shown by the vote of the Democratic party in Congress on the act establishing the gold standard. That measure was passed in the House of Representatives December 18, 1899; was amended in the Senate and passed February 15, 1900, and the conference report which presented the bill in the form in which it became a law was voted upon in the Senate March 6, 1900. The votes on this measure at its various stages are summarized
by Representative T. C. McRae, of Arkansas, a Democrat, on pages 3034 and 3035 of the daily Congressional Record of March 14, 1900. (page 2842 of bound record) as follows:
The vote against the bill on its original passage in the House on December 18, 1899, with the policies of each member as stated in the Congressional Directory for 1900, is summarized in the Congressional Record of March 14, 1900, by Hon. Thomas C. McRae, a Democratic Congressman from Arkansas, as follows:
The vote against the bill on its original passage in the Senate, February 15, 1900, and the politics of each Senator, were as follows:
Even the Democratic Representatives in the New England and Middle States which now pose as supporters of the gold standard voted generally against the act establishing the gold standard.
That is the record of the vote in Congress on the gold standard act by the party whose newspapers and Presidential caididate are now trying to make people believe that it is a gold standard party or that it is abandoning in any way its opposition to the gold standard.
The people are more heavily taxed for public education than for any other purpose. They are more vitally interested in the government and management of their public schools than any other department of the State government. The parents must entrust their children to the teacher, who is the mental and moral instructor, and for the time being stands in the place of the parent. The people therefore are more deeply concerned in the management of these schools, and the selection of these teachers, who are to shape the lives and character of their children, than in the selection of all other County and State officials combined. These children are soon to make and governtheState, and strange to say, the fathers and mothers of these children, who pay the taxes and support these schools, have no voice whatever in the management of the public schools, and little to say as to who shall teach their children.
More sacred and important to the people, than the Governor, the Judge, the Sheriff and the members of the Legislature, are the school officials, which embraces the County Board of Education, the County Superintendent and the district school committeemen. The people are careful to provide for the election of their County and State officers, and even their township magistrates, whoes chief duties are to act as Road Supervisors and to bind over criminals to court, but the sacred duties of school committeemen and school boards, and School Superintendents, who are the custodians of the mental and moral developement of our children, upon which depends the sanctity of our homes and the welfare of our State, are taken away from the people; and they have no
voice in their selection. This is Democratic Good Government for North Carolina!
These important school officials are selected as follows:
The chairman of the Executive committee of the Democratic Party in each County, recommends to the Legislature the men he desires to constitute the County Board of Education. These men are invariably appointed by a Democratic Legislature sorely on this recommendation. This Board thus appointed, then selects a County Superintendent of public schools. Then the County Board of Education and, the County Superintendent selects all the school Committeemen in the County. This is true in every County in the State, except two or three, which demanded of the last Legislature that they be allowed to elect these officials. Every Republican County in the State made the same demand of the last Legislature for their County to be allowed to elect its school officials, but this demand was turned down, but however was granted to a few Democratic Counties, who threatened to turn Republican if it was not done.
There is not a Republican School Committeeman in North Carolina to-day, to the knowledge of this writer, yet the party cast at the last election 82,000 white votes, men who are as honest, patriotic and liberty-loving as any people on earth, and men who have done more for education in North Carolina, for the money expended, than was ever done by the Democratic Party. To deprive the people of the opportunity of electing their school officials, and to place this sacred and enormous responsibility in the hands of one man, who may chance to be the chairman of a Political Party in the County is contrary to the principles of local self government, and subversive of the best interest of public education in the County and State. We now recall that the Chairman of the executive committee of the Democratic Party in one of the largest Counties in this State, is and has been for some time a clerk in a livery stable, yet he appoints the County Board of Education, and they in turn appoint all the other school officials in the county, and more money from the peoples' taxes are placed in the hands of these partisan apopintees to be expended each year than is expended by the county for all othr purposes combined, and then the state school officials complain that the people refuse to vote for local taxation for public schools, and thereby refuse to place more of their money in the hands of teachers and school officials whom they
are not allowed to select. Two-fifths of all the taxes in the state are paid by the Republicans. Two-fifths of all the school children in the state have Republican parents, yet there is not a Republican school committeeman in the State. In many of the large Republican Counties there are barely enough Democrats in some townships to fill these positions, yet incompetent men are often selected, and sometimes without character or intelligence, simply because they are Democrats. The substantial citizens of the community who own the property, and furnishes the children for the public schools, are given no recognition by the County Schools Board, and therefore have no voice in the selection of the officials who expend their taxes, or in the teachers who instruct their children.; and yet the department of Education at Raleigh and the State Superintendent, who are parties to this dishonest and undemocratic school machinery appear to lament that our state stands near the foot of the list in the scale of illiteracy, and wonder why the people will not support the schools better, and why they will not lengthen their terms by local taxation. The explanation is easy, and they have been told the trouble and how to remedy it, but rather than give up their miserable system of political appointment of the public school officials and thereby relinquishing the power of the political machine, they allow the schools to suffer and the state as well. What the people would do themselves by economic management and local taxation, they prefer to do by increase tax and loans and bonds and a large annual appropriation from a depleted State Treasury.
A prominent member of the State Executive Committee of the Democratic Party appeared before the committee on education during the last legislature and asked to be allowed to name the County Board of Education for his county, as the present Democratic Board for his coutny, which was oppointed by the legislature of 1903, was incompetent. He stated to the committee that the Legislature of 1903 appointed this Board over the protest of the best people of his county. and at the request of a Democratic member of the Legislature who did not live even in his county, or in an adjoining county, and the board which he had appointed, and which served for two years, was composed of three men, designated by him as follows: One was an ordinary white man with no special qualifications; another was a negro, and the third member of the board had been dead twelve months
before he was appointed. Those three men were the legal guardians and dirctors of the schools of one of the best counties in North Carolina from 1903 to 1905, as the result of a vicious and partisan appointive system that has no place in a republican form of government, and should be speedily uprooted by the people of North Carolina.
The Republican Party is pledged to do this if entrusted with the management of our state government, and until this is done we shall expect to see little progress made educationally in our state.
Too much money expended for school officers and school machinery
that should be used to educate our children.
The school fund has increased 300 per cent. in ten years, but
the school term has increased only about 25 per cent.
Bad management, extravagance and incompetency in our public
schools by Democratic officials.
The people of North Carolina are pledged, through their state Constitution, to a four-months public school term, and they are willing to be taxed without stint for that purpose, but they want these taxes equitably and economically expended. The public school fund now amounts to over two millions of dollars annually, which is by the largest fund which the peopde are required to pay for any one purpose in the state, and they are especially desirous that this vast sum shall be so expended as to give us the longest school term possible in order that the children of the State may be the chief beneficiaries of the people's taxes and not the numerous school officials who dispense this fund.
It is necessary to have proper supervision of our schools and these officials should be paid an amount commensurate with their work, but the expenditures for this purpose should not increase year after year faster than the school term increases, for the children, and not the distributors of the school fund, are the special objects for which these taxes and appropriations are procured.
