The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-07-15
MAI. McCLAMMY AND THE SUB
Il TREASURY PLAN.
He Signs the Alliance Demands and
Gives his Opinion of the Sub
Treasury Plan.

He Signs the Alliance Demands and
Gives his Opinion of the Sub
Treasury Plan.
The following letter in regard to
the matter and manner Of the disposal
of the Sub Treasury bill will no doubt
be read with interest just now when
the discussion of this bill is at fever
heat
Elias Carr, Esq President State ALI
Gnce:
DEAR SIR:
The purpose Of the bill, as l under
stand it, and as it has been int 5rpreted
by the authors, is more money, cheaper
money and higher prices for farm
products. Will it accomplish the re-
suit 4? In the opinion of vast majority
of the farmers and working people in
this country it will. Certainly | shall
not interpose an objection or a crit
cism that l can sustain only by asser-
ton. 1t may be visionary and mex
pedient but [ am not prepared to
pronounce the judgement. 1t has not
been discussed IN Congress. Months
ago it was introduced in both Houses
of Congress, referred to the proper
committee and there it sleeps the
eternal Legislative death, that no
knows no awakening. But they say
it is unconstitutional. By what au-
thority is the statement made ? Neither
the Senate Committee on Agriculture
nor Ways and Means Committee of the
House have reported any such conclu-
sion. Not an intimation to that effect,
so far as | am advised, has been off
cially made by either committee. 1t
may be unconstitutional don't
know. l am not a lawyer, and am
not competent to pass upon the con-
stitutionality of any measure, but l
do know that the Sub Treasury has
not been shoaOn to be unconstitutional.
| am constrained, therefore, not to
accept the seemingly popular notion
that this is an unconstitutional meas,
ure. We can differ honestly about
this matter, but is it fair and manly
to preclude all discussion of the merits
by downing it with demonstrations
animadversion. The people who con.
ceived the measure are the people
the country. They demand a hearing,
1t is their inherent right. What is
the answer? The legislation you
propose is unconstitutional. How is
it unconstitutional p? What provision
of the Constitution does it violate !
Who made the Constitution ? Who
can change it to meet the emergency
and avert the peril that threatens the
industrial and agricultural classes with
bankruptcy and ruin? Is there q
constitutional warrant for n legisla
zion that will meet the demands o.
the people for a change in the fsca
, regulations, and The National Bank
System of this country? Is there any
remedy for the appalling condition O.
agricultural depression more efectua
e thon the Sub Treasury bill ? Who
has suggested it? Where is the
st 4tesmanship to conceive it ? 1t has
been proposed by bills both in toe
Senate and the House to lend MONEY
/ to the people On government real estate
/ security al one per cent. introduced
a bill OF this import months ago. Ii
was born of despair that the Sue
Treasury bill would die in committee.
But it sleeps in the same dust covered
mausoleum side by side with the Sub.
Treasury bill. Will the people of this
country much longer permit this
trifing? Is Congress trlflng with
the people, or are the people trifing
with themselves ? ] answer emphati-
cally that l do approve of the purpose
of the Sub. Treasury bill and that l
will exhaust every effort to force its
consideration by this Congress. The
National Banking System is a curse
to t1e people. 1t is administered in
the interest Of the monopolized money
power of Wall Street. 1t is made to
! contract or expand the circulating
medium at the dictation of this god
!, less, grasping 2varicious, conscience
less, corrupt financial power. Any
+ system is preferable to it. Nothing
the mind of man can conceive could
be more destructive of the peoples
rights. If the system alone inds
warrant in the constitution then in
Heaven'sname amend the Constitution
and do it at once.
AS a representative in Congress,
public duty is a paramount considera,
ton. Ignoring the fact that 1 am a
farmer, and that the people in my
district knew that fact when they
elected me to Congress, I stand on
: the high ground of public duty, in
the affirmative reply I have made to
each of the demands submitted for my
consideration. Not one of them is in
conflict with my apprehension of duty
as a Representative in Congress, OF