His complexion

5 feet 11 inches in height, with a fine, full figure. was fair, almost like a girl's, except when tanned by outdoor exposure. He was noted for his politeness, gentleness of manner, and love of children. While never talkative, he felt always the duty when in society to be responsive to the conversation of others, and was at times a delightful companion and full of pranks and humor, though these occasions were rare. His habits of life were methodical and rigid. According to Dr. R. L. Dabney's Life of Jackson, he always rose at dawn, had private devotions, and then took a solitary walk. When at home family prayers were held at 7 o'clock, summer and winter, and all members of his household were required to be present, but the absence of anyone did not delay the services a minute. Breakfast followed, and he went to his classroom at 8 o'clock, remaining until 11, when he returned to his study. The first book that then engaged his attention was the Bible, which was studied as he did other courses. Between dinner and supper his attention was occupied by his garden, his farm, and the duties of the church, in which he was deacon. After supper he devoted his time for half an hour to a mental review of the studies of the next day, without reference to notes, then to reading or conversation until 10 o'clock, at which time he always retired. There was no variation in this daily program.

There were certain maxims of his life which had much to do with framing his character. One was that "you can be what you resolve to be," the other, "do your duty." His last works are supposed to have been, "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees," though others of the attendants at his bedside tell us that the last words were, Soldiers, do your duty."

General Jackson left one infant daughter, 6 months old, whom he had the privilege of seeing upon only one occasion, when Mrs. Jackson visited him in camp. He named her Julia Neale, for his mother, and in 1885 she married Capt. William E. Christian, of Richmond, author and newspaper man, now living in Washington, D. C. She died in 1889, leaving two infant children, the oldest, Mrs. Julia Jackson Christian Preston, wife of Randolph Preston, an attorney, lives in Charlotte, N. C., and has five children; the youngest, a boy 18 months old, bears the name of his great-grandfather. Mrs. Christian's son, Thomas Jonathan Jackson Christian, is a major in the United States Army, now stationed (1928) at the University of Chicago. He married Miss Bertha Cook and has two children, a boy, Thomas Jonathan Jackson Christian, jr., aged 11, and a girl, Margaret, aged 7. General Jackson left surviving him an only sister, Laura, the wife of Mr. Jonathan Arnold, of Beverley, W. Va. This sister survived him until the year 1911, when she passed away at the age of 85 years, leaving one son, Hon. Thomas Jackson Arnold, and a number of grandchildren surviving her.

Mrs. Mary Anna Jackson, the widow, lived in Charlotte with her granddaughter until March 24, 1915, when at the age of 83 she passed to her reward. Her Christian faith, great wisdom, and cheerful, courageous disposition marked her as a most unusual woman. Her plan of life was as simple as her husband's, which consisted of finding out each day what she believed to be her duty, through prayer, Bible reading, and meditation, and then doing it uncomplainingly and with as little affectation as possible.

In 1907, when offered a pension by the Legislature of North Carolina, though she greatly needed it, she authorized one of her relatives, then a member of that body, to say that she preferred the money be given to help needy soldiers, or to found a school for wayward boys. At this session there was chartered the Stonewall Jackson Training School, one of the greatest institutions of its kind in America, and certainly the name it bears is an appropriate and inspiring one for the 500 boys enrolled there.

General Jackson's life was representative of the simple virtues for which the South was noted-honesty in thought, speech, and action, freedom from sordid ambition for wealth or notoriety, a high sense of honor and chivalry, unselfish patriotism, and benevolence toward his fellow men. To these traits were added an absolute reliance upon God, and trust in His providence as guarding, guiding, and controlling the daily lives of His servants.

HEROES OF THE SIXTIES

(Address delivered before the Confederate Veterans and Daughters of the Confederacy in Statesville, N. C., May 10, 1927, by Dr. W. E. Abernethy)

Daughters of the Confederacy, old veterans, ladies, and gentlemen, when Pericles ascended the hustings to deliver an eulogy over the Athenians who had fallen at Samos, he prayed to all the gods that he might utter no word unworthy of their fame. In some such spirit I approach the discharge of the duty with which you have honored me to-day. In that memorable year of Our Lord 1860, no lovelier land lay under the circuit of the sun than that which in terms of tender endearment we call the "Old South." Here nature had lavished all her treasures. Mountains lordly as Olympus broke the hurricane's wing and the cyclone's wheel, standing sentinels around hills of embannered grain. Valleys fertile as the deltas of the Tigris or the Nile, clad in cotton, echoed to the happy songs of contented slaves. Mines rich as Golconda locked the sunshine of buried centuries in their vaults. Virgin

forests rivalling those of Lebanon rang with the riotous carnival of the southern birds. Lakes, lovely as Leman or Lucerne, mirrored the sky as blue as that which bends above the Bay of Naples. Here dwelt a peaceful, pastoral people, living in Acadian simplicity, bowing to none but God, loving the old flag which their fathers had followed, and the Union which they had fashioned, coveting no man's goods, meddling with no other's conscience; utterly content only to be let alone in the home which the good God had given them, in possession of the rights clearly guaranteed them under the Constitution.