Too much money has been spent in the recent past in our
State, in the name of public education under the list "other purposes" and not enough has been expended directly for the education of our school children.
The money now being expended annually for our public schools, including State and local taxes and the $200,000 appropriation, should in my judgment, give us a six months school term over the state instead of the seventeen weeks which we now have.
State Superintendent Scarborough, in his recommendations to the legislature of 1905, found on the first page of his biennial report, says: "The total receipts as reported by the county treasurers for schools for the school year 1893-'94, were $777,079.29. This sum as shown by the reports of the county superintendents, gave for the same year a fraction less than thirteen weeks. This falls short of four months by over sixteen days. A calculation will show that the sum of $12,500 is required for one day. Multiply by sixteen and we have $200,000 needed to carry the schools eighty days." It therefore apepars from the estimates made by Superintendent Scarborough in 1894, that $977,079.29 was the amount required to furnish the children of the state a four months school term.
In 1905 the available public school fund was $2,308,728.98, or about three times as much as it was in 1894, and about two and one-half times as much as Supt. Scarborough stated in his official report was necessary to give the public schools a four months term all over the state. If $977,079.29 was all the money that was needed in 1894 to give us eighty days or four months school, then why did the present school officials of the state expend in 1905 the sum of $2,308,729.98 and only give us eighty-five days school term.
The reports show that since 1894 the number of school has only increased ten per cent., and the salary of the teachers has increased less than sixteen per cent., but that the school fund has increased nearly 300 per cent. It therefore appears that "other expenses" which include all other items of expenditures, which do not go directly to the childrens' education, have consumed the greater part of this increase in the school fund since that date.
The following information gathered from the bi-ennial reports of our State Superintendents will throw some light
on the suggestions above, and will prove interesting to all friends of public education.
|Year||School fund||School term||Cost per day|
|1884||$580,311.61||57 1-2 days||$10,000.|
|1903||1,584,222.13||83 1-2 days||19,000.|
The above table shows that it cost in 1905 two and one-half times as much to run the public schools a day as it did in 1884, and nearly twice as much as it did during the period that the republicans were in power in the state between 1896 and 1900. It shows that the school fund in 1905 was about two and one-half times as much as it was from 1896 to 1900, yet the school term was only about one-seventh longer.
The following table will give the number of children in the State of school age for the years named:
The above table shows that the number of school children have increased only about 30 per cent. since 1884, and we have shown above that the cost per day has increased more than 150 per cent. and the school fund has increased more than 300 per cent. It shows also that the number of children have increased only about ten per cent. since 1898, but the cost per day to run the schools has increased from $14,120 to $25,961.50, or about 90 per cent. and that the school fund has increased from $988,409.11 to $2,308,728.98,
or about 250 per cent. We give below the average salary of the public school teachers, white and colored for 1886, 1900 and 1905, as follows:
In 1886 the white teachers received $25.00 per month and the colored teachers $22.50per month, in 1900 white teachers received $24.78 and colored teachers received $20.48. In 1905 the white teachers received $28.80 and the colored teachers $22.20 per month. It will be observed that the salary of the colored teachers have not increased since 1886, but have slightly decreased, and that the salary of the white teachers has increased only about 12 and one-half per cent. but the cost of each days schooling has increased about 150 per cent. and that the school fund has increased about 250 per cent.
Now let us compare the expenses of our public schools for the past five years.
|Year||For County Supts.||Pay and Expenses of County Board of Education.||Other Expenses.|
The above item of $27,650.92 for 1905 under the pay and expense of County Board of Education, includes an item of $10,599.42 expended for taking the school census. This is an additional item of expense added by recent democratic legislation, for prior to 1900, no school committeeman ever thought of charging for taking the census of the school children in his district, but was glad to contribute that much toward public education in his county.
The above table furnishes us interesting information. It shows that County Superintendents got in 1905 more than two and one-half times as much as they did in 1899 and 1900, when the republicans were in power. It shows that the pay and expenses of the County Boards of Education is more than twice what it was at that time, and to include the cost of taking the census is more than three times what it was in 1899 and 1900, and that "Other Expenses" which embraced all items of expense not itemized, has grown from $40,744.41 to $81,723.33, in the short period of five years, under "Democrratic good government!"
In 1901 the number of public schools taught was 7,858. In 1902 the number of public schools taught was 7,888. In 1903 the number of public schools taught was 7,817. In 1905 the number of public schools taught was 7,578. Consequently there were not more schools taught in 1905 than in 1901, in fact fewer were taught, but the school fund in 1901 was $1,119,746.00 and the school term was 77 days. In 1905 the school fund was $2,308,728.98, or more than doubled and yet the school term was only 85 days. It therefore appears that the school fund in 1905 was $1,188,982.98 more than in 1901, and as there was only eight days more school term, it will be seen that each one of these eight days cost the tax payers of the state the sum of $148,622.87. We have shown above that the total cost of a days schooling in 1901 was only $14,500.00, and that in 1898 and 1900 it was only $14,120.00 per day, and these eight days should not have cost the state more than $113,000.00, yet the above figures show that these eight days under the economic management of our democratic school officials, did cost the state the magnificent sum of $1,188,982.98.
It is not strange that our state and county officials, who get the greater part of these increased expenditures, should grow enthusiastic over our progress in education. It will be observed that none of this enthusiasm comes from the school children, the teachers, or from the taxpayers.
The total school fund in 1898 was only $988,409.11 and the school term was 70 days. Now if you double this fund should it not give us 140 days school or seven months, yet in 1905 this sum was by increased taxes, higher assessments, loans and state appropriations more than doubled, and instead of our school term doubling, we now have only 85 days school and in many counties less than 80, which is the constitutional requirement.
These are strange figures, and it is hard to believe that all of this vast sum has been honestly expended, and especially since we recall that there were no more schools taught in the state, and that the increase in the salary of the teachers did not consume one tenth of this increased school fund.
Let us now recapitulate and make some strange observations from the figures we have given. In 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899, during the period that the republicans were in charge of the schools of the state, it cost the state of North Carolina about $14,000 a day to run the public schools
of the state. Under democratic rule in 1902 it cost $18,561.50 per day. In 1903 it cost $19,123.10. In 1904 it cost $22,367.75 and in 1905, it cost $25,961.50 per day to run the public schools in North Carolina one day. In other words it cost the state $11,961.50 more each day to run the public schools in 1905 under democratic management than it did in 1898 under republican management.
Listen again. In 1903 we had 16 and seven-tenths weeks school in the state,. In 1904 we had 17 weeks school, and in 1905 we had only 17 weeks school. Now let us see what this gain of three-tenths of a week or one and one-half days cost the state of North Carolina. In 1903 the school fund was $1,584,222.13, and in 1904 it was $1,901,237.29, making the increase in one year $317,015.16, and since this increase the school fund did not give us but one and one-half days more school term. It will be seen that the cost per day for this increase was $211,343.44. The official reports show that there were fewer schools taught in 1904 than in 1903. Comparing 1903 with 1905, we find that the school term is only one and one-half days longer in 1905, yet the school fund in 1903 was $1,584,222.13 and in 1905, it was $2,308,728.98, or an increase of $724,506.85 in the two years. This increase is nearly the total school fund in 1894 when we had 64 days school, yet in 1905, it did not increase the school term but one and one-half days.
