The independent., 1903-05-28

duu the most possible I0r any REFORM
ers who think they have the panacea
for all ills than we had in those me-
morable gatherings? AS an active /
participant in them all as a member
of subcommittee | think they ar
rived at statement broad enough to
suit all those who would not weaken
the whole through desire to see
more OF the strength placed in some
one particular plank. No party has
ever given the single takers more than
we have given them. We as reformers
are with them in spirit and that is
better than the letter of any other
party however strong ii may be writ
ten. The Omaha platform with direct
legislation added is my creed and |
am not opposed to having proper
tional representation there also. If
we go too much into detail we will
recall Ignatius Donnelly's story at the
convention about the couple who
didn't get married because they quar-
relied as to what should be the name
of the first child.
In Massachusetts, since 1896 until
1902 the democrats had populist
platform submitted to our populist or
ganization, some years before the con-
yention. Therefore we acted with
them. Our last distinct ticket was for
Watson for vice president in 1896.
This answers your question as to loss
in populist voting strength as party;
as to our principles in my opinion the
voting strength has more than dou-
bled. | can form no estimate as to
how the oid-tfme popriist voters have
divided many who were prominent
are with the socialists and there are
where they are. Our populist organi-
cation has always been maintained.
George F. Washburn is our chairman
and P. p Field, w. Springfield street,
Boston, Mass, is our secretary. Many
populists want action in our state
campaign this year, 1903, and there is
probability that tie principles of
the peoples party may be voted for.
| have said in letter recently writ
ten that many are either now "on
strike" against the ole parties or are
locked OUT because they cannot get
what they want. The socialists make
tA3 S0LhphiSh ou PupliN wv hCi snip VI
public utilities rather than a public
ownership of everything. I hold that
populism in its essence is a declara-
tion that government functions can be
and should be enlarged to any extent
that Is essential to protect the natural
rights of man against the encroach-
ments of monopoly or special privil-
eges-Or, as Jefferson said, ito restrain
men from injuring each other" So
cialism proceeds on the theory that
public ownership Of all tools of pro-
duction and distribution is in itself
desirable and would reconstruct our
government and it's relations with the
people upon that foundation.
You ask, 'If democrats declare for
public ownership of railroads next
year, how would that affect indepen
dent populist action?" answer, there
is one article in our faith which the
democrats never have declared for
since they wrote liberal republican
platform in 1872, and that is Gov
ERNMENT ALONE SHALL ISSUE
MONEY and regulate the value there
of and as a sovereign function it shall
TINS known as banks. Bonds issued
for the government ownership of rail-
roads would be an acceptable basis to
the money power for the issuance of
private credit as natic nal currency.
The money question is our invulner-
able weapon Of attack. Government
today is a sub-treasury or pawn shop
giving 100 per cent advance on the
personal property of bankers in the
shape of bonds. If the trusts and
monopolies are to continue to own
and control the tools of distribution
known as money or credit, then the
people are hopelessly in debt, and
debt is slavery. The whole financial
superstructure is on a foundation
worse than shifting sand and any mo-
ment may give us worse industrial
condition than in 1S93-94 and then
well that's where populism is the only
thing that fills the bill.
AS to your issue of June II, permit
me to say that the true populist is
against all "unearned increment" AS
to whether it is greater in the money
system or the land system able men
may well differ depending on the spe-