The flowers of the fateful summer of 1861 were not full blown when the sound of the sullen battery had supplanted the songs of peace. Eleven sovereign Southern States stood in embattled array on the border of our beleaguered land, lifting a new banner to the breeze against the old flag of our fathers, and striving to the utmost of human valor to sever by the sword the bond of an intolerable union. Were they right or wrong? On these memorial days it is just and right that we appeal for the verdict of history. It makes a material difference in our own self-respect as to whether we regard ourselves as the sons and daughters of patriots or traitors.

Lowell, in his address on Lincoln, says: "The impatient vanity of South Carolina hurried 10 prosperous Commonwealths into a crime." That I deny to-day with deep indignation. The assertion that our fathers would shatter the Union for the sake of slavery is the frothing of a flannel-mouthed fool, and deserves to be answered in language too lurid for the lips of a preacher. They fought for the Constitution as its framers understood it. Why should the South desire to destroy the Union? It was born in the brain of a southern sage; its freedom was won by the sword of a southern soldier, and it had been graced by the genius of southern statesmen.

The first Declaration of Independence was made in Charlotte in 1775; the first call for a Continental Congress came from Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, in 1774. The national Declaration of Independence was drawn by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, James Madison, of Virginia, was called "the Father of the Constitution." The new Government was organized by the same southern soldier who had won our freedom. It was not in a fit of passion that our fathers broke the bonds of the Union, but it was because there was nothing else to do. I boldly assert that secession was justified by the Constitution, and, beyond that, by the right of revolution.

First, as to the Constitution: The original thirteen States were settled as separate and sovereign. The Declaration of Independence declared they were free and independent States. The treaty of peace with Great Britain called them by separate names as sovereign and independent States. Under the articles of Confederacy and Perpetual Union, the States reserved their separate sovereignty, and limited Congress to an express delegation of power. It was on motion of Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, the convention was called to “revise the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." That convention gave us the Constitution drawn by the hand of James Madison. It was not then, but years later, that the enemies of the South came to the conclusion that when the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation, then the supreme sovereignty passed from the States to the Federal Government. At the time of its adoption everybody believed that the States were sovereign, and the Federal Government was but the servant; that it was a government not of the people but of the States. Nobody dreamed that the States were creating a corporation whose clutch later would choke its makers. The Federalists came to camp in the preamble, and bowed in worship before the words, "We, the people," ignoring the fact that the words "people" and "States " were used in the same sense in the ninth and tenth amendments. In the ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Then, in the tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, or reserved to the States, respectively-or to the people." Under article II of the Constitution and the twelfth amendment, the President was not-and is not to this day-elected by the people but by the States through electors appointed as the State legislatures should direct-and on failure to so select he should be chosen by the States in the lower House of Congress, each State having one vote. Under article 1, the Senators were to be elected not by the people but by the States through their legislatures. All the justices of the Supreme and Federal Courts were elected not by the people but appointed by the President by consent of the Senate, both of which were creatures not of the people but of the States. It was not by accident or oversight that the word "perpetual" was left out of the new Constitution, for no man of that day dreamed that the States had surrendered their right at any time and for any reason to withdraw from the Union as freely as they had entered it.

Without this understanding, so notorious that it was not even discussed, not a single State would have entered the Union. Very early the course of events proved this true.

In 1797, John Adams, suffering from fatty degeneration of the ego, had Congress pass the alien and sedition laws, under which he, without any process of law, could banish any alien or imprison any citizen whom he disliked. It was answered by the Kentucky resolutions drawn

by Thomas Jefferson. Surely he knew what sort was our Government. Those resolutions recited: "The Federal Government is one of delegated powers for special purposes; each State reserves the residing mass of right to itself; when the General Government assumes undelegated powers its acts are null and void; each State has the right to judge for itself as to the infraction and the mode and measure of redress." In the selfsame year Virginia passed some resolutions drawn by Madison," the father of the Constitution." Surely he knew what the Constitution meant. Those resolutions said: We will defend the Constitution and the Union; the Federal Government is a compact of States; it is limited by the plain terms of the Constitution, and its acts are invalid if not authorized by grants in the Constitution; in case the General Government exceeds its granted powers the States have the right and duty to interpose."

There is hardly a State in the Union that has not at one time or another claimed the right of nullification or secession-they amount to the same thing. Josiah Quincy the younger proclaimed in Massachusetts the right of a State to nullify any act of Congress for any reason. In 1791 Congress laid a tax on liquor. Pennsylvania answered it by the "whisky rebellion." Utterly ignoring two proclamations of President Washington, she captured the Government officials. By strange coincidence it was the father of Robert E. Lee, "Light Horse Harry," who was sent by Washington to put down that rebellion.