By comparing 1904 with 1905 we find that the school fund increased in one year $307,591.69, yet the school term did not increase a day in the state. Strange figures these! What has been done with the people's money? We will leave it to democratic politicians to explain, we cannot. To throw some light on the question, let us examine the expense account of the Republican administration and the Democratic. The total expense, including salaries of county superintendents, County Institutes, Treasurers commissions, Board of Education, and all other purposes in 1898 was less than $90,000. These same expenses in 1903 were $168,840.21, and in 1904 they were $194,007.24, and in 1905 were $199,488.62. In other words, the running expenses, money which does not go into the schools, was over $109,000 more in 1905 than in 1898.
These items can be verified by reference to the last official report issued from the office of the State Superintendent.
Our political opponents quote Thomas Jefferson as being in favor of "equal rights for all and special privileges for none." I have never been able to verify the epigram as an exact quotation from Mr. Jefferson's writings, but it is quite likely that he said it. Most men before his time, and most men since, have been willing to subscribe to the same confession of faith. Our opponents use it, however, as an expression from Jefferson against protection, for they insist that all tariff laws, except for revenue only, are in the nature of class legislation.
I deny the proposition. It is no more class legislation to encourage industry by protecting the products of industry from competition with similar merchandise purchased abroad than it is class legislation to encourage agriculture by maintaining a Department of Agriculture with experiment stations and free distribution of seeds. It does not come as near being class legislation as the far-reaching policy of reclaiming portions of the arid belt by constructing irrigation reservoirs and canals from the proceeds of public lands.
The American people, widely scattered though they be, are so intimately connected in their business relations that no locality and no one industry can prosper except when all thrive and none can suffer except in periods of universal depression.
Not for the purpose of criticising our political opponents nor to call in question their intelligence, but for the purpose of teaching from experience as recorded in the history of this country, do I make the statement that the Democratic party on no previous occasion ever surrendered control of national affairs with conditions generally good and as favorable as when Grover Cleveland retired from office and William McKinley was inauguated on March 4, 1897. Do not misunderstand me. Times were good and conditions favorable during Mr. Cleveland's first administration for the Senate remained Republican during his entire first term, and no tariff legislation was enacted.
Andrew Jackson was first elected President in 1828, immediately following the enactment of a protective tariff law. This tariff law remained in force only five years, but you judge of the beneficial effects thereof from a single paragraph
contained in the message of President Jackson submitted in December, 1832. He says:
"Our country presents on all sides marks of prosperity and happiness unequaled perhaps in any portion of the world."
The next year, however, the author of this indorsement signed a tariff act which provided for a biennial reduction of one-tenth of all duties in excess of twenty per cent. so as to reduce the rate on articles to twenty per cent. at the expiration of ten years.
Within six years from the passage of this law public revenues had fallen off twenty-five per cent.; the Government was again borrowing money. Then it was that the country entered upon the worst panic period ever experienced in the memory of any man now living. This was the famous panic of 1837, which continued with increasing intensity until counteracted shortly after the passage of the protective tariff of 1842, following the victory of the Whig party.
If any of you young people doubt the severity of that panic, go to your library and get Colton's Life of Henry Clay. I quote from it as follows:
"In Ohio, with all her abundance, it was hard to get money to pay taxes. The Sheriff of Muskingum County, as stated in the Guernsey Times, in the summer of 1842, sold at auction ten hogs at 6 1-4 cents each; two horses at $2 each, and two cows at $1 each. In Pike County, Missouri, as stated by the Hannibal Journal, the sheriff sold three horses at $1.50 each; one large ox at 12 1-2 cents; five cows, two steers, and one calf, the lot at $3.25; twenty sheep at 13 1-2 cents each, and twenty-four hogs, the lot at 25 cents."
The protective tariff law passed by the Whig party in 1842, remained in force four years, and I can furnish no better evidence of its beneficial effect than to quote from the message of President Polk submitted to Congress in 1846:
"Labor in all its branches is receiving ample reward; while education, science, and the arts are rapidly enlarging the means of social happiness. The progress of our country in her career of greatness, not only in the vast extension of her population, but in the resources and wealth and in the happy condition of our people, is without an example in the history of nations."
This transition from the lowest ebb of financial disaster to a high plane of industrial prosperity brought about by the Whig tariff of 1842, as certified to by President Polk, bears
striking resemblance to the result wrought by the Dingley tariff, which found three million men out of employment, their families touched with hunger and clothed in rags, and in four years set them all again at work, and made fitting and appropriate the sign which swings above an employment agency in Pittsburg.--"Al kinds of work for all kinds of people."
It seems, however, that he people were even less able to bear continued prosperity then than now, for the Democratic Party was successful in 1844, electing James K. Polk, of Tennessee, and George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania. The platform was equivocal and campaign speeches more so. In Pennsylvania and perhaps some other States the cry was "Polk, Dallas, and the tariff of '42." In other States where protection was supposed to be unpopular, it was "Polk, Dallas, and free trade." The Democratic Party secured at that election complete control, and immediately proceeded to materially lower the tariff by the enactment of what is known as the Walker Bill which was passed in 1846. The Senate was about equally divided, and in that body debate became most interesting. Daniel Webster spoke against the bill for three days, and that you may understand how that great statesman viewed the effect of a protective tariff upon labor, I quote from his speech:
"And, sir, take this great truth; place it on the title page of every book of political economy intended for the use of the United States; put it in every farmer's alamnac; let it be the heading of the column of every mechanics' magazine; proclaim it everywhere, and make it a proverb that where there is work for the hands of men there will be work for their teeth. Employment feeds and clothes and instructs. Employment gives health, sobriety, and morals. Constant employment and well-paid labor produce, in a country like ours, general prosperity, content and cheerfulness."
The Democratic Party was not a unit in its favor, however. Senator John M. Niles, of Connecticut, a Democrat, made an important speech which would be applicable now as it was applicable then. It had been said by those who spoke in favor of the bill that a protective tariff created monopoly and enabled those benefited thereby to demand extortionate prices. In other words,th e same argument was used against the tariff then as is used against the tariff now. In Senator Nile's speech against his party's determination to interfere
with the then prosperous condition of the country by lowering the tariff, he used this language:
"Why disturb the business and pursuits of the people? Why unnecessarily agitate and alarm the country? * * * I have again and again asked for the reasons for passing this bill at this time, and could get no response, no reason. We now have one and what is it? Why, to curtail the profits of the large and wealthy manufacturers. But, sir, the fact is assumed; there is no evidence as to those large profits. But, admitting it to be so, will not competition correct the evils? Will it not bring down these enormous values? With an enterprising people like ours, will there not be enough to rush into any business which affords such enormous profits: But is not this something new? Is it not a strange reason? Can any example be found in the history of the world of a legislature passing laws to arrest the prosperity of the country, or to reduce the profits of any particular class of citizens in a pursuit open to all? Certainly, sir, this must be the great measure of the age, when we consider the great good it is to effect; when it is to stop individuals from getting rich too fast, and to check the prosperity of the country.
