The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-11-25

money to railroads. Can we no 90
the same for warehouses 2 W. have
loaned money to fairs and shows when
incorporated by Congress. Why not
to the people? We have deposited
money with favored banks. Why
not to agricultural repositories =?
We did loan money to a fair IN
Philadelphia andto a show in New
Orleans, and many of these constltu
tional cranks voted for it as a loan
and yet when it comes in the shape
of plutocracy VS.. the people, these
same members stultify themselves and
say ga loan is unconstitutional"
The action of the present and past
administration furnishes proof of the
necessity of the Sub Treasury bill.
The purchasing of bonds before they
were due, the payment of a bonus to
the bondholders, the payment of inter
est and the payment of interest after
the debt ceased, the depositing of mil
lions in favored banks, the deferring
of payments on dues due the govern
ment in favor of the wealthy to avert
threatened panics proves that the
amount of money now in circulation
is so small, as compared to the urgent
demands for money, that if anything
impedes or retards it's accelerated cir
culation, or any unusual strain is had
upon the body polite, a panic is at
once threatened. This shows the ne
cessity for a currency 50 adjusted
that the tension will always correspond
to the power and its volume always
be equal to the demands of trade.
There is another broader and higher
view of the situation. There would
have been no use of having a general
welfare clause if it had not been in.
tended to use it, and we take the
broad ground that if there were no
legislative p~recedents in favor of the
farmers bill, yet by the strictest legal
construction the oil is constitutional.
The bill provides for warehouses. If
they are for the general welfare of the
people, it is plainly the duty OF Con
gress to make appropriations for them
just as they have done for p~ostofices
when the public good demanded it.
The bill provides for a greater volume
of currency. Is not that for the gen
eral welfare of the people? If it can
be shown that a smaller volume of
currency is better for the people than
we 10Y have, then the bill would not
be for the general welfare Of the peo-
pc; but if our present volume is sufi
Gent, why "these tears" wh9n a
panic is threatened 2 Is the lowering
Of the rate per cent. not for the gen,
eral welfare? If not, why did Con.
gress lower the rate of interest for the
people on their debt? Is it not for
the general welfare of the people to
have the rate per cent. for money
loaned, the same in Kansas or Geor
gia as it is in New Jersey or Connect
cut? Is a volume of cur1e ncy that is
adjustable to the demands of trade
calculated to d~isastrously affect the
general welfare of the people?
A legal deduction from the general
welfare clause of the Constitution is,
GnaI only sucn legislation as will be
productive Of good, of prosperity for
the people, is constitutional. The
burden of proof is on those that deny
It's const,tutionality. Let them show
that an increased flexible volume of
currency would not be for the public
good, that a reduction of the rate OF
interest is not for the general welfare,
let them come into court and prove
what they so glibly assert by decisions
of the court of last resort, or by the
fundamental law itself. This thew
have not done, this they cannot do.
l. is the duty of those who so assert
to submit the proof. Then and not
until then can they demand a rejoinder.
1t is intellectual cowardice for them to
hold up ther hands and tell how well
they have served the people, so said
Caesar.