In 1807 Congress passed the embargo act. All the New England States entered into a conspiracy with England and with Sir James Craig, Governor of Canada, to secede from the United States and unite with Canada, and they employed as their agent a naturalized Irishman named John Henry for the sum of $5,000. All that stopped it was the repeal of the embargo. In 1812 Congress passed an act declaring war with Great Britain, and President Madison called on the States for troops. Massachusetts and Connecticut spurned the act and the call. The Massachusetts Legislature said, "We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign, and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation without power to protect itself from oppression from any quarter." Where was the lordly Daniel Webster then? We listen in vain for that stentorian voice. But this is not all. The Legislature of Massachusetts issued a call for a convention of all the New England States; and they met in Hartford in 1814. For three weeks they sat behind locked doors. An officer of the Government watched them as far as he could. We know only what they gave out: They demanded that the war with England should stop at once; they denied the right of the General Government to call or control State troops; they declared the right of the States to nullify any act of Congress and to resist its enforcement by any means in their power. Where, oh, where was the lordly Daniel then? There is no doubt nor room for doubt that the New England States would have seceded from the Union then if the war had not stopped.

In 1816 Congress passed an act incorporating the United States Bank. The Legislature of Maryland declared the act unconstitutional, and, though overruled by the United States Supreme Court, the supreme court of Maryland, in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, sustained the nullification. As early as 1793 James Iredell, of North Carolina, then a justice of the United States Supreme Court, said in Chislohm v. Georgia that the States were completely sovereign in regard to the powers they had not delegated to the Federal Government; as late as 1830 the Legislature of North Carolina refused to pass a resolution denying the right of secession, and in 1832 Senator Nat Macon said any State could withdraw from the Union on first paying its proportional part of the national debt.

Amidst all the thunder of fierce debate that shook the national forum from 1820 to 1860 historians concede that the position of the North was more moral; that of the South more logical. In the Senate of 1830 the speech of Hayne was an unanswerable argument for the Constitution; that of Webster an unanswerable plea for the Union. But while the right of secession slept in the Constitution like a sword in its scabbard, the Southern States would never have drawn it forth if they had not been harried and harassed beyond all endurance. Virtually the South was driven out of the Union by a rabid northern majority ruled not by reason but by the white-hot logic of passionate fanaticism.

Slavery was not the cause of the war; it was merely incidental. The position of southern leaders was expressed in the words of Lee : Secession is anarchy. If I owned the 4,000,000 slaves, I would give them all for the Union." The colonial South was opposed to slavery, it was forced on her by New England States' slave traders who bought the slaves with New England liquor. At one time Virginia and Georgia comprised all the Southern States of the original thirteen. Twentythree successive times the Legislature of Virginia refused to receive the slaves; but under the influence of Massachusetts slave dealers, poor, crazy King George forced Virginia to let them in. George Whitfield, cofounder of Methodism, dumped a cargo of slaves on Georgia over the bitter protest of the governor.

Moreover, it was the Northern States that set slavery in the Constitution as an integral part of it. Its adoption was effected by nine Northern States with a population of 2,000,000 and four Southern States with a population of 1,000,000. But it was soon found that

negro slavery was not profitable in the North. With the coming of the cotton gin it became immensely profitable to the South.

When the Northern States had sold their slaves to the South they caught a malignant case of religion; slavery was a sin and must be suppressed. In 1908 a North Carolina barkeeper was converted, he sold his bar to his brother, and joined the church, and adopted the slogan of the Anti-Saloon League, "To hell with liquor." That was now the northern attitude. Press, platform, and pulpit poured forth a fiery denunciation of our people.

The happy relation between the slaves and Ol' Marse and Ol' Missus was colored by the lurid light of frenzied fiction. The Methodist Episcopal Church was sure we were going to hell without a return ticket. In 1844 James Andrew, of Georgia, was bishop. He had married a wife. In fact, he had married two wives. Both of them held inherited slaves. Andrew was opposed to slavery. He said to the slaves, “You are free so far as I can set you free; go in peace." But they would not go. Andrew made this frank, manly statement to the general conference of 1844. They kicked him out, and the South went with him. Every so-called "compromise" in Congress was really a concession by the South to save the Union. In 1820 the Missouri compromise barred slavery from all territory north of 36° 30′. That was clearly unconstitutional, but the South submitted. In the case of California in 1850 the northern majority killed its own Missouri compromise because part of the State lay south of the dividing line. Again the South submitted. In 1854 Kansas and Nebraska knocked at the door. Douglas proposed his squatter sovereignty; that is, let the States decide for themselves by popular vote. The rabid abolitionists now untombed and paraded their own baby, which they had smotheredthe Missouri compromise. Douglas won, and the battle of ballots was on in Kansas. Proslavery won at the polls. The duly elected legislature met at Lecompton, drew up a constitution, and sent their Delegate to Congress. The abolitionist, defeated and disgruntled, seceded, withdrew to Topeka, and set up an independent government. Again the battle was on-not of ballots but of bullets.

Then, in 1857, came the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who had sued for freedom. The United States Supreme Court said, " Negroes are not citizens and can not become so by any process known to the Constitution. They can not sue or be sued. They are only chattels in law. The Constitution gives the owner the right of taking them as property into any State or Territory. Therefore the Missouri compromise and all other compromises are null and void."