"The Senator says it will not affect the laborers, the mechanics, nor the small manufacturers. Now, how does he know this? I tell him he is mistaken; those are the very men on whom the blow will fall. You may diminish the profits of the large establishments some, but you can not crush them. They can stand by warding off the blow, and transferring the sacrifice to others. They have hundreds, and some thousands, of laborers in their employ, and they will save themselves by reducing the wages of those in their employ. The blow then falls directly upon the laborers.
"But how is it with the mechanics and small manufacturers? Those who do their own work, and perhaps employ a few apprentices? They must sustain the sacrifice themselves. They will not be able to sustain a competition with the large establishments. But why is this experiment to be tried? To see how much reduction labor will bear? Is it to carry out a theory? Is it to test the cold, heartless miserable theory of free trade?"
And now comes the interesting part of the controversy as it relates to North Carolina. Rather than vote for a bill that would close the New England factories which consumed cotton and furnished employment for labor in its conversion
into fabrics with which toclothe American people, Senator William H. Haywood, of this State, resigned his seat and retired to private life. He did not see his way clear to vote against his party, and he would not vote for what he believed to be a vicious bill.
In Senator Haywood's address to the people of his State while describing the effect of tariff legislation of the pending character he used this language:
"Infant factories are destroyed by the hand of legislation, and the older and more mature establishments are compelled to diminish their operations forthwith and consequently discharge a number of their laborers and reduce the wages of all. The laborers suffer more than the owners because they are less able to bear it. The sudden loss of work will be to many of them and their families a loss of food and raiment; and that for which the law maker is commanded to pray--his daily bread--he thus rudely takes by law from the workingman of his country."
The resignation of Senator Haywood left the opponents of the bill in control in the Senate, which would have defeated the measure had not Senator Spencer Jarnagin, of Tennessee, deemed himself bound by a resolution of the legislature of his State to vote against his convictions and for the bill.
The friends of free trade and tariff for revenue only have always cited conditions following the enactment of the Walker Bill, the law of 1846, in proof of their position that good times are possible with low tariff laws in force.
The Mexican War, the Crimean War, and the discovery of gold in California delayed ruin longer than usual after such reduction in the tariff, but some conception of its ultimate effect can be gleaned from the fact that in little more than a decade revenues had fallen so far below expenditures, that the Government was again forced to borrow money as it did the preceding period of Democratic supremacy. Its effect upon labor is graphically expressed in an address by unemployed men made to the Mayor of New York city on January 6, 1855. Listen to their cry:
"We do not come as beggars, but we ask what we deem right. We ask not alms, but work. We don't want a little soup now, and cast-off clothing to-morrow. But we do want work and the means of making an honest livelihood. The condition of the working classes is most piteous. They want
bread. Is there not enough in the city? They want clothes. Is there none made nowadays?"
On January 15th of that year Horace Greeley, in an editorial in the Tribune describes a pitiable sight in this language:
"Who is hungry? Go and see. You that are full-fed and know not what it is to be hungry--perhaps never saw a hungry man--go and see. Go and see the thousands of men and women, boys and girls, old and young, black and white, of all nations, crowding and jostling each other, almost fighting for a first chance, acting more like hungry wolves than human beings in a land of plenty, waiting till the food is ready for distribution. Such a scene may be seen every day between eleven and two o'clock around the corner of Orange and Chatham Streets, where charity gives a dinner to the poor, and soup and bread to others to carry to their miserable families."
He then cites several other places in the same ward where over six thousand were fed by charity every day, and says the same thing was going on all over the city.
The next Democratic tariff was the Wilson-Gorman law passed during Mr. Cleveland's last administration. If you do not personally remember the effect of this tariff reduction upon commerce and industrial conditions, ask your older brother. He will remember.
I presume you have been told, for it has been many times said, that the panic of the nineties came without cause, and bore no relation whatever to threatened economic legislation or actual enactment thereof. Doubtless your attention has been called to the fact that times remained good during Mr. Cleveland's first administration, and this has been cited to prove that it is immaterial which party controls the affairs of the Government, so long as the men in office are honest and are doing the best they can. Let me remind you that during Mr. Cleveland's first administration the Senate remained Republican and no tariff legislation, though earnestly urged by Mr. Cleveland, was enacted. The House, being Democratic, passed the Mills Bill, but the Senate refuesd to concur, and thereby saved the country from disaster such as always has followed and always must follow, the enactment of a tariff law for revenue only. Grover Cleveland was a free trader when first elected President and he has remained a free trader from that time till now. I do not
censure him for his belief. Other good and patriotic men have believed the samething. Other men with bright intellects have failed to analyze the question and appreciate the relation between constant employment for the wage earner and continued prosperity for those who supply the wants as well as the needs of the well paid artisans. Other men of learning have failed to understand cause and effect as shown in the record of our material growth and development.
The question for you young men to decide is not the relative intellect, the relative erudition, the relative wisdom, or the relative patriotism of Grover Cleveland and Wm. McKinley. It does involve, however, the relative merits of the two schools of economics, the one protection for American labor, the other, free trade, or tariff for revenue only.
Self-Government is the severest task which God in his wisdom ever placed upon his children. It took six thousand years to develope a people into whose hands He dared commit their own political affairs. The thought expressed in the Declaration of Independence that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of securing to all certain inalienable rights, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, was a novel and unheard of pronouncement. Ancient history, and much that is modern, conveys the idea that people exist for the sake of the government. That a government should exist for the benefit and in aid of the people, is a comparatively modern conception. Even now its theoretical recognition is far more prevalent throughout the world than its practical application.
Not all republics in name are republics in fact. In several those who have secured the executive chair by force of arms outnumber several fold those who have been elected to the office of President. Go put your finger on the map, and chances are you will find a people unprepared for self-government.
When our constitution was adopted, the world doubted the wisdom of the experiment. The world did not believe it possible than men differing in political thought would walk side by side to the polls, and there in peace cast opposing ballots, and then each demand for the other the same integrity of count as he asks for himself. In other words,
they thought this people, like so many others, would prove insufficient in self-poise and self-restraint to maintain and exercise self-government.
Statecraft is not an exact science, nor is it a natural attribute of the race. Neither would popular or univerasl scholastic attainments prove a complete guarantee of capacity for self-government. We send our children to the schools and spend much money in their education, in the hope that in after years they may be able to protect themselves in the market places. I declare to you that if the American people shall continue a great self-governing, self-governed people, they must spend some time in the study of statecraft.
