So that if the present system be continued this will be the condition of the Government at the expiration of the next ten years: Bonds to be issued from now until then (ten years at $86, 017,963.69 per year)... Bonds already issued... $860,179,636.90 262,000,000.00 Total gold obligations now placed and to be placed upon the people to maintain the present system during that time....$1,122,179,636.90 And since the Government would have to issue more gold bonds to meet those already issued, and to be issued, to meet this annual loss, and also to meet these bonds, in turn, when they mature, where must it end-where can it end-except in repudiation, dishonor, or bankruptcy? never consent to a change, for Europe gets what we lose in gold. Europe will It will be noticed in this forecast that the bonded indebtedness of the United States prior to the inauguration of the present system has not been considered, and yet that enormous debt must be met. "But," says one, "this loss in gold may not continue, and ample revenue would stop it. We had no trouble about gold before the Democrats got in and tampered with the tariff." Ah, my friend, you are not acquainted with the facts! You forget that there was such abundant revenue flowing into the Treasury under the Harrison administration that the Republican party passed the McKinley bill for the purpose (it is now claimed) of diminishing its volume; and yet the Government lost over $127,000,000 in gold under President Harrison. It is a subterfuge to charge this loss of gold to the loss of revenue. The loss of gold antedates the loss of revenue. A higher tariff might bring more revenue into the Treasury, but it would not bring any more gold into it, and gold is what is needed. Do you ask why it would not bring in more gold? I reply, because customs duties are payable in silver, silver certificates, Treasury notes, or United States notes; and, consequently, the banks hoard the gold and the Government revenues are paid in currency. If it is asked why the banks do this I reply, because it is to their interest to do so. By keeping gold coin out of the Treasury they force the Government to issue bonds, which they buy, and make the basis of their circulationGovernment bonds constitute the very staff of their existence. If it is asked. "Do the banks do this?" I reply with the following statistics: Previous to and including the year 1891 the larger portion of the gold reserve of the national banks consisted of United States gold certificates, as the foregoing table of official figures shows. But from 1889 to 1893 the gold certificates held by them fell from $71,912,260 to $52,274,100-a loss of $19,638,160, while the amount of gold coin held by them rose from $71,910,467 to $143,928,989-a gain of $72,018,522, or more than double what it was in 1891. Here was a transfer, within four years, of the sum of $72,018,522 in gold coin from the Treasury of the United States to the national banks alone, not to mention the amount hoarded by other banks and trust companies. But this is not the worst of it. For, although the national banks had larger reserves of gold in 1893 ($196,203,089) than they had ever held before, they refused gold for export purposes and compelled the Government to furnish it. It is hard to fathom the purpose of this move. The banks had, up to that time, provided gold out of their own vaults for export purposes without making or compelling a raid on the Treasury of the United States. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1895 shows this state of affairs: "For many years after resumption much the larger part of the gold demanded for export was furnished by the banks and other financial institutions, and this continued to be the case until July 1, 1892; but since that date the withdrawals from the Treasury have considerably exceeded the amount exported. The banks and other institutions * ** ceased to supply the export demand, thus throwing the entire burden on the Treasury, and our own people have withdrawn large sums for hoarding or for the settlement of gold contracts at home. The withdrawals from the Treasury between July 1, 1879, and July 1, 1892, amounted to $43,310,896, while the gross exports during the same time amounted to $389,354,757, showing that $346,043,861 was supplied from sources outside of the Treasury; but the withdrawals from July 1, 1892, to December 1, 1895, have amounted to $360,266,512 and the gross exports have amounted to $305,617,419, from which it appears that the Government has furnished a sum equal to the whole export and $54,649,093 in addition." In other words, it was the policy and established practice of the banks to furnish the major part of all gold needed for export purposes until they formed a new. purpose-that of forcing gold bonds from the Government by depleting the gold reserve of the United States Treasury. Since the formation of that purpose they have not only compelled the Government to put up all the gold needed for export purposes, but they have transferred all the gold they could from the vaults of the Treasury to the vaults of their own banks. Starting in 1892 with less than $95,000,000 in gold coin, they forced $262,000,000 of gold bonds from the Government and had over $10,000,000 more of gold coin in May, 1896, than they started with in 1892. That is, they euchred the Government out of $262,000,000 in gold bonds and over $10,000,000 in gold coin. Was it a conspiracy? Yes! What was its object? Bonds! Did they get them? Yes! Can they do it again? Yes! Will they do it again? Yes; as long as they thirst for gold bonds on which to predicate their own circulation and extend their power-they will continue to thirst for bonds as long as the Government has any paper money in circulation, for they want a monopoly of the paper money business themselves. How long can they continue to do this? Just as long as the present system is continued. Is it wise? Is it safe for any country to have a financial system under which such performances are made possible? No! And yet that is just what the Republicans are urging you to have the United States do. XVIII. PENSIONS.* THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE From forum, tribune, and in legislative halls the enemies of honest administrative methods have hurled at the Democratic party the accusation that it al vays was and is now the enemy of the old soldier, and that the very existence of the pension system in the future depends upon the restoration of the Republican party to power, thus perennially insulting the intelligence of the great public conscience for political advantage solely, as each campaign approaches, and striving to befog the public judgment in the consideration of a simple question of the honest administration of the law. To the charge that the present administration is unfriendly and ungenerous to the Federal soldiery, let us address ourselves. With alacrity can the Democratic party take up the gauge of battle on these lines and go before the country pon he record with supreme confidence in that sense of fair play, love of justice and genius for the right inherent in the generous and intelligent manhood of the nation, that will not be swerved by the howling dervishes of misrule from its approbation of honest public servants who exemplify in the proper administration of the laws of the country that 'a public office is a public trust." The attitude of the Democratic party is best voiced by the sentiments contained in the National Democratic platforms from 1864 to 1892 and the several State platforms which urge liberal pensions to be granted as a right in accordance with the law and not in violation of it; and also in the friendly and generous sentiments of President Cleveland, expressed towards the deserving volunteer soldiers, which abound in the many messages that from time to time he has sent to Congress : CLEVELAND AND PENSIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC RECORD IN CONGRESS. Actions speak louder than words. What have the Democratic President and party done since the war to make good their promises, to show a sincere sense of the sacred debt due the defenders of the Union and merit the confidence of a grateful, generous country? The United States statutes furnish the proper answer. (1). Cleveland approved the act of Aug. 4, 1886, increasing the pensions of 10,030 cripples, armless and legless veterans, from $24 to $30; $30 to $36, and from $37.50 to $45 per month. (2). Act of March 19, 1886, considering the past alone, increased from $8 to $12 per month the pensions of 79,989 widows and dependents on the rolls at that time, as well as the tens of thousands who have since been placed there. These 79,989 certificates were issued by a Democratic Commissioner of Pensions without one cent of expense or a moment's unnecessary delay to these deserving beneficiaries, and with no hindrance to other just claims pending before the office. *From Campaign Book of 1894. (3). Act of May 15, 1886, granting certificates of discharge to members of the Missouri Homne Guards, whose claims were adjudicated by the Hawkins-Taylor Commission. (4). Act of May 17, 1886, amending the reports of the War Department, which discriminated against a large and worthy class of soldiers, relieving thousands of unfortunate veterans of the hardships, worked by the resting of charges against them, based upon technical errors in the records. (5). Act of January 29, 1887, benefiting about 30,000 survivors and widows of the Mexican War, to whom more than $15,000,000 have been disbursed. (6). Act of June 7, 1888, granting arrears to widows from the date of death of the husband, and providing that all United States officers authorized to administer oaths should administer all oaths required to be made in pension cases in the execution of vouchers for pensions free of charge-a just and humane act. This act in the past alone benefited more than 200,000 soldiers' widows, and was inspired by that universal regard for the decencies of life, which urged that this worthy class should suffer no discrimination in refraining from an unseemly scramble for pensions, ere ceased the last strains of the requiem over the dead soldier-husband's reanains. (7). Act of August 14, 1888, for the relief of certain appointed or enlisted men in the navy or marine corps from technical charges against them in the records, which stood between them and pensions to which they were justly entitled. (8). Act of August 27, 1888, increasing pensions on account of deafness. (9). Act of February 12, 1889, granting an increase in pension from $72 to $100 per month to all persons who in the line of duty, in the naval or military service of the United States, lost both hands. More than thirty of this extremely unfortunate class were benefited by this act immediately on the date of its passage. (10). Act of March 1, 1889, relating to the payment of pensions to the widows or dependent heirs where subsequent to the issuance of the check the pensioner dies. (11). Act of March 2, 1889, removing certain technical charges in the record, and relieving a large and meritorious class of volunteer and regular soldiers of the late war and the war with Mexico, placing them in an honorable light be ore posterity and the comrades with whom they fought side by side; and (12). Act of December 21, 1893, making a pension a vested right. During the four years of the last Republican administration President Harrison approved only seven acts which may, by any stretch, be characterized as general pension bills, and one, the Army Nurse Bill, was passed by a Democratic House. Since 1875, the year of Democratic accession to power in the House of Representatives, in addition to the foregoing general acts, all of which were approved by a Democratic President, Democratic Houses of Representatives have initiated every pension law now upon the statute books, save during the brief period of the notorious (47th) Keifer Congress, and the equally notorious Billion Dollar (51st) Reed Congress. Democratic Houses pass d: (1). Act of August 15, 1876, issuing artificial limbs or commutation therefor to disabled soldiers and seamen, and providing transportation for the purpose of having the same properly fitted. (2). Act of February 28, 1877, increasing the pension of those who lost both an arm and a leg. (3). Act of March 9, 1878, granting pensions on account of service in the war of |