This decision, mark you, was effected by northern and not southern judges. On the bench sat five northern and four southern justices-Taney, of Maryland; Grier, of Pennsylvania; and Nelson, of New York, voted for the decision. Fondly our fathers dreamed that this settled the matter forever. Then the abolitionists began to "cuss" the court and the Constitution. Thad Stevens said that Taney went to hell for that decision. The Constitution was denounced as a "Covenant with hell and a league with death."

The fugitive slave law was annulled by the passage of "personal liberty" bills in the following 14 States: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

Then came the election of Lincoln. It has been charged that the election of Lincoln was not sufficient to justify secession. Standing as an isolated incident, this might be true. I know Lincoln said in his first inaugural that he had no purpose or power to interfere with slavery in the States and no express power to interfere with it in the Territories. But Lincoln, with all his power, would have been but a feather in the tempestuous passion of the party which elected him. They declared slavery was a sin and must be suppressed. Lincoln himself had said, "The Nation can not survive half slave and half free." As a last gesture of despair the South threw a "sop to Cerberus " in the Crittenden resolution of 1860, offering to restore the Missouri compromise. Douglas, Davis, and Stevens believed its passage would restore peace and save the Union. It was beaten by northern votes. The Southern States were given to understand that they could remain in the Union only when shorn of their sovereignty and under a constitution regarded as a rotten rag. So, justified by the Constitution and clean of conscience, the South rescinded the ordinances under which she entered the Union.

When South Carolina resumed her separate sovereignty, then all her forts and arsenals reverted to her rightful possession. She sent Adams, Barnwell, and Orr to Washington to negotiate for their peaceable surrender. In answer the Government sent the Star of the West with reinforcements for Fort Sumter. This was a flagrant invasion; this was the first act of open war. The shot from the Confederate batteries in Charleston Harbor was the answer to that invasion.

The story of that struggle against such fearful odds has become the wonder of the world. On one side was a nation of 22 States and 10 Territories, with a population of 21,000,000 of white people, whose She had starry standard shone on every shore and sea of the planet. her army and her navy, her factories and munition plants, and the unlimited credit of the world.

We had 11 States, with a population of 10,000,000, including 4,000,000 slaves. New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio together could send two fighting men to our one into the field. We were without army or navy, without factories for clothing or weapons, without the recognition of a single nation, practically without arms save such as freemen may find or fashion in the hour of oppression. Yet, with unfaltering faith and undaunted daring we unrolled the "Southern Cross" to the sky above the bravest, truest men that ever marched to war's wild music.

Never were men better lead than by the stainless sword of that superbest soldier of the centuries, Robert E. Lee, and never was a leader more faithfully followed than by the heroes in gray.

Eulogy knows no language nor language any eulogy to fashion a fitting wreath for Lee. Nor was self-sacrifice more sublime than when he gave up his princely home rich in tender and heroic memories, resolutely refusing the supreme command of the Nation's Army, to live or die with his people. He well knew that our cause was hopeless without the recognition of some great nation, yet he said: "We have a duty to perform."

"His was all, the Norman's polish and sobriety of grace,

All the Goth's majestic figure, all the Roman's noble face.
And he stood the tall examplar of a grand heroic race.
Truth walked beside him always

From his childhood's early years,

Honor followed as his shadow; valor lightened all his cares; And he rode that grand Virginian, last of all the Cavaliers." The genius of Napoleon; the courage of Cæsar; the fortitude of Wellington; the devotion of Leonidas; the chivalry of King Arthur; and the purity of Chevalier Bayard-all met and mingled in the perfect character of Robert Lee. Grand as he led his legions in the land of the Montezumas, grander as he rode "Old Traveler" along the dusty line of gray, grander still as he rode through the smoking streets of his conquered capital and heard the applause of the victors, grandest of all as, with the mist of unshed tears in his eyes, he faced his fate at Appomattox.

For one moment there came to his soldier soul the desperate dream of a final charge. "How easy," he said, "to ride along the lines and end it all!" He knew that at the flashing of his blade every tired, ragged southern soldier would die with him there. But above the sulphurous smoke of battle rose the vision of the stricken South, and he said: "We must live for our people." Sadder words never leaped from lips of mortal than these, "Men, we have fought through the war together; I have done my best for you; my heart is too full to say more." The greatest man of the Old Testament, Moses, cried to God: "Save my people; if not, blot out my name from Thy book!" The peerless man of the New Testament, St. Paul, said: "I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my kinman according to the flesh!" On that supreme height with these heroic souls stands Robert Lee, as he sacrificed all for his people.

What shall we say of the "Bluelight Elder," Stonewall, the unconquered and unconquerable? He never lost a battle and he never entered one without a prayer to God. Every old veteran of the Shenandoah campaign will recall the sharp command: "Halt!" and the dustbrown ranks stood with bowed heads while he lifted his gauntletted hands to Heaven. Then the clear, crisp command: "Hold your fire till you come within 50 yards of the enemy; then fire, and give them the bayonet, and when you charge yell like devils!" No line ever withstood that fiery onset. Hugo said of Napoleon that he embarrassed God. An all-wise Providence had to take Stonewall Jackson to Heaven before the Confederacy could fall.