We are a busy people--intensely busy. We are physically and mentally active--intensely active. Our thoughts our efforts and our dreams are centralized on our personal affairs--intensely centralized. We are benevolent and even altruistic in our affections and in the play of our religious emotions, but we plan and execute for ourselves and for ourselves alone. About the only time we study statecraft is during a political campaign, and not always then are our thoughts directed to public questions and to analyses of the principles underlying the administration of national affairs. Would it be safe to say that we place too great value on candidates and underestimate the importance of the principles of the parties as outlined in their platforms and exemplified in their records? Candidates are relatively nothing as compared to the principles of the parties they represent.
In a republic like this, government of necessity must be by parties rather than by individuals. We read that in olden times certain countries prospered--advanced--under the rulership of this monarch and that emperor, and languished--retrograded--under the reign of others. We know that his country has prospered during certain periods, and that it has languished--retrograded--during other periods. Why? Can the cause be traced to the chief executive? Perhaps so in a limited degree. Can it be traced primarily to the party in power? I think it can both primarily and principally.
Was it by accident that Israel grew fat under David and went to pieces under Ahab? Was it by accident that Russia prospered under the reign of Peter the Great, or that she has not always prospered since? Was it by accident that 1892 was the best year this country had then ever seen, and
that two years later we were in the midst of financial ruin? Is it by accident that we are now more prosperous than ever before in the history of our country, or ever before in the history of any country?
The principles that control our national prosperity and advancement can be as well defined as those which determine the well being of an individual. There are principles and policies, which, if put in operation in the store, in the bank, in the factory, on the farm, will in the swing of years bring satisfactory results. And there are principles or the want of a principle, policies and plans or the absence of them, that will with equal certainty bring disaster to the store, to the bank, to the factory and to the farm. It is likewise true that there are principles, policies, which, if put in operation in national affairs always have brought, and always will and always must bring, favorable results. Not always in the same degree any more than wise policies will bring each year the same degree of success in the store and the same per cent. of dividend in the bank; but in the swing of years correct policies will bring satisfactory results in both private and public affairs. This is so, not because they are advocated by wise men, or because they are applied by good men, but because they are correct. There are policies also which, if put in operation in public affairs, always have brought, always will and always must bring, in the swing of years disaster. This is so not because they are advocated in ignorance, nor because they are applied in dishonesty, but because they are correct. Incorrect policies can never bring correct results.
Have I been talking platitudes? In exactly the same sense and to the same degree is it platitudinous to say that there are correct and incorrect ways of managing governmental affairs as it is platitudinous to tell the young man in the business college, the young man in the factory, the young man in the bank and the boy on the farm that there are correct and incorrect ways of managing private affairs.
Let me emphasize the fact that it is of vastly more importance to know along what lines, and in harmony with what principles, the applicants for public honors will proceed, than it is to know the physical or mental make-up of the men themselves.
Do you say that wise men will manage the government wisely? Yes, but only to the same extent that wise men will
manage your bank wisely. When you seek a cashier, you do not advertise for a wise man or simply for a good man. You seek one schooled in correct banking principles. Vastly more banks are wrecked because of incompetency than from dishonesty. This country has never suffered--it has occasionally lost slightly--but it has never suffered from dishonesty. It has suffered, however, and our people have walked the streets hungry and in rags because of incompetency. I am here to say to you that we need and must have men schooled in correct political principles to manage national affairs, and that we also need an aggregation of such men, for in the absence of co-operation along given lines between the legislative and the administrative branches of the government we will have incoherency instead of constructive statemanship. We must place a political party in power as distinguished from putting politicians in office.
Now, if I have made myself clear that politics is not a squabble for office, but a contest between principles represented by opposing parties, then I am ready to discuss the correctness and incorrectness of party principles.
Sceretary Shaw replying to Mr. Bryan's Declaration in favor of Government Ownership said at Memhpis Tenn. Sept 16.
Of his speech four columns out of a total seven, are devoted to trusts, in which term, in its comprehensive sense, he includes railroad abuses and even the protective tariff. Dismissing three and one-half columns of sympathy expressed for a corporation beridden people and of anathemas hurled against predatory capital, and confining myself to the scant one-half column wherein he mentions rather than discusses measures of relief, I find this sentence: "We must not quarrel over remedies." He then suggests that something may be expected from the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Sherman anti-trust law. While the effect of a criminal conviction, followed by imprisonment, is always wholesome, it is well for us who analyze the practicability of proposed remedies to remember that the civil provisions of the anti-trust law can be established and enforced by a mere preponderance of evidence, while no punishment for crime
can be imposed until the essential facts constituting the crime are proven beyond a reasonable doubt as found and returned in the verdict of the jury. The difficulty in enforcing the Sherman act does not lie so much in applying its previous after the case has been proven as in obtaining evidence sufficient to prove the case.
He then boldly states that the enforcement of existing laws is not sufficient, and adds, "The Democratic Party must be prepared to propose new and efficient legislation," and proceeds to suggest what has often been suggested before:
"It is worth while," he says, "to consider whether a blow may not be struck at trusts by a law making it illegal for the same person to act as director and officer of two corporations which deal with each other or are engaged in the same general business."
I suppose he means to say that if I should buy a portion of the wonderful iron ore beds of Alabama, or of the matchless one of the matchless marble deposits of Colorado, or of the coal of Wyoming, or of oil lands in Texas, and for their development should build a railroad, having promoted both enterprises and having invested money in each, I should not be permitted to be a director in more than one. It is one thing to limit a common carrier to the particular line of business for which it was primarily organized, as is done in the rate bill enacted at last session of Congress, and quite another thing to restrict what some understand to be the natural right of the individual to invest his money wherever he pleases, provided only he does not interfere with or restrict the rights and privileges of others, and then, having made the investment, to stand guard over it. Andrew Carnegie is quoted as advising one to put all his wages in one basket and then watch that basket. Colonel Bryan is the first, so far as I know, to advocate a law forbidding one to put eggs in two baskets and then watch both.
Thomas Jefferson, on whose teachings Democrats once claimed their party to have been founded, incorporated into the Declaration of Independence the proposition that "the pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right. Not until happiness is pursed in a way which interferes with the rights and happiness of another should such pursuits be restrained. Notwithstanding Mr. Bryan's statement, made in the same
connection, that most corporations are conducting their affairs in a legitimate manner he would legislate against the many in the hope of preventng improper conduct on the part of a few. If he had one kicking colt I suppose he would hamstring his whole drove.
Pardon the suggestion that the eloquent traveler, having been for some years largely occupied in the discharge of other than executive, administrative, judicial, or even legislative functions, may have omitted carefully to study and analyze existing laws. If a person becomes a director in even one concern, say nothing of two, with intent to monopolize a product and control the price thereof to the prejudice of others engaged in the same line of business, he violates both the civil and criminal provisions of the existing Sherman law. Prohibiting a man from doing an innocent thing in an innocent way appears to me to be an unnecessarily drastic method of preventing on objectionable thing already prohibited by existing statutes and easily enforced when the essential facts can be proved.
Mr. Bryan then reverts to the Democratic platform of 1900, and announces "as a still more far-reaching remedy," a law requiring corporations to take out a Federal license before engaging in inter-State commerce, and adds that this remedy is simple and easily applied." He further says:
"It is far easier to prevent a monopoly than to watch it and punish it, and this prevention can be acomplished 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 arbitarrily fixed at a point which will give free operation to competition."
