The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-04-07
COL. POLK'S VIEWS ON SENATOR
GEORGES LETTER.

GEORGES LIE TER.
A few days ago a committee from
Carroll County Alliance, Mississippi,
requested Senator George of that State,
to give his views on the Sub-Treasury
plan. The Senator wrote a letter to
the committee in which he says the
plan is unconstitutional, &c.
The Reform Press Bureau asked
President Polk if he had seen Senator
Georges letter. He replied, eyes;
and the arguments and position of the
great political leaders who have thus
far opposed the S~uo-Treasury plan be-
cause of it's unconstitutionality, will
form an interesting and unique chap
ter in the political history of the times.
Senator George says that the govern
ment has only such powers as are ex-
pressly delegated to it by the Constitu-
ton: and that no power to lend money
has been thus delegated.
The government did loan the Phila-
delphia Exposition 81, 500, 900. In
1884 it did loan the New Orleans Expo
sition n million dollars.
In the discussion on this latter bill
in Congress, the cOnstitutionality of it
wasnot questioned; but ON the contrary
was warmly supported in both House
and Senate. It passed the House by a
vote of 1872 to 81, nearly every Southern
Democrat voting for it. When it
reached the Senate, the c%oncensus of
opinion in that body was sc unanimous
that not even the ayes and noes we're
called.
APPROPRIATION VS.. LOAN.
Senator Allison made the motion to
amend it's title, and make it tread: ga
bill to make a loan in aid of the cele-
bration of the Worlds Industrial and
Cotton Exposition.
So far as the record shows the bill
passed the Senate by a unanimous vote.
Mr.. George, I believe, was a member
of the body at that time. Where was
he? In what form did he enter his
protest? Did he not vote for the bill?
I infer from the record that he did, and
if so, he must have found his iurisdic-
ton in the amazing proposition which
I was astounded to find in his letter to
our Alliance brethren in Mississippi.
Here it is: Congress may, where it
has the right to make an appropriation
out Of the treasury for a public pur-
pose, make it on condition, that the
locality to be benefited by the money
will return the whole or a part of it. .
Knowing his ~confessedly high repu-
tation as a constitutional lawyer, and
having a high regard for his acknowl-
edged ability, I am 10th to believe that
he exercised his usual care in penning
the above paragraph.
An appropriation is a gift. A loan
means the money shall be returned
and it would be a puzzle, even to the
plain common sense of a ploughboy
student of finance to reconcile the in
c6nsistencies so plainly laid down in
the above words.
LOANING TO THE PEOPLE AND LOANING
TO A COMPANY.
Did Senator George vote for the bill
to aid the New Orleans Exposition as
an appropriation" when he knew
that by the very terms of the bill, that
this money was to be returned to the
government. If so, did he not know
that it was a loan, and not ~appropria-
ton; andif he could vote to loan money
to men to carry on the exposition, and
felt warranted, in so doing, by the Con
stitution, where is the consistency in
claiming that it is unconstitutional to
loan money to the people? The Sub
Treasury plan provides that the people
shall return the money.
Senator George closes his letter by
saying that "this note is hastily pre-
pared" 1 shall certainly hope for a
more logical objection from him when
he "takes occasion to discuss these
matters more freely" as he says he
will do.
Objection to the s~ub-Treasury plan