CHAPTER XXXI.

Correspondence with the secretary of the treasury-Defends the Democratic platform-Condemns the tariff-Opposes licensing dealers in options-Speech on the repeal of the purchasing clause of the "Sherman Act."

On July 12, 1892, I asked "consent to lay before the senate for publication in the Record' a very brief correspondence with the secretary of the treasury and director of the mint in reference to silver. I ask that the correspondence be read and printed in the 'Record.' It is very brief."

"UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

"July 2, 1892.

"Sir-I have the honor to request information upon the following points: 1. What number of the standard silver dollers of the coinage of the United States are according to the treasury estimates now in circulation? 2. What number of standard silver dollars of the United States are now in the treasury? 3. What number of troy ounces, or avordupois pounds of silver bullion purIchased with silver or coin certificates are now in the treasury? 4. What length of time would it require with the present facilities of the mints of the United States to coin all the silver bullion in the treasury purchased with silver or coin certificates, into standard silver dollars? 5. What number of standard silver dollars at the present legal ratio would the silver bullion in the treasury purchased with silver or coin certificates, produce if coined?

"I am aware that information upon some of the points presented by the foregoing questions, is now in the possession of the public, but I desire an official statement

from the treasury department which will cover the points in the order above stated.

"Respectfully,

JOHN M. PALMER.

"HON. CHAS. FOSTER, Secretary of the Treasury."

"TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF THE MINT, "WASHINGTON, D. C., July 11, 1892.

"HON. CHAS. FOSTER, Secretary of the Treasury.

"Sir-I have to reply to the inquiries contained in your letter of the 2d inst., as follows:

"1. The number of standard silver dollars in circulation, July 1, was $56,779,484.

"2. The number of silver dollars in the United States treasury, July 1, was $357,189,251.

"3. The amount of silver bullion purchased under act of July 14, 1890, in the treasury, July 1, was 78,933,000 troy ounces of fine silver, or 5,412,548 avordupois pounds.

"4. With the present facilities of the mint of the United States, it would require nearly two and one-half years to convert this bullion into silver dollars, doing no other coinage. The bullion now in the treasury purchased under the act of July 14, 1890, would coin one hundred and two millions fifty-five thousand standard Respectfully yours,

silver dollars.

"E. O. LEACH, Director of the Mint.

"HON. JOHN M. PALMER, U. S. S."

Which led to a debate in which I took no part. After some badinage with the senator from Maine (Mr. Frye) in regard to the enforcement of the Maine liquor law, I said:

"Mr. President-I reply seriously to the senator from Maine. The laws of the State of Illinois prohibit the opening of the saloons on Sunday. It must be remembered that Chicago, like all large cities, is cosmopolitan. It has not been found possible to enforce the laws against the sale of liquor on Sunday. I do believe,

however, that in the state where we have local option, the laws forbidding the sale of liquors are as well enforced as they are in the State of Maine. I believe it to be true that they are enforced as well as they are in the State of Kansas or in the State of Iowa. In Chicago, I confess, the laws against the sale of liquors have not been enforced, and they will not be enforced, probably until the regeneration of human nature.

"If the Sunday laws could be enforced in Chicago against the sale of liquor there might be less said in support of my views. I believe that it would be advisable, that it would promote morality to open the exposition on Sunday, so as to allow persons to enter, to see and to enjoy all that is to be seen. There are gentlemen who talk about the American Sabbath. Mr. President, I reverence American institutions; I have no eagerness to adopt anything foreign, but I do believe that American sentiment has undergone a change under the influence of broader views of individual rights. New England sentiment at one time actually required a very close observance of Sunday, but that was the despotism not of God but of the church; and it is a remarkable fact that in another portion of the Union, where more liberal views were indulged, the morality of the people was as complete and as perfect as it was in New England.

"It is said by a late writer, 'that it is very remarkable that in New England where theoretically popular rights are most regarded, the government was most despotic; while in another quarter, where aristocratic ideas were to some extent recognized, actual personal liberty was better protected than in New England.' The change has taken place, and we cannot resist it. speak of the 'American Sabbath,' and it deserves reverence, but it is for me to revere the Sabbath, and it is not for me to impose upon another that obligation. There is the distinction I make, and hence the law of Illinois

We may

is, I maintain, right in principle and right in its application, that 'whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by labor (works of necessity and charity excepted) or by any amusement or diversion on Sunday shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars. Whoever shall be guilty of any noise, rout or amusement on the first day of the week, called Sunday, whereby the peace of any private family may be disturbed, shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars.'

"That I maintain to be the just limit of the power of the state to enforce Sunday laws. I took part

in the debates upon the power of the courts of law to enforce specific payments in gold and denied their right to do so. I said in the debate upon the Homestead question:

"Mr. President, the world has been governed very much by the jingle of words, and no word has jingled more frequently and more fallaciously than the word 'protection,' that is so often vaunted in Republican platforms and Republican publications. How is it now? We are told that the tariff on wool was demanded by the Ohio wool growers, by what has been so aptly termed the 'ram growers of Ohio that they demanded protection.' According to reports it has not benefitted them; but in Illinois and Iowa, where a different kind of wool is produced, it has declined steadily since the passage of the McKinley act.

"In 1890, I speak now of matters within my personal knowledge, having some connection with the peculiar wool growing interests of Illinois, wool was sold, such as we produced, at twenty-six cents in the fleece.

"In 1891 the same crop was sold at twenty-four cents. In 1892 the same clip from the same sheep, with such additions as have been added by mere growth, sold at twenty-one cents a pound. Now, the promise was that wool in common with other wool the result of the McKinley tariff. an advance on our farm products;

would advance as We were promised wheat we were told

would advance. The domestic markets we were told would advance. The condition of prices in the west is an answer to that promise. It has not been fulfilled.

I know of one farm product upon which there was a very large duty. I do not know that I ever felt more humiliated than in 1888, in witnessing the practical operation of the duty on potatoes. I was in the town of Sycamore, in the northern part of the State of Illinois, one of the most intelligent communities in the state. I stopped with a friend (Mr. Boynton) whose views were very pronounced. He said, 'Come here, let me show you something.' I saw an Irish laborer traveling from store to store, and the potatoes he bought had upon them a duty of twenty-five cents a bushel. My friend said, 'What a tariff this is that never operates except in time of famine !'

66

On July 27, 1892, I opposed a bill for licensing dealers in options, and said, among other things, 'I put the question to the senator from Minnesota or Oregon, can congress define and punish gambling in the states? Does not this bill define that which is gambling, and does it not seek to suppress and punish it? Can congress then acquire jurisdiction by selecting a constitutional mode of doing an unconstitutional thing? It is a possible conception to a lawyer that by the mere choice of the manner of doing it congress may acquire the power of doing that which it could not do directly. In Illinois we have a statute which is rigid enough, and if it were enforced would suppress this evil within the limits of that state.

"Mr. President, I have no embarrassment in regard to my position on this measure. During my canvass for senator in Illinois, I was asked publicly by a body which claimed to represent the farmers of Illinois, whether I would vote for a bill like this, and by a public letter, or a letter which was published, and by speeches the various parts of the state, I said, 'No.' The option clause of the first section of the bill is much less satisfactory