But while we pay loving tribute to-day to our leaders, Lee and Jackson, Stuart, Johnston, and the long roll of fame, we would not forget the common soldier. We are told that Sir Christopher Wren built St. Paul's and Michaelangelo built St. Peter's, we hear nothing of the common workmen who translated their dreams with trowel and chisel. History heralds the proud admiral who wins the sea fight; it forgets that the men who handle the guns on the blood-besprinkled decks and the stokers down below the water line feeding the furnace these made victory possible. We sing of the general with gleaming spur and shining epaulette riding along the line; sometimes we forget the unsung soldier standing in the trenches. No bulletin of war to blazon his name; yet in simple, heroic devotion, he does his duty and crowns his leader with victory.

Veterans of the South, I salute you reverently. Your record has become the priceless heritage of history. For four fearful years, through cold and hunger and homesickness, you fought on and on, undreaming of surrender. You were never conquered by Yankee blades or bullets. A deadlier enemy struck from the rear. The unuttered need of our defenseless women and children at home clamored for your aid. God never made more heroic women. Their tender hands, unused to toil, were called to crush the nettle of war. They slept in naked beds, for the sheets were gone to stanch the soldier's blood. The fields were untilled, for the plow horse was pulling the cannon. Food was scarce and money worthless. A calico dress cost $500; flour was $500 a barrel; corn, $30 a bushel; potatoes were $30 a bushel; bacon was $7.50

a pound; eggs were $5 a dozen; sorghum molasses $20 a gallon; yet our more-than-Spartan mothers locked their lips in silent suffering, and sent cheering messages to the front.

Your valor was unconquerable, your defeat was decreed in the chancery of heaven. An iron pen dipped in blood, wrote into the Constitution an interpretation never meant by its framers but one necessary to the perpetuation of the Union. God Almighty needed this undivided Nation. Among the old Hebrews, when a lasting covenant was made each of the contracting parties opened a vein in his arm, and they let their blood flow in a common stream. This blood covenant was irrevocable. So in the red blood of the North and of the South poured together on many a battle field a bond of Union was made which never shall be broken.

To-day you are facing a deadlier enemy than the boys in blue; you are getting old. The shadows are lengthening, and the days are darkening. The thin gray line is growing thinner and grayer. Only a few fleeting years and the last old veteran shall have crossed the river to rest with the leaders under the shade of the tree of life. But into the shadows of old age and into the darkness of death you shall be followed by the reverent regard of our men and the gentle ministries of our women.

When Alexander stood by the tomb of Achilles he said: "O happy Achilles, to have had Homer for your herald." So fortunate are you to have the dear daughters of the Confederacy to guard your memory and garland the graves of your comrades.

Daughters of the Confederacy, I salute you lovingly. No nobler ministry was ever committed to more faithful souls than that of yours to scatter sunshine over the darkening pathway of living veterans and scatter the fragrant flowers of spring over the graves of the dead. They shall live forever in the love and memory of a brave people.

The wild rose of spring dashed with the dews of dawn and sweet with the meadow's breath, the flaming laurel on the sloping highlands, and the shrinking violet in the lowly dell-all are fragrant with their memory. The song birds and the babbling brooks shall chant their names. Nature's cathedral voices, the soft south winds shall breath their story to the hills, and old ocean shall peal, like some mighty anthem to the star of heaven.

"The meanest rill, the mightiest river,
Rolls mingled with their fame forever."

A JUDICIAL ESTIMATE OF JEFFERSON DAVIS

That which preeminently signalizes the public character and parliamentary career of Jefferson Davis was his sincere, unwavering devotion to the doctrine of State sovereignty and all the practical questions that flowed therefrom. He held with unrelaxing grasp to the fundamental fact that the Union was composed of separate, independent, sovereign States, and that all Federal power was delegated, specifically limited, and clearly defined. The titantic struggles of his entire public life were over this one vital issue, with all that it logically involved for the weal or woe of his beloved country. The insistence of Mr. Davis and his compatriots was that the Constitution and laws should be obeyed, that the individual sovereign States must regulate their own domestic affairs without Federal interference, and that their property, of whatever kind, must be respected and protected. They resisted any invasion of the State's right to control its own internal affairs as a violation of the sacred Federal compact.

an

And, by the way, our present-day political discussions are eloquently vindicating the patriotic jealousy of Mr. Davis for the rights of the States. The most significant fact of these strenuous times is the solemn warnings in endless iteration and from both political parties against the ominous encroachment of Federal authority. More and more the Nation is seeing that Jefferson Davis was not an alarmist or academical theorist, but a practical, sagacious, far-seeing statesman, when he contended so persistently for the rights and unconstrained functions of each member of the Federal Union. And it is an interesting and suggestive fact that the latest historians and writers on constitutional government sustain this fundamental contention of southern statesmen.

Mr. Davis wrought with all his great ability and influence to preserve the Union. He favored and earnestly advocated the "Crittenden resolutions" on condition that the Republican members of the peace committee would accept them. Had they not stubbornly refused (and they did it at the advice of Mr. Lincoln), war would have been averted and the dissolution of the Union prevented or postponed.

