The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-09-14
COMMUNISTS TERM FATHER
COUGHLIN, LEMKE STOOGES
FOR Lam DON

SepC. 10, 1900
Editor, Waterbury Democrat:
Coughlin is specializing on money
and banking. He also has some prac-
teal experience In Wall Street
speculation.
Silver Is his particular attraction.
Because of this he claims to be
the chief enemy of the money
changers. And he further claims
that his main grievance against
Roosevelt Is that the latter has per-
mitted the money changers to come
back into the temple. ,
In the name Of the people Cough
lin attacks the bankers. But the best
proof Of the fact that Coughlin and
Lemkes attack on the bankers does
not voice the genuine grievances Of
| the people against the banking oil
garchy Of this country, Is to be
found In the so-called measures
which they are proposing for the
curbing of this oligarchy. IL.
The Coughlin Lemke Union party
proposes, as point two Of its platform
that:
Congress and congress alone shall
coin, issue and regulate all the
money and credit in the United
States through a central bank OF
ISSUE"
This is a fraud on the face Of It.
For what honest person, knowing
what he was talking about, would
seriously maintain that the mere
establishment Of q central bank Of
issue would enable congress to regu-
late all the money and credit IN the
United States.
In order to achieve this desirable
and highly important aim congress
will have to do much more than
merely establish a central bank Of
issue. IT WILL HAVE TO NATION
ALIZE THE BANKS. Thus and only
thus can the money changers be
driven from the temple.
Coughlin knows that most OF the
money Is credit money. Today the
bankers do both. They issue the
money and control the credit. A CEN
trail bank will take from the bank
ers the power of issuing the money.
+, But 1t will leave them practically In
full control of the country's credit
machinery and resources. And with
this control they will continue TO be
able to interfere to their advantage
with the value Of money.
Naturalization Of banking and
democratic control Of Its manage
ment by representatives Of organ
lied labor, farmers and middle
| classes on boards In charge of ma
tionalized banks Is, In general way
what is favored by the Farmer-La-
Dor movement Of the country. This
Is what the communist party includ-
ed as one Of the central planks OF
its election platform.
But this Is not in the platform Of
Coughlin and Lemke's party.
Why?
Why should Coughlin and Lemke
be opposed to the naturalization Of
the banks and to democratic man.
agement of the nationalized bank
ing System2
Why did they not include such q
plank In the platform Of Lemke's
party instead of combining them
selves to a demand for q central
bank Of issue? L
We know Of course that Wall Street
Is opposed to naturalization Of
banks. Hearst is opposed to 1t also
and so Is Landon.
But how can Coughlin and Lem
Ike, who claim to be with the people
on the question of money and bank
ing, how can they be opposed to such
measures?
WE DECLARE HERE THAT
COUGHLIN HAS DELIBERATELY
BETRAYED AND VIOLATED THE
BYLAWS OF THE NATIONAL
UNION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.
One of the. central principles Of
these bylaws Is the demand for the
naturalization Of all public neces'
stiles. And In order that there be nc
mistake the bylaws say:
"By these are meant banking
credit, and currency, power, light
oil, natural gas and all natural re-
sources"
In other words, the principles OF
the National Union for Social JUS
tice demand the naturalization OF
banks. Why did Coaghliil drop the
demand for the naturalization OF
banks as we'll as the whole principle
! Of Naturalization Did Hearst and