Thus he has found a remedy which he asserts is "simple and easily applied," and one that will "accomplish the prevention of monopoly." He spurns the thought of controlling, curbing or restraining the evil, but proposes a single enactment absolutely to exterminate the last suggestion of ravage on the part of predatory capital. Will his panacea stand analysis? Let us see.
Some years ago my attention was called to what was then at least supposed to be the salt trust. Whether I was rightly informed or not affects in no degree the value of the alleged conditionns as an illustration. I was told that a corporation of large capitalization had contracted for the entire output of all the salt works of Michigan, and of all the salt
works of New York, and of all the salt works of every other State.
I assume that if a corporation thus owning or controlling an entire product should make application for a Federal license under Mr. Bryan's sure-cure-law it would be promptly denied. If refused a license it could not engage in inter-State commerce, and could not thereafter ship salt to Tennessee. But the people of Tennessee would still need salt. What would you do? Let me suggest that possibly Jones or some one else could be induced to buy a car load or so deliverable at one of the warehouses of the trust situated at some one of the salt works. Jones, of course, could ship salt to Tennessee, for no individual can be discriminated against simply because he buys salt of a trust. The result would be that the people of Tennessee would get the same salt with this difference, slight though it might be, of an additional profit to Jones. The danger would be that Jones being the only man with a carload of salt in the State might turn predatory capitalist himself and demand an unusally large profit. This danger would be increased if he should secure an exclusive contract from the trust. Let us hope for the best.
Two or three years ago I started at 5 o'clock one morning, from Deadwood, South Dakota, went thirty miles by train, and walked eigth to see a tin mine. It was said to be the only workable deposit of tin ever discovered in the United States. If this is true, then one corporation controls the entire output of tin in the United States, and would of course be denied a Federal license and could not, under Mr. Bryan's sure-cure-law, engage in inter-State commerce. Equally embarassed would be every other new industry, whether it be the production of newly discovered metal like tin on nickle or the growth of some new fruit or creal, or the manufacture of some newly patented device. "A license should be refused," says Mr. Bryan, to any corporation which controls more than a certain proportion of the total product."
Some corporation is quite certain to control for a time the entire product in every new industry.
Colonel Bryan's panacea may sound well in a democratic platform, at first blush it does not appear quite so inviting as a part of the statue law of the land.
Before the remedy afforded by Federal license can be applied either by refusal to grant or by cancellation after it has been granted, manifestly will be found necessary to establish the fact by competent evidence that the concern actually controlls or is seeking to control such portion of a commodity, whatever it may be, as well permit it at least to influence if not dictate the price. Under our jurisprudence no law can be passed that does not require the establishment of certain facts as a prerequisite to its enforcement. The Sherman anti-trust law has seldom, if ever, been found inadequate when there has been evidence sufficient to prove the monopolistic character of the methods employed by corporations engaged in inter-State commerce. Finding it difficult to obtain the necessary proof to make the existing anti-trust law in all cases effective, the Republican party created the bureau of corporations, which I regret to observe, Mr. Bryan has no word of praise, but which has been found very efficient in securing evidence with which to establish the facts on which to apply the law.
Colonel Bryan's comparison between the present effective prohibition of the transmission of lottery tickets through the mails, or by express or freight, with proposed legislation prohibiting the transportation of trust produced merchandise, apepars to me to have been ill-considered. It ought not to be necessary to cite to an intelligent audience the fact that a lottery ticket shows on its face what it is, while it requires evidence to show that a can of meat or a box of cigars or a barrel of oil was produced by a monopoly.
The returned champion of a new civilization then reverts to railroad abuses, and recommends that all trunk lines be acquired and managed by public officials, and local lines by the several states. "In those States where the people are ripe for change," he says, "the local lines can be purchased or new lines built at once." He frankly admits that the American people may not be ready for government ownership of trunk lines and State ownership of local lines, but he thinks both necessary and inevitable. He is not sure that a majority of his own party yet favors such a revolutionary measure, and he thus holds out to his political associates the hope that he may consent that the platform on which he is soon to make his third campaign shall be silent on that subject. He does not intimate, however, that he will consent to be himself silent on the subject after the convention adjourns
and certainly not during his term of office, if he should be elected. Having received popular endorsement at the polls, even though his known views were suppressed as much as possible, he sees the possibility of teaching the people from his thus enlarged form during his first term that he can win a second term on the main issue.
In his zeal to criticize recent legislation Colonel Bryan points out a possible danger applicable, however, to the new oredr of things which he recommends quite as much as to the rate bill against which he directs it.
"If an appointive board has the power," he says, "to fix rate 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 a large pecuniary interest in the election of a President friendly to the railroads?" If he were wholly frank, he might have said, and with greater force, "if an appointive board, removable by the Executive, can fix rates, and by the exercise of that power increase or decrease by hundreds of millions of dollars the revenues of the railroad, and can also increase or decrease, to the limit of judicial forbearance, the rates to be paid by each and every community between the seas may not some Executive who is both ambitious and unscrupulous, by the exercise of that imperialistic power, perpetuate himself in office to the day of his death, and then in effect bequeath to whom he will?" Possibly it was in part to prevent a contingency like this, then, perchance, some man of the type I have described, shall be elected President, a somewhat liberal court view was provided for in the rate bill.
Unless Colonel Bryan's fears that some chief executive may abuse the discretion lodged with him under the rate bill are groundless, then what might we not fear should the nearly ten thousand officials and nearly a million operatives of trunk lines of road be made either subject to executive appointment or placed under civil service, subject to executive removal for captious cause, or retention regardless of inefficiency?
Nor is this the sole objection. Not long ago the directors of a trunk line of railroad held their annual meeting. It finished its business at a single session, but before it adjourned,
it had appropriated $10,000,000 for extending its lines, increased its rolling stock, and bettering its track and terminal facilities. Howlong would it take Congress to appropriate $10,000,000 for a single road touching only six States when every State from Maine to Orgon and from Montana to the gulf was asking equal appropriations for the improvement of their facilities.
Say all we please against the influence of local interests, but the fact remains that no appropriation for the improvement of rivers and harbors, however, imperative, can be passed that does not widely scatter its bounty so as to include a few non-navigable streams and some other unnecessary improvements. No public building bill can be passed for the erection of a custom house, public store, or post office though its construction will save to the government in rent an amount in excess of the interest on the cost, that does not also provide for a few post offices in Democratic and Republican districts alike, where the cost of maintainance after erection exceeds the rental now paid for adequate quarters, and where the erection of a public building is an absolute waste of money. River and harbor bills and public building bills are non-Partisan measures. The opposition says much in platform and more from the stump in favor of economy, but when it comes to appropriations there is a remarkable non-partisan unanimity of opinion from every district likely to be rewarded. Knowing as I do that public revenues come very largely from the wealthy and well-to-do, and that expenditures for rivers and harbors and public buildings go almost entirely to labor, I do not wish this to be understood as the registration of an objection to the policy of internal improvements. I admit them to be against the teachings of Jefferson, and in the face of the early teachings of the Democratic party. But on the policy of centralization as well as on most other questions the party of Jefferson has wandered far.
