The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-09-29

35737 was spent in assembling @ li- brary of 26 volumes of 12,000 pages and in procuring monographs from various persons having more or less familiarity with economies. The li- brary may be useful to philosophers and monetary historians, and the mon ographs may be interesting to those who have time to spend in the cloister, but I venture nothing in saying that not one volume of the costly library nor one essay among the expensive monographs was essential to the work of preparing or enacting legislation for the reformation of the banking and currency system of the United States. Every work in the library thus assem- bled which could in any practical sense be utilized in the fabrication of banking and currency bill such as the Monetary Commission proposed or passed was readily accessible, without a penny's charge to any member of the commission or to any member of Congress interested in the subject"
 On this same point before the Amer ican Bankers Association, MT. Glass said:
 'The House bill was passed on ex- haustive hearings before g. sub-com- mittee of the 62nd Congress and the House Banking and Currency Com mittee of the 63rd Congress, when it began to frame t1e bill, had in it's files the testimony of Aearly every business group in America, submitted by its most intelligent representatives. It. had the testimony of American bank CTS, big and little, in the person of men like Hepburn, Forgan, Warburg, Reynolds, Wexler, Hubert, Wade, Frame and others; currency experts like Morawetz, Hadley, sprague, Langh1in, Meeker, Fisher and Fowler; credit men like Endy, Tresoe, Joyce and Orr; farmers, like Barrett, Crea- sy, Brooks and others; merchants, manufacturers, 1aboring men, actuar- ies and other classes. In short, the House committee had at it's immediate service testimony so varied and vo- luminous that to digest 1t all, or even to read half of it would be an unen- durable physical and metaphysical task. It was upon this testimony that the House bill was passed
 Aside from this, Mr. Glass points out that Nr. Aldrich himself assailed with intense bitterness, generally and in detail, every essential provision of the Federal Reserve Act as it stands to-day, thus conc1usive1y denonstrat- ing the, utter absurdity of the claim, now echoed by MT. Hughes that the act was based on the Aldrich Monetary report.
 Besides, if Mr. Hughes party felt so proud of the A1drich Monetary re- port and the Aldrich bank bill, why did it refdse to indorse it's national platform in 1912, when the Demo ocratic party openly repudiated the AL drich schene and when the Progress sive party headed by Roosevelt, de- nounced it as a plan --to place the currency and credit of the United States in private hands7"
 Moreover, and finally, if this AL drich Monetary report and bank bi1I- which Mr. Hughes now loudly pro- claims as a Republican scheme-fur- nished the foundations for the Fed era1 Reserve system," why did every Republican Senator except three, to- gether with two thirds of the Republi- can Representatives in Congress vote against the Federal Reserve Act? If the act was baSedl on Republican foundations" why did the Republican party so bitterly rezist its passage? Is 1t possible that MT. Hughes cannot see that somebody is causing him to make spectacle of himself?