The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-13
MIR. OLNEY,s BAD BREAKS.


MR.. OLNEY's BAD BREAKS.
Hon. Richard Olney. attorney general and
afterward secretary of state during Mr.
Cleveland's second administration, delivered
a speech In Boston Saturday night in which
he arraigned the Republican party and
the present administration on several
grounds. His general charge was that the
Republican party has brought the country
to a condition of lawiessness of which GER
tain favored classes and the party in power
are joint beneficiaries. Particularizing, he
said: Witness the jealous haste with
which the treasury PUSHES to the relief OF
Wall street spectators by a novel and
forced construction of the national banking
law" The reference is to the recent de-
cision OF the secretary of the treasury that
the Is per cent. reserve need not be MAIN
tanned on deposits of public money already
secured by government bonds. The order
was made in the interest of the people and
its influence was felt Immediately In re-
lieving the money market.
Mr.. Olney's reference to pet banks was
when President Jackson ordered the public
| funds withdrawn from the United States
Bank in 1897, making 1t necessary for the
administration to find some other place Of
| deposit for public moneys. Certain state
banks were chosen, and 1T was common talk
| at the time that these banks were selected
| not so much on the ground of fitness on
that Of party fidelity. The banks selected
| by Jackson as public repositories were in
derision called pet banks" BY direction
of the President his secretary of the treas
| ury made contracts with the banks by
/ which they were to give security for the
/ government money whenever the deposits
should exceed one-half of the banks capital
paid in. Up to that point they gave no Sc
curity at all. 1t was several years after
the deposits were removed from the United
States Bank before the subtreasuries were
established, and during that period the
pet bank" system f1ourished without him
drance. A circular letter of the Treasury
Department to the deposit banks Sept. z6,
1888. said: 'The deposits of public money
will enable you to afford increased facili-
ties to commerce and to extend your accom-
modations to individuals"
The phrase pet banks was revived dur
ing Mr.. Cleveland's second administration
when the government deposits in national
previously known. and when the govern
ment loans were negotiated by favored
syndicates to an extent that it became a
national scandal. Mr.. Olney is not respon-
sible for the financial policy of the Jack
son administration, nor for that of the Sec
ond Cleveland administration, but before
he talked about pet banks and the zeal
Gus haste" with which the treasury had
rushed to the relief of Wall street spec
ulators," he should have brushed up his
memory regarding the acts Of some Demo.
| cratic administrations.
Mr.. Olneys arraignment of the present
administration for its failure to enforce
the Sherman antitrust law was quite as
inconsistent as that regarding its financial
policy. Referring to the anthracite Goa
| roads he said:
| For years they have Disseminated be-
| tween customers in the freight Charges or
their railroads in violation of the interstate
commerce law. For years they have unlaw
fully monopolized interstate commerce il
l violation of the Sherman antitrust law
Indeed, the very best excuse and explana
ton of their astonishing attitude at tn,
Washington conference is that. having vic
lated so many laws for long and s,
many times, they might rightfully thinl
they were wholly immune from either pun
! | ishment or reproach.
, | Admitting this to be true, the roads wer
, pursuing the same policy during the who'll
, period that Mr.. Olney was attorney genera
that they have been since. 1t is not re
membered that he showed any jealous hast
to enforce the law against the anthracit
coal roads or against any other combina
ton. In fact, he is on record as declaring
that as a security against trusts the Law
| is inadequate. In view of the facts hi
attack on the Republican party for no
having suppressed trusts under the Sher
man act is grossly inconsistent, to say tn
least.