If the trunk lines of railroad were once placed under the direct supervision and control of Congress, does any one suppose that one line could be double-tracked and rock-ballasted until facilities on every other line were made equally good? Would one road like the New York Central be given four tracks and cement and steal construction bridges while the Rock Island, with more mileage and touching territory having more votes in the House and several times as many votes in the Senate, has but a sngle track and crosses streams or
bridges with wooden piers? Would it be possible to have an hourly train service between New York and Philadelphia and between Chicago and Milwaukee, with parlor cars and diner sirvice, and have only two trains a day between the homes of several times as many Senators scattered between Seattle and St. Paul? Would it be possible to have through homes of several times as many Stnators scattered between Seattle and St. Paul? Would it be bossible to have t through fast train pass any town without stopping, and especially the home town of a congressman or senator?
There are over 20,000 publicservants, exclusive of Presidential appointees, under the direct supervision of the department at the head of which I have the honor to temporarily preside. They are a good, conscientious, pains-taking body of men and women, and yet if the Treasury Department were a private enterprise every whit as much work could be accomplished with a reduction of one-third in number and one-fourth in the salary of those remaining. This condition is not to be charged to civil service rules and regulations, of which I most heartily approve, but to the inherent nature of public service.
For four years I had the honor of being the ranking officer at the State House in Des Moines. At the beginning of my term we had no civil service rules, but conditions were just the same as in the Federal service.
Some years ago while walking through Lincoln Park, Chicago, I noticed a group of 25 or more men pushing lawn mowers. Stopping to make some inquiry of a policeman, I innocently asked why the city did not use mowers drawn by horses. I shall long remember his reply: I guess you don't live in Chicago, do you? How long do you think the city administration would live if it mowed the park with horses?"
The cornerstone of the city hall in Philadelphia was laid July4, 1874, but the building was not completed until during the first year of the present century. The capitol at Albany was begun in the sixties, it was far enough advanced to be the scene of an inaugural ball during the seventies, and was completed, all save the tower, for which the foundation was found insufficient, in 1899. In the meantime, the two great political parties alternated in control, and I am told in one or more instances four generations performed work on the building.
The appropriation for the public building in Chicago was signed by Grover Cleveland, and about sixty days ago I made final settlement and signed the draft for the last payment, and was then able to answer public criticism because the work had progressed so slowly with record proof that it had been about as expeditiously built as most structures of its character erected by the government.
Harlem river, extending from the Hudson to the East river, eight miles in length, was dredged by the government to a depth of fifteen feet in seventeen years.
Now note a few instances of private enterprise. In 1904, the Pennsylvania Railroad began the construction of twin tunnels through the mud beneath Hudson river, and four tunnels extending thence under the City of New York and beneath East river to Long Island City, and now at the end of two years feels confident that its fifteen miles of ninteen-foot water-proof tunnel will be completed and in use within the contract period of four years.
John B. McDonald began work on the subways of New York in March, 1900, and had nine miles with double track and stations in operation in four years and seven months.
These instances illustrate the natural, the necessary and the inevitable differences between private enterprise and government work, and might be multiplied definitely.
I do not know that I can explain the reasons why these differences must and always will exist better than to recite a very commonplace experience. I received a telegram some days ago from the cashier of a little bank in which I am interested. It read: "I am offered forty-two fifty an acre for your East Boyer land. What shall I do?" I answered, "You know better than I. Do as you think best." To this he replied, "I think the land is well sold." These telegrams were not even preserved. But if I had been acting for the government I would have had the land advertised for sale; I would have sent a commission to examine and appraise it; I would have had not less than two subordinate officers of the department go through all the papers and submit their recommendations; I would then render final decision, but I would have been careful to preserve a complete record of everything lest on some unhappy day after my retirement, and perhaps after my demise, an investigating committee, appointed per chance by an adverse Congress, would make inquiry, and failing to find positive proof
of honesty would make a report filled with suggestions of doubt and that would be quite enough to brand my name with shame. My subordinates take the same precaution and safeguard their reputations with an equal amount of red tape whenever they sell an old horse or worn-out piece of furniture.
For the last ten years the railroads of the United States have paid on the average a fraction over three per cent. in interest and dividends on their capitalization, including their bonded indebtedness. This would be about four and one-half per cent. on what it is estimated it would cost to rebuild the roads. Government bonds sufficient to cover the present purchasable value of the trunk lines of road or to construct new ones, could not be floated, free of the burden of taxation even, for less than four and one-half per cent. and under government management the roads could not pay two per cent. on the cost at present freight and passenger rates.
Last year the railroads of the country paid $54,000.000 in State, county, township and municipay taxes. Since government property is not subject to taxation of any kind, I fancy Colonel Bryan's scheme will develop some local opposition before the States surrender revenues averaging over $1,200.000 for each.
It is sometimes said in support of this proposed new civilization that the government does transport its mail and operate its postoffices and its subtreasuries. I reply that the government does not transport its mail. The mail is carried under contract, and whenever practicable contracts are let after advertising for sealed proposals. Astonishment is sometimes expressed at the cheapness with which the government carries and delivers its mails, and yet I am credibly advised than any express company would gladly contract to render the same service at a very substantial reduction from what it now cost, provided the government would continue to build postoffices in all the large cities and in many of the small towns and charge the cost thereof and the expense of maintenance to other independent appropriations as it does at present.
But it is one thing to have government servants handle the money at subtreasuries and pay it out as public administraion requires, and quite a different thing for the government to
operate banks, receive deposits, buy and sell exchange, and loan money on interest. The government does inspect and exercise jurisdiction over such banks as elect to operate under Federal charters. I would be glad to have the right and privilege extended for savings banks, trust companies, insurance companes, and trunk lines of railroad, and perhaps other enterprises, to incorporate under a national charter, thereby inviting and submitting to Federal supervision. The government likewise supervises the business of all common carriers that elect to cross State lines and thus engage in inter-State commerce. It not only proposes to fix and determine all freight rates when the road and the public cannot agree, but also to so supervise the operation of these roads as to prevent rebates and discriminations of every kind and abuses of every character whether they affect indivuals or communities.
Not every avenue of evil in this life can be closed by legislation. Israel suffered seriously for having worshiped a golden calf while Moses was receiving divine commandments. I do not know that we are in danger of making statue law the object of our idolatry or of substituting penal codes for the plain teachings of morality, but I do know that in spite of legislation and in the face of penal codes abuses arise and crimes are committed. They are discovered sometimes even in the mail service and sometimes in the management of banks. Postmasters occasionally default, mail carriers now and then commit larceny, and some bank officials prove inefficient and others dishonest. This will always be so. So long as private business and public afairs remain in the hands of men possessed of human propensities and weakness manifest themselves. Meanwhile let us maintain a representative form of government, encourage individualism, keep the way open for men to embark in any and every legitimate business, sanely and conservatively improve the laws we have, strengthening them wherever practicable and simplifying the machinery by which they are operated. It is the appropriate function of the government to safeguard the individual and to see that the game of business is fairly played; that the cards are held above the table, and that everybody is given a square deal. It is not the appropriate function of the government to sit in the game.
