Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1900-01-05
Mr.. Cages Secret Agreement.

by scrutiny and criticism. 1t is more painful
to have to do the scrutinizng and criticising Of
so amabe and respectable a person. 1t is mos,
painful OF all that Mr.. Gage should be doing
anything that calls for scrutiny and criticism
What ire the facts?
First-There is in New York group of the
most powerful 6nanciers in the country, who
were of the largest contrib itors to the famous
monster Hanna campaign fund of 1896, who
are organized as the National City Bank, and
who have been the recipients of sundry extra
ordinary favors from the Mckinley administra-
ton, such as, for instance the privilege of pur-
chasing "by private arrangement" piece of
government property in New York city for
$1,7oo.ooo less than its appraised value.
Second-Mr. Gage, as secretary of the treas
ury, as an accountable public servant has
tered into secret arrangement with this syndi
cate whereby it is to handle the entire internal
revenue receipts of the government-about
5000 ooo, 900 yeal. No one but Mr.. Gage
and Mr.. Mckinley and the syndicate knows the
terms of this secret agreement, or how much
profit the syndicators will be able to make out
of the "handling." 1t is known, however,
that the syndicate will have each day a very
large sum of the peoples money, for which it
will pay nothing and upon which it will collect
heavy interest through loaning it out to the
public.
Mr. Gage says, in his explanation to the
World:
necessary concentrate the internal revenue receipts
4. u-Ix..
to make any fair distribution of them from day day
But is it necessary SECRETLY to concen
trate hem? And why is it necessary to bring
into the Golfers of the National City Bank col
lections made IN Richmond, CINCINNATI Chica
go, Louisville, St. Louis, Peoria, San Francisco?
Why could no, the government do the distrib
utng? Why could it not do the distributing
publicly, in order that no one might be able to
suspect or allege favoritism?
Mr.. Gage says:
The National City Bank has larger deposit of bonds
with the department than other bank in the
country This ample security would not exist in the case
of bank whose deposit of bonds nominal
ativey small.
But does this change the fact that the internal
revenue receipts, if they must be distributed as
fire. deposits, could be and should be distributed
bv the government itself, in smaller amounts,
in the strong banks throughout the country, i'll
order that all the people might have an oppor
tunity to benefit, instead of little group OF
favored money lenders in Wall street?
Mr.. Val.derlip, Mr.. Cages factotum and the
Junior Lord of the Treasury, says
The department will not the new repositories
or institutions which will receive the do not
gard it good policy would good result from its
publicity
Where would be the harm? Is it not the
peopl IS money? Are not Gage and Vanderlip
the peoples servants? If they are compelling
the National City Bank to make fair dstribu-
ton of these vast sums what possible reason
can they have for hiding the facts? What
would Mr. Gage have thought if, when he was
president of national bank in Chicago, his
cashier had come to him and said: "Mr.
Gage, really cannot permit YOU to know what
l am doing with the banks money. You will
have to be satisfied with statement of totals
and results at the end of the year,?
Is it not against public policy for the secre-
tary OF the treasury in any circumstances to
turn over his functions and the public funds to
private money lenders, however good the Sc
curiy they may give? Is it not gross abuse
cf public trust for him to make this assignment
to little group of the financial hackers of the
administrators political fortunes, and that by
secret agreement?
If Mr. Gage is wronging his public reputa-
ton by this secrecy, his redress is easy to OBJ
tain. All he has to do is to sdopt the only
safe and just couise for an honest and faithful
public official