Mississippi leader., 1892-08-11
DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL RANKS.

DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL BANKS.
The modern Democracy" is fond of
vaunting itself as the original Thomas
Jefferson and Andrew jackson brand.
But how does it square with the De-
mocracy of jefferson and Jackson :
For instance, let us compare it on the
question of National banks.
Hear the words of Thomas jefferson:
II sincerely believe that banks are
more dangerous than standing armies.
Put down the banks, and if this coun-
try cannot be carried through the
longest war against her most powerful
enemy without loading us with perpet-
ual debt, know nothing of my coun-
trymen."
Again, in letter dated December 13,
1909, Mr. jefferson says: "This institu-
ton (bank) is one of the most deadly
hostility existing against the principles
and form of our constitution. Treas
ury bills or notes, bottomed on taxes
and thrown into circulation, will take
the place of so much gold and silver,
but bank paper must be suppressed
and the circulation restored to whom
it belongs, the people.
Andrew jackson, speaking of the
National Bank, said: THE result of the
ill-advised legislation which establish
ed this great monopoly, was to concen-
trate the whole moneyed power Of the
union, with boundless means Of cor
ruption and it's numerous dependents,
under the direction and command of
one acknowledged head; thus organiz-
ing this particular interest as one body,
and enabling it to bring forward upon
any occasion it's entire strength to sup
port or defeat any measure of govern
ment. In the hands of this formidable
power was also placed unlimited do
minion over the amount of the circula-
ting medium, giving it the power to
regulate the value of property and
| labor"
What an unerring prophecy of the
! evils of the National Banking system
of today
In 1929 Andrew Jackson put this
plank in the Democratic platform "A
national bank is unconstitutional and
dangerous to liberty"
That continued to be the Democrat
ic faith enunciated in every platform
from that time until 1860, when it dis
appeared and has never since been re-
affirmed. Indeed, in speech in New
York in 1880 we find Hon. Thos. F. Bay
ard, an acknowledged apostle of the
modern Democracy, repudiating the
faith of Jefferson and jackson in the
following remarkable language
II have seen it charged that the
Democratic party is foe to National
banks; but am at a loss to know the
author of this. The platforms of the
party contain no such suggestion and
admit of no such construction; and it
is very certain that for the second
place on our ticket, we have named Mr..
VIM. Fl. English, of Indiana, one of the
ablest financiers and business men in
Juc WuOl6 WIOS0
of the affairs of a national bank of
which he was president, was conSplcu-
Gus for it's success"
Having failed that year to elect their
ticket with national banker on it for
second place, the Democrats next time
put one known to favor them in the
first place, and the Wall street mug
wumps elected Cleveland. Mr.. Cleve-
land in return for their votes made
Daniel Manning Secretary of the Treas
ury and Canda sub-treasurer at New
York-both of them being stockhold-
ers and officers in the Western Nation
al Bank of New York. Cleveland set
the precedent of the placing of govern
ment money with the national banks
free of charge, and this pet bank re-
ceived eleven hundred thousand of it,
ming was forced by ill-health and death
to relinquish his place in Mr.. Cleve-
lands Cabinet as Secretary of the
Treasury, his office was filed by VIM.
S. Fairchilds, another New York Ma
tional Bank President.
Many other interesting facts might
be cited, but the reader can see from
the above how the modern Democracy
contrasts with the pure Jeffersonian
article. No wonder the Chicago plat
form says nothing about abolishing the
Nofiopaf hon lyipn cuctap,
'Rah for modern Democracy, Cleve-
land and the National Bank monopoly!
|
AN ENQUIRY ANSWERED..
| Il L Hnhhs ESQ Lick SOIL Miss