By the sacred political convictions which had inspired his every public and patriotic service Jefferson Davis consistently lived to the end. Without compromise or modification and with never a suggestion of contrition or concession, he died in the accepted faith of his fathers. And for that fearless and unshaken fidelity to his honest conception of truth and duty the South will continue to adore him, the world will never cease to admire him, and with a wreath of unfading glory the genius of history will not fail to crown him. Had he ever recanted or even compromised, had he ever apostatized or even compromised, had he shown in any way that his often-reiterated doctrines were not the

undying convictions of his sincere soul, had he ever pleaded for pardon on the ground that he had misconceived the truth and misguided his people, the South would have spurned him, the North would have execrated him, and the verdict of history would have deservedly and eternally condemned him. But in the calm consciousness of having done what sacred duty and the cause of constitutional liberty demanded to the end of his days he walked with a steady step that knew no variableness or shadow of turning. The banner under which he fought went down in clouds and gloom, but was never furled by his hands. (Bishop Charles B. Galloway.)

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had agreed to the amendment of the Senate to each of the following bills of the House:

H. R. 5297. An act for the relief of Christine Brenzinger; and H. R. 10799. An act for the lease of land and the erection of a post office at Philippi, W. Va., and for other purposes.

The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 10360) to confer additional jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims under an act entitled "An act authorizing the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota to submit claims to the Court of Claims," approved May 14, 1926.

The message further announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 11026) to provide for the coordination of the publichealth activities of the Government, and for other purposes.

TAX REDUCTION

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1) to reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and for other purposes.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, in lieu of the amendment I offered yesterday afternoon and which is to be voted on this morning, I wish to offer as a substitute the amendment I send to the desk. I ask the clerk to read it, and I should be very glad if those Senators who are interested in it would listen to the clerk's reading.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment to the amendment will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 205, after line 12, in lieu of the committee amendment striking out lines 12 to 14, inclusive, it is proposed to insert:

Upon each sale, agreement of sale, or agreement to sell (not including so-called transfer or scratch sales) any products or merchandise at, or under the rules or usages of, any exchange, or board of trade, or other similar place, for future delivery, for each $100 in value of the merchandise covered by said sale or agreement of sale or agreement to sell, 50 cents, and for each additional $100 or fractional part thereof in excess of $100, 50 cents: Provided, That if any person who shall contract for future delivery of cotton or grain shall furnish an affidavit stating that he is the owner of such cotton or grain and that he has the intention to deliver such cotton or grain, or that such cotton or grain is at the time in actual course of growth on lands owned, controlled, or cultivated by him, and that he has the intention to deliver such cotton or grain, or that he is at the time legally entitled to the future possession of such cotton or grain under and by authority of a contract for the sale and future delivery thereof previously made by the owner of such cotton or grain, giving the name of the party or names of parties to such contract and the time when and the place where such contract was made and the price therein stipulated and that he has the intention to deliver such cotton or grain; or that he has the intention to acquire and deliver such cotton or grain; or that he has the intention to receive and pay for such cotton or grain, shall in that event pay nɔ taxes. But if such affidavit shall be made willfully false, then the maker thereof shall be guilty of perjury and upon conviction be punished as provided by law.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senate for a few moments, let me say that the amendment just offered in lieu of the one we discussed yesterday afternoon will prevent what is called short selling. It would not prevent anyone who owns cotton or grain or who has it in course of production or who holds a contract from some one who has it or has it in course of production from selling that contract. It would not prevent the mill hedging on that sort of a contract. It would tax rather heavily those who sell what they have not and what they never will have to those who do not want it and never expect to receive it. That is what the amendment in its present form does. Under it anyone may sell for future delivery without tax anything he has or has in course of production or that he has under contract to buy.

The evil lies not in the sale for future delivery; no one objects to a man selling what he is going to produce to be deliv

ered in a number of months thereafter; no one objects to a mill which is engaged in spinning cloth buying from somebody who is going to have the raw material in advance of the time it manufactures the product. We object only to people selling what they never have and never expect to have.

Mr. OVERMAN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator a question for information?

Mr. CARAWAY. I will be glad to answer the Senator. Mr. OVERMAN. Suppose a cotton mill wants 10,000 bales of cotton delivered and authorizes me as a broker to hedge for it on that contract-I call it a contract, but I will say its purpose to buy.

Mr. CARAWAY. In other words, it wants to buy a contract for a future delivery of 10,000 bales.

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes.

Mr. CARAWAY. The mill may do that, but before it can be sold to the mill you must hold a contract from somebody who has that cotton or somebody who is growing that cotton.

Mr. OVERMAN. I could not, then, telegraph to the cotton exchange to buy 10,000 bales.

Mr. CARAWAY. You could; but nobody on the exchange could sell it unless he had a contract from somebody who is going to own it. For instance, about 6,000,000 bales of American cotton, in round numbers, is all that is spun in America in a year. Yet they sell on the exchanges in the United States in excess of 200,000,000 bales.

