The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-12-09

congress the power under this section above
quoted 20 loan money 70 Its citizens at l per
cent. year upon their wheat, corn, oats,
tobacco and cottOnl Power is given
therein to congress to collect taxes for GER
tain specific purposes to pay debts. Can
this mean to loan money, and provide for
the common defense and general welfare Of
the United States? Can this by any honest
and fair construction mean that coagress
shall have the power to collect taxes from
the whole people and then loan these taxes
so coliected?
THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.
THE advocates of these sub-treasury bills
claim that the widest possible construction
should be given to this general welfare
clause, and that congress might thus find
powers In this section. l claim that the
widest and broadeet construction Of which
the English language is susceptible will
not vest such power In congress. The
courts or the United States, both
state and national, in constituting the power
vested IN congress by the Constitution,
uniformly lay down the doctrine that this
government is one of limited powers, and
the national congress has no authority to
Iegsate upon any subject except
as authorized by one or more of the enumer-
ated powers. We must never lose sight of
this principle, that the United States gov
ernment has no money except what it raises
by taxation from the people. and the pur-
pose for which that money is raised is not
TO loan 1t out, but to defray the necessary
expenses Of the government
BONDED WAREHOUSES.
The speaker then made a clear compari-
son between the sub-treasury scheme and
bonded warehouse system for the storage of
distilled liquors, and said: The national
government places no tax upon our farm
products, raises no revenue from it, and it
Is lit for use as soon as ripe: then
are they not driven to desperate ex-
tremes when they have to try and find
an analogy between bonded liquor houses
and their schemesl D1es it not clearly ap-
pear fr m the above discussion that this bill
IS open 60 the fatal objection CT being in
violation of tho constitution OF the United
States?
CLASS LEGISLATION.
Under the second objection, viz that this
measure is in violation of the constitution
principles and demands Of the farmers' al
lance, President Hall said that this sub
treasury neaNure was purely "class
jsgi,thtion, egets r-ood aof 81 he ii, argued at
Among other things on this point he said;
1T would lose us millions Of members Ia
our order; the esteem, aid and sympathy of
thousands Of religious, agricultural and
political papers that have aided us in the
past, and the confidence of all good men aud
women who have wished us God
speed on their faith 10 our con-
stitution and demands, and would place our
noble order. before the world in any other
than an enviabie position. 1t is my opin-
ioa, based on my experiences gained in trav-
cling and lecturing in LOG out Of the ia
counties OF our state, that if our order
should take such a step, it would destroy
the order in Missouri In less than ninety
days"
UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE.
Under the objection that the scheme was
unjust and inequitable he argued that dis
elimination was made in favor of wheat,
corn, oats, tobacco and cotton. "Why," he
asked, "should law be passed that will not
extend its benefit to farmers that raise
surplus of pork, beef, mutton, horses, mules,
flax, hemp, rye, barley, sugar, rice, pota-
toes, fruits Of all kinds, vegetables, poultry
and hundreds of other things upon which
millions of our people, farmers and labor
ers, haYe to rely to support the daily wants
Of themselves and their families? Would
it not be very unjust to create a law that
g T tas0 tbs Dsons monsy BY ta5roH a5r from
wealthy, poor and needy alike,
and loan it out to farmers living
in our wealtheiest couuties that raise wheat,
corn, oats, tobacco and cotton9 While
those farmers and other laboring men who
need help most can receive none Of this
money, and further, to require the poor to
furnish their share OF the money to build
and operate these buildings, and pay the
salaries OF an immense army Of United
States officers 60 run them!" His other
objections received like treatment at
length.
LOSS OF THE FARMERS.
Jerry Simpson, congressrnan-elect from
Kansas, said that that state last year raised
270, 100000 bushels of corn, which the
farmer sold at prices varying from 1316 to
14114 cents per bushel, but that Of the entire
amount the grain gamblers III Chicago got
control Of 240, 900 0O0 bushels, and sold u ct
45 cents per bushel, which took $50. coo $50
from the pockets Of the farmers of Kansas.
If the United States government had pro-
tected the farmers as it protects the gamblers
this never could have happened. Ii the
farmers had got this 100000, 900, they could
have devoted $50. .00C, 900 Of it to ths paw
ment of farm mortgages and have used the
remainder for homo comforts and farm i'm
provements. TApplause.]
Mr.. Clark Of Texas favored the sub-treas-
ury plan. 1--WE must" be said, shave a non
fluctueting money medium or GO to thu
wall"
AS this point a vote was taken on Mr..
Louicks amendment, and it was not
agreed to.
Mr.. Cole CT Michigan made short
speech in support of the committees re-
port, and Mr.. Wade of Tennessee followed
him, after which Mr. Livingston OF Georgia
offered a resolution amending the first sec
ton OF the demands, SO that the volume OF
the currency issued shall not De less than
500 per capita of the entire population,
which was agreed TO. In support of this
Mr.. Livingston argued that in loaning
money on land there must be q limit both
as to the amount of the lands and to the
amount OF money loaned thereon. Other
wise landed monopoly would be created,
which would secure all the money. "Loau-
ing money on non-perishable products" he
said, "Is not class legislation; first, because
no other industry or busi 1ess IS damaged by
it; second, because benefit TO agriculture IS
benefit to all branches of business"
ALEXANDER TOO BRAsa
Mr.. Alexander of North Car olina argued
in favor Of Il land currency, because under
this plan one person or class gets as much
benefit as another, and he closed by remark
ing that ''auy man who opposes the sub
treasury bin is either ignorant or has some
sinister motive"
This brought Mr. Hall Of Mis- souri, TO his
feet with demand for an explanation, AMI
Mr. Alexander said that he did not inteId
his remark to have any personal applca-