The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1890-07-15
VANCE AND SUB-TREASURY
Tur NATIONAL ECONOMIST AT"
TACKs HIM.
Review oran,i Reply 10 The Nationa
Economists Article.
Especial Cor. State Chron cleo

cl 10 Elias Carr, Esq President OF the
Farme,s' Alliance of North Carolina
irving the reasons why he could not
snpport the Sub Treasury bill The
Economisf. in the same issue, devotes
four and half columns Of its valuable
space to editorial comment on THIS let
Ter. nos with view, as it seems, to re-
futo his arguments by fair criticism, but |
trans faiently for the purpose of trying to |
weaken Their force by unjustifable i'm
putatons ON Lis conduct in relation
to this measure.
i, is greatly to be regretted that the
organ % the Farmers National Alliance,
n boiy composed of il class of American
citiz Ms, than whom none are more
worthy, should allow itself to descend
to anything like personal animadversions
IN ~ treatment Of Senator Vance's most
admirable prosecutions of his obJec-
tions to the bill. 1t Is safe to
saw that any effort OF the
Economist, however labOred 1T may
be, intended to show that Senator Vance
has acted, or is capable Of acting, with
the least possible duplicity in the prem
iscs, would fall still born among the
farmers Of North Carolina, as it would
among all other classes of people. They
would no. believe it, though one from
the dead would declare it to be true.
The farmers of that State know Senator
Vance, and none OF them could be in
duccd to believe for a moment that he
ever made au uttcrance, pubic or pri
vatc, l.i I'll his lie, against what he be-
lipyed to be their best interest; and
whom they come to understand it, as
ihcy VII sooner or later, they will re-
garl his letter on the Sub Treasury bill
rs among the very strongest proofs OF
his ever Vatchful solicitude for their
welfare.
senator Vance made known his OBJ
i,ctlons To the bill in due time, and to
ihr proper parties Had he done less,
then the farmers might have had some
cause OF complaint. But The Economist
saSs he except his views strictly to him
self from the time the bill was intro
ducel till the present. Even II
this were true, the present is
ampje tine, but it Is not true as
- matter of fact More than two months
agO lc addressed Il letter to f. Z. Bed
nphid. Esq Secretary Of the State Al
iauca. informing him that ne could not
support the Sub-Treasury bill, and also
wrote letters to various other members
Of the Allianca to the same effect; in
tacl it may be truly said ho never with
nc!d his vlcws from any who expressed
a desire to know them
The Economist itself admits that
senator Vance told Col. l.. l.. Polk
President oil the National Alliance, anC
Mr. Macune, Chairman of the Legislative
committee of the National Alliance, tina
he was uot prepared to support the bill
md il credits him with the statemen
that, on receiving the bill before tht
2lth of February 1890, on which day III
introduced it, at the request OF thes,
gentlemen, he told them expressly tina
he could not promise them his suppor
OF the measure; and further, that he re
gardel the bill IS "great and radica
dcparture-t from the accustomed polio
oi our legislaton, and that there wer
questions, both of practicability al
constitutonalty, which he wished t
reserve Now, however the EconC
mist trys to evade the force of these at
missions by saying in effect that tn
biz, concerning which the Senate
IN ,do these declarations, was nc
the bill he introduced, and h
alleging that the latter wa
bill the Senator himself had prepare
10y making certain changes, which h
had been authorized and requested t,
and did make in the original bill sui
mitted to him, and that these change
virtually committed him to the suppo
Of the bill as introduced Nothing cou
be more absurd | is not fair al
candid representation of the Senator
position. The Economist must knO
that Senator Vance made no chane
whatever, which removed his objection
So the original bill, or that related
any way to the questions he had G
prcssiy reserved, as above quoted. III
only change he made which the Econ
mist itself seems to have thought wortl
Of special note is one relating solely
the manner Of choosing the managers
the Sub Treasures proposed to be esta
iishcd under the bill, and it would
the very height Of absurdity to suppC
that uls change either removed his {
ieetons TO the measure PER Sc, or col
United him, in any sense, to its su
port So it will be seen that this
tempt of the Economist to put Senat
Vance in false position i'll relati
TO the Sub Treasury bill is a mere ST
torfugc which The organ OF the Nator
Allianco has seen fit to resort, not OF
10 weaken the force of Senator Vanc
letter, but presumably to escape I
force of it, own admitted knowledge
the Senator's attitude on the qgesti
from the beginning; and it Is V,
reagectfull, submitled that the Natio
Alliance composed Of SO honorabl
body Of men, does not require The use
such means by its central organ to
vance its cause, which IN itself is S
hciently meritorious to command
most respectful. consideration of
thoughtful statesmen, aud which
commanded such consideration by NJ
more than by Senator Vance hims
His very utterance on the subject PRO
this to be absolutely true
But, the Economist further says, t
"the place in which the sincerity of S
ator Vance seems the most questiona
is where he claims the Sub Treasury
to be unconstitutional" and to pr
his want of sincerity, cites the fact
the Supreme Court has decided it to
unconstitutional for the government