It has been said by the defenders of this system that a future contract, a hedge contract, may be sold five or six times over. Granting that-though I do not think anybody ever has been able to establish it-there would be use for only twenty-five or thirty million of future-contract sales to take care of every bale of cotton that is to be spun in America. Instead of that, they sometimes sell that much on the exchange within a week; and against that we protest.

I have in my hand a letter from the Direct Sales & Finance Co., a concern of Fall River, Mass., with main office at Franklin Building, 100 Purchase Street, Fall River. The letterhead bears the legend Grower to mill." They handle about 135,000

spot bales a year, and possibly are the largest concern selling directly to the mills in America. If I may trespass upon the time of the Senate for a few moments, I wish to read the letter. It is under date of April 7, 1928, and it is addressed to me:

I have your letter of April 4, and have handled as much as 135,000 bales of cotton in one season in this section.

I might say that I wrote a letter to the company to ascertain how much they handled.

I feel that the manipulation which is possible in New York has seriously interfered with the free movement of cotton and is one of the important factors disturbing the textile industry to-day.

One of the mill men in this section, who is also a national figure in the textile industry, informed me yesterday that there was a lack of confidence in cotton goods, going back to the retailer. This was caused by the steady decline in prices during the present season and may take considerable time to adjust itself.

I am thoroughly familiar with the working of the cotton exchange, having traded in rather a large way and also tendered and taken up cotton from the New York stock. All of the following statements are of facts of which I have personal knowledge and on which I can give exact information and names if desired.

In 1923 the cotton business was disrupted by a corner managed by Cooper & Griffin, which cornered March, May, and July. Early in that season I hedged staple cotton, with the market around 29 cents, which was worth at the time in the neighborhood of 36 cents.

Due to the manipulation the New York market advanced to over 35 cents, mills in this section practically stopped buying cotton entirely, and, although I had a loss of over $3,000 in each future contract, the cotton which I had hedged had shown no advance whatever, and was unsalable to the mills even at contract price.

This situation became so serious that mills closed down a great deal of machinery, purchased practically no cotton, and finally in July many of them tendered on New York contracts the cotton which they had in their warehouses. It was more profitable for them to do this than to run the mill; and this consumption which was lost removed this buying power from the market, with a consequent decline to owners of cotton after July contracts had expired.

The latter part of July I tendered on two July contracts cotton at about 35 cents, when similar cotton could be purchased at the same time in the South at slightly over 29 cents. At that time it was impossible to get cotton from the South into New York in time to tender; and, if my memory is correct, the difference between New York and New Orleans was approximately 6 cents a pound.

Anyone who had hedged cotton during the spring or summer, and who did not tender it, had a very serious loss; and those who did tender were only able to lessen in a small way this loss, which must have been

very serious to a great many owners of cotton. I know it was very expensive to us; and the high market in New York was of no advantage to the southern owner of cotton, as he was not in a position to take advantage of it, as it had curtailed the buying of actual cotton.

There is quite a long letter here arguing it out, the result of which is that in his conclusion the grower of cotton lost heavily on the manipulation in the futures market. Doubtless the Senators from Massachusetts, who are familiar with textiles, will know this concern, and know whether it is reputable or not. It is the Direct Sales & Finance Co., of Fall River, Mass. It offers to make good by giving the names and dates of the transactions to anyone who wants to know about them.

Mr. President, I offer this letter to be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCNARY in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I have your letter of April 4, and have handled as much as 135,000 bales of cotton in one season in this section.

I feel that the manipulation which is possible in New York has seriously interfered with the free movement of cotton and is one of the important factors disturbing the textile industry to-day.

One of the millmen in this section, who is also a national figure in the textile industry, informed me yesterday that there was a lack of confidence in cotton goods going back to the retailer. This was caused by the steady decline in prices during the present season, and may take considerable time to adjust itself.

I am thoroughly familiar with the working of the cotton exchange, having traded in rather a large way, and also tendered and taken up cotton from the New York stock. All of the following statements are of facts of which I have personal knowledge and on which I can give exact information and names if desired.

In 1923 the cotton business was disrupted by a corner managed by Cooper & Griffin, which cornered March, May, and July. Early in that season I hedged staple cotton with the market around 29 cents, which was worth at the time in the neighborhood of 36 cents. Due to the manipulation the New York market advanced to over 35 cents, mills in this section practically stopped buying cotton entirely, and although I had a loss of over $3,000 in each future contract, the cotton which I had hedged had shown no advance whatever and was unsalable to the mills even at contract price.

This situation became so serious that mills closed down a great deal of machinery, purchased practically no cotton, and finally in July many of them tendered on New York contracts the cotton which they had in their warehouses. It was more profitable for them to do this than to run the mill, and this consumption which was lost removed this buying power from the market, with a consequent decline to owners of cotton after July contracts had expired.

The latter part of July I tendered on two July contracts cotton at about 35% cents, when similar cotton could be purchased at the same time in the South at slightly over 29 cents. At that time it was impossible to get cotton from the South into New York in time to tender, and, if my memory is correct, the difference between New York and New Orleans was approximately 6 cents a pound.