The Democratic Hand Bood for the campaign of 1906 is out. It was prepared by Democratic State Chairman Simmons or by his direction; and contains the substance of what Democratic speeches and editors will say and write in this campaign. The Washington Post, an independent paper, says the National Democratic Campaign Committee closed its offices in Washington and quit business as soon as Bryan made his government ownership of railroads speech.
The State Democratic Hand Book is intended to be and is a prejudice fertilizer. Its authors have three subjects on the brain: Negro office-holding; what Democrats are doing for education; and the alleged meanness of Republican leaders.
It quotes the National Democratic platform which says "the race question is settled," yet a large part of the lessons it lays down for Democratic speakers to learn is about the negro, and an effort to keep men from being Republicans because the constitution and laws of the United States allowed negroes to vote. They seek to make men hate Republicans because negroes were once Republicans. As well try to make men hate the Pous and Kitchens, because their fathers were once Republicans, or Simmons, because he was once a partner of Judge Faircloth, who was always a Republican.
The book gloats and revels over the harsh things that some Republican and Republican papers have said about some other Republicans and Republican papers. Now if that amounts to anything, I can break up the Democratic party by the evidence of its highest priests against each other. Has anybody forgotten what Capt. Sam Ashe printed about T. B. Kingsbury and what Kingsbury printed about Ashe when they were editing the leading Democratic papers of the State? It is too bad to print. Don't you know that J. P. Caldwell and Josephus Daniels have not dared to take each other's names or their papers on their lips or in their papers for years, and that they gave each other the------seven years ago and sat still a long time to keep from exploding? Who doesn't remember that pracitally every Democratic newspaper in the State was two years ago denouncing Judge Peebles and that what he and his "one N. A. McLean" and others were saying and printing about each other was causing the moon to hide its
face as it passed across the State? Don't you know the News and Observer murdered the Morning Post and that the Post gave its "dying declaration" to that effect? And that the Raleigh Times makes Josephus too mean to live? Has anybody forgotten what Vance said about F. M. Simmons when he was up for confirmation as a revenue doodler before the senate? Think how Cy. Watson and Hackett and others talked about other Democrats who favored the Watts and Ward laws in the legislature. And what was it John C. Drewry and Josephus Daniels were saying about each other only a few months ago? Were Mr. Laughinghouse and Mr. Strudwick and Josephus Daniels right when they lately charged that the last state senate and the present railroad commission and Candidate McNeill belonged to the railroads and corporations? I could fill ten pages with well-known instances in this state without referring to what the Bryan and anti-Bryan statesmen have been saying about each other, or what Bailey and John Sharp Williams and John W. Daniel and Simmons and Overman are now saying and feeling and thinking about Mr. Bryan.
The hand book admits that the fusion legislature appropriated moer money for public schools than was ever done before, but protests about having spent still more for schools since 1899. Don't they konw that the demands for the amendment for reading and writing voters after 1908 made it criminal not to increase the school facilities? Yet I live in a township with 1,523 white children of school age, only *38 of whom were enrolled last year, while the average attendance was only 442. The attendance of blacks is not half that large. Has the Democratic party done anything to brag on yet? This is an average township, if not the average in the state. Those 885 children whose names are not even on the school rolls of the townships, one-half or 442 of them being boys, will soon be old enough to vote, and not being able to read and write, will have no interest in government. A dull mass, laboring to pay tax, but not noticed even by a Democratic politician and office-seekers!!!! Why don't the Democratic party educate the boys--the future voters, instead of concealing the truth and prating about what it is doing?
But the strogest and most earnest cue in the book that runs all through it is: "Don't fail to abuse Marion Butler on every stump." To read it convinces one that Chairman Simmons can't sleep for dreams of Butler. All the little editors ring those changes. The book and the editors and the speakers
abuse Butler continually. They adore in Mr. Bryan every populist principle that Butler ever believed. They praise the R. F. D. system that Butler was perhaps the first to advocate. They hurrah for the railroad commision that Butler helped so largely in 1801 to create. Not a word do they say about those 4,400 negro votes they stole from Butler and counted for Simmons in Halifax in 1900 and almost as many in nearly all the eastern counties. Nigger votes were good enough to steal to keep Simmons Aycock and Glenn in forever, but too mean to support Butler in a seat one term. The Democratic legislature passed an oyster law making criminal certain acts, under which a thousand indicments were drawn, by a Democratic solicitor; many, as it is said, against dead men and after nol prossing the whole lot he and the clerk and sheriff sued the state for nearly ten thousand dollars, and Chairman-Senator Simmons and his partner appeared for them and collected the bills. Judge Clark, however, cut them down a right smart saying they were about twice too big; but after Butler lost his seat in the Senate by negro votes being counted for Simmons, and John Bellamy published that he would make one of his yaller niggers frail him out of the Senate, here comes a man who had some state bonds signed by Governor Worth and Kemp P. Battle, treasurer, secured by a mortgage that the state had been offering to pay 25 cents on the dollar for, for twenty years. Butler took the case with other big lawyers and he made the state pay them. Whatever Democratic hand book editors and orators may say, no just man or God will ever blame or punish Marion Butler for that. Democrats abuse him because they fear him. And until they took from him by wrong and fraud, and are now keeping from him, by the same and by appeals to race prejudice, there is not one of them who wouldn't swap chances with him for a home in heaven.
The hand book does not mention the stealing by Democrats of the earnings of the state's railroad and the refusal of Democratic officials to let the people know how much; nor their reporting the criminal statutes against election frauds to keep their pollholders out of the penitentiary nor their appropriating our state tax money to defend them when indicted for election crimes in the federal courts; nor their electing a man thus indicted as recording clerk of the senate nor their failure to furnish guards for marching convicts over frozen mud till
they died, no r their failure for fifteen months to try Democratic officials for beating a crazy man to death.
If the wrongs and crimes of the Democratic party, its wastefulness and extravagance and high valuations of property and heavy taxes had all been put in their hand book and should be made known to the people, it would, next November, be in the state as in the nation: "Good-bye Mr. Democratic Party, now and forever." So may it be.
Henderson, N. C., Sept. 22, 1906.
The Raleigh News-Observer of the 25th September submits Supt. Joyner's statement which excludes City Schools and giving Rural Schools only, admits an increase over half a million dollars by the Democrats.
|School term in days||70||87||17|
|Cost per day||$12,772.96||$16,397.15||$3,624.19|
A COPY OF THIS PUBLICATION
AND OTHER CAMPAIGN LITERATURE
CAN BE PROCURED OF
THE STATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Benbow Hotel, Greenboro, N. C.
W. S. PEARSON, Secretary.