Anyone who had hedged cotton during the spring or summer and who did not tender it had a very serious loss, and those who did tender were only able to lessen in a small way this loss, which must have been very serious to a great many owners of cotton. I know it was very expensive to us, and the high market in New York was of no advantage to the southern owner of cotton, as he was not in a position to take advantage of it, as it had curtailed the buying of actual cotton.

It is possible for New England to ship cotton into New York and tender within 48 hours, and I knew the mills in this section had shipped in considerable long-staple cotton late in July. In addition to the cotton which was shipped into New York, Cooper & Griffin agreed to buy cotton from certain mills and resell it to them provided the cotton could not be tendered on any contract in which they had an interest. They also purchased in the South cotton owned in the Eastern States which could have been tendered, and by holding this cotton off the market they were in a position to penalize all persons who were short the New York market, either as a speculation or as a legitimate hedge.

Knowing that this cotton was in New York and also that mills had practically no cotton to run, I got in touch with Mr. McCuen, who was handling the details of the cotton in New York for Cooper & Griffin. They had taken up, I believe, in the neighborhood of 65,000 bales, which was all of the cotton tendered. In this there were several thousand bales of staple cotton, a large part of which I purchased and which was shipped to New Bedford.

The handling of the market in 1923 was for no legitimate purpose. It was an absolute corner, run for the purpose of making money out of the shorts and for no other purpose. Cooper & Griffin gave plenty

of warning of what they were doing and most of the New York brokers were familiar with what was going on. It was the legitimate cotton shipper who used the market as a hedge who was hurt and all owners of cotton indirectly by depriving them of a market for their actual cotton by maintaining fictitious values of which they were unable to take advantage.

These same people ran a corner in 1920, when futures were forced to 43 cents, followed later by a decline in the following months to very nearly 10 cents. To blame all of the subsequent declines on the corner would probably be incorrect, but they unquestionably made the subsequent declines more serious.

Since this corner, manipulation has tended in the other direction by keeping in New York under control of one organization practically all of a large stock in New York.

I have considerable sympathy with the attitude of Mr. Clayton in his controversy with the New York exchange, as he has at least handled actual cotton, whereas most of the active members of the exchange have been out of the cotton business for some time or have never engaged in the handling of actual cotton.

I believe that Mr. Clayton is correct when he says that if he did not control the market it would be impossible for him to do business; but, on the other hand, this is very little satisfaction to the small dealer in cotton who finds it impossible to make a profit in the face of competition as it is to-day.

Early this season, owing to the scarcity of low grades in the present crop, we tried to purchase in New York on a basis to figure more than 100 points over the contract price low middling contract cotton. There were at that time over 30,000 bales low middling value cotton in New York, but we found that no one would sell this cotton and either did not care to or were afraid to interfere with the owners of the stock. I can not see why the tendering of 100,000 to 200,000 bales of cotton on first notice day is necessary for the protection of hedges. There are few, if any, dealers in New York who would be able to take this entire stock as tendered. For this reason it forces out of the market every owner of a contract and makes it impractical to own contracts after the 15th of the month preceding the contract month. This, of course, keeps the spot month down, and as actual cotton, to a large extent, is based on the spot month, also keeps the price at which cotton can be sold at a level below what it would be if there was not this manipulation on notice day.

When this practice of tendering practically the entire stock was first inaugurated by Anderson, Clayton & Co. the market dropped off very decidedly on notice day, and the difference between the spot and following months was widened. This is not so noticeable at the present time, as the adjustment is spread out over a longer period, but has the effect of depressing the spot month over a period of two or three weeks instead of concentrating this pressure on one day.

I firmly believe that unless the contract is put under strict control either of a body of the exchange or, preferably, a Government commission of practical cotton men, that a great many of the handlers of cotton will be forced out of business entirely. Up to the present time it has ruined a great many shippers and injured the credit of a great many more, and as far as I can see, up to the present time nothing has been done which gives any hope of improvement in the future.

I hope the above will be of value to you, and if you wish me to explain further will be pleased to do so.

Yours very truly,

EDW. C. PEIRCE.

Mr. CARAWAY. I have here-it will take me only a minute to read it-a letter from one of the large milling concerns, the Bay State Milling Co., millers of hard spring wheat and rye flours. Their address is 608 to 622, Grain and Flour Exchange, India and Milk Streets, Boston, Mass. I might explain that this letter is preceded by another letter, which I shall offer for the RECORD, which shows that the manipulation in wheat hurt both the farmer and the millman:

Referring to my letters of April 30 and May 1, if you have not happened to see a summary of the trading in wheat "futures," alone, in Chicago last week, you will be interested to know that the sales officially reported for the week were 478,000,000 bushels for each day, the session being three and three-quarters hours, except on Saturday, when it is two and one-half hours.

In other words, in one week they sold 478,000,000 bushels of wheat every day in three and a half hours, except that on Saturday they compressed the sales of that wheat into two and a half hours.

You will note that upon the basis of these transactions the entire wheat crop of the United States would be sold in 10 days. Now, here is the interesting part of it: