The White Man's Failure in Government.

The white man is almost entirely sentimental in government, and this causes irregularity, confusion, injustice and, therefore, failure. He is not deliberate, nor careful and painstaking, but hasty, rash and thougtless. So true is this of him that it seems he goes into the halls of State and makes laws simply to have them broken or overruled by the courts and construed to be defective, unconstitutional or otherwise inappropriate and out of order. This is the case, not in one State alone, but in every State of the Union and in every county, district, township or city, and more especially is it true of the national government when operatiing in congressional capacity. I repeat, that there is this looseness of enactment to be found everywhere. Take the white man in any stage of the world in which he has acted a part, and he will show up as a lawbreaker and disturber of the general peace. He is not disposed to be at peace. He is never content nor satisfied. He is everywhere in history creating a confusion, a turmoil, a rebellion. He is against law and order. He is, as a race, cruel, heartless and bloodthirsty. With Him it is rule or ruin. This is true of him whether in ancient, middle or modern times, whether in ancient Roman or Anglo-Saxon mythology, or in real, historical acts--he is seen in the same light and plight.

Let me here insert a set of resolutions adopted at a mass-meeting held in Haverhill, Mass., October 28, 1895, to protest against lynching and other outrages and lawlessness now going on in the South and other parts of the country. I insert these resolutions to prove that the laws and constitution are not enforced nor 00034obeyed. The resolutions are in the following words:

"Whereas, we believe that the prosperity and well being of any country depend upon the treatment of its subjects; and,

"Whereas, the constitution of these United States gives to every American citizen civil and political rights and a trial by jury of his peers; and,

"Whereas, we believe that man has been endowed by the Almighty God with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and,

"Whereas, there are American citizens of African descent who are denied the privileges guaranteed to every American citizen without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude upon the pretext that they have no rights which the white man is bound to respect.

"We believe the negro to be a law-abiding citizen, that he has never raised his hand to traduce or disintegrate the union formed by the fathers of this great republic, but, on the other hand, his blood has been spilled in three wars for her preservation.

"We believe they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship, and the man or set of men who deprives men of their constitutional rights are traitors to the cause of good government.

"We believe, further, that the South owes to the negro a debt of gratitude for his 250 years of unrequited toil.

"We believe that, with proper treatment, the South, which is the home of negro, would reap a hundred-fold greater blessing than she has ever before witnessed; that prosperity would overflow her valleys and crown her mountain tops with greater rapidity than ever before known.

"After 250 years of the most inhuman slavery the world has ever known, when it was a crime to teach the negro the arts of civilization, he has emerged from this most degrading position and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he has brain and intellect capable of the highest improvement.

"We believe, further, that God has created all men of 00045one flesh and blood to dwell upon the earth, and that no one should be deprived of his God-given rights. Therefore,

"Resolved, That civilization and progress is impeded by mob law, and that, like others, it is contagious and threatens the very foundation principles of this republic;

"Resolved, That the frequent lynching of American citizens in the South is an attack upon the free institution for which loyal subjects have bled and died;

"Resolved, That we invoke the Christian Church to awake and use her God-given right to stop these atrocious cruelties that are rolling a tide of woe to our doors that we cannot overlook;

"Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that every church and pulpit owes it to God and humanity to use every means in their power to stop these midnight murderers and bring them to justice;

"Resolved, That while we believe in States' rights, we also believe that the constitution and its amendments are sacred, and that no State has a paramount right to violate that sacred instrument, and the State that allows the flagrant abuse of that instrument is an enemy to the common union of States;

"Resolved, That we request our representatives in both houses of Congress of these United States to introduce such resolves as will secure to every American citizen, without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude, equal civil and political rights;

"Resolved, That we request all papers to publish these resolutions that the world may know that we believe in the rights of man."

These facts lead one to ask the question, is the white man capable of independent self-government, or what is known as popular government, or government by the people? Are the rights of the people safe in the white man's hands? These questions may be better answered by asking another; Has he, in any stage of 00056the world's history in which he has had control, proved that he could give the people that rest, that happiness, that peace of body and mind so much desired, longed for and sought after by every civilized community? If he ever has, in what age of the world did it happen? Certainly not in the time of the so-called Greek and Roman republics and Anglo-Saxon States or townships, for in all of these there was little more than the idea and form." But, after that, the populist idea, as in every case in the past and present, was soon lost sight of, and the community has in each and every instance, without a single exception, given up and given away its rights, privileges and immunities as a community and Commonwealth, and have settled down into an aristocracy or an oligarchy, which means the few, and not the people; it means the nobility, the gentry, and, finally, into anarchy, which means confused government, or without order in government, and an anarchist is one who attempts to introduce disorder or confusion into a country. Government means control, rule, orderly constraint and proper management, and not form only. This leads me to assert that this is just the state and condition of this country today. It has the form, and plenty of it, but no government in any part or department of it.

Take the police department of the country, for example, and what do we find? Why, lawlessness, blood-shed and riot everywhere, with no power anywhere to check it. And why? Because of the fatal doctrine of state independence and it is fatal because, when carried to its legitimate results, it creates national dependence on the States as to what it can do, or cannot do and say, as to the management of the affairs of the country. And yet the general government is charged with the solemn duty of observing peace and order, both national and international. Still, any State, in its independence, may make a breach of the peace, or, in common parlance, "kick up a fuss" with any other nation and leave the national government to settle it as best it can by way of large indemnities and other diplomatic negotiations and great cost to the people.00067Not only so, but a city--any city in any State--may entail great international burdens upon the general government which the whole people of the nation have to pay, as, for instance, the slaughtering of the Italians in New Orleans a few years ago. It cost the government an indemnity of $25,000, besides all other costs and expenses, which were very great. And yet the general government was and is still powerless, under the conditions of States' rights, to help herself in any way whatever either against Italy or the city of New Orleans. Moreover, that act came near plunging the nation into a bloody and devastating war. This is what I consider one of the organic weaknesses of the national government. And another very great weakness in the government is that the constitution does not prevent individuals from selling out the country to other nations, and the result is that both the wealth and territory of this country is largely, yes, very largely, in the hands and ownership of foreign powers. Do you ask, "Can this be true?" Yes, it is true, and I, for one, have not many tears to shed over the fact, either, because instead of the whites of this country busying themselves over matters of internal improvements, the development and progress of the nation and its fortification against a foreign power, they have spent their best powers, energies and intellects in devising ways and means to prevent what he is pleased to call "negro domination." I mean to say, that while the white man of this country has had his eyes steadfastly fixed on us, as a race, with a view keeping us down, others outside have been busy buying up and otherwise coming into possession of the land and other wealth of the country. In order to prove these assertions, let us quote some figures on the subject--see what they say:

That English aristocrats should rule large dominions in the United States, and rule them from London, is at first a difficult thing to grasp, for, until it is borne in mind that peers and peeresses of Great Britain are large landed proprietors in our country--Viscount Scully alone owns 3,000,000 acres in Ilinois, Iowa and Nebraska--does the significance of absenteeism in landlords 00078become apparent. But now the matter will be brought home to Americans more directly than it has ever been brought home yet, for there is shortly to be a union in London of the American land-owning interests, and a series of drastic measures are scheduled which, it is believed, will not only increase the annual rentals of the vast domain involved, but which will greatly affect the destinity of the hundreds of thousands who dwell upon it.

First of all, a list of the members of the aristocracy who own the lands in question will not be without interest. Such a list has never before been given in full. The greatest of the English holdings and the persons interested are these:

Alexander Grant, London (in Kansas)--35,000 acres.

Syndicate No. 1--50,000 acres. This is a Scotch concern and its land is in Florida.

English Land Company (in Arkansas)--50,000 acres.

Lord Houghton (in Florida)--60,000 acres.

Lord Dunraven (in Colorado)--60,000 acres.

Benjamin Newgas, Liverpool--100,000 acres.

Syndicate No.6--110,000 acres. This syndicate includes the Earl of Vimlam and the Earl of Lankeville. The land is in Wisconsin.

Lord Dunmore--120,000 acres.

The Duke of Sutherland--125,000 acres. This is the actress-loving, champagne-bidding and rack-rent nobleman of police-court fame.

William Whaley--210,000 acres. Mr. Whaley is the squire of Peterboro, England.

Robert Tennant--250,000 acres. This is all farming land. Mr. Tennant lives in London.

Dundee Land Company--24,700 acres.

The Missouri Land Company--300,000 acres. This operates a Missouri dominion, and has headquarters at Edinburgh.

The British Land Company--320,000 acres. This land is all in Kansas.00089M. Enifenhauser of Halifax--600,000 acres. The land is in West Virginia.

Brayan H. Evans--700,000 acres. Mr. Evans resides in London. His lands are in Mississippi.

The Anglo-American Synidicate, London--750,000 acres. The funds of windowed peresses are largely invested here. The lands are in the South and West.

Phillips, Marshall & Co, London--1,300,000 acres. This firm has the whole peerage for their clients.

Marquis of Tweedale--1,750,000 acres. The Marquis is William Montaque Hay, famed all over Scotland as the rack-rent landlord.

Syndicate No. 4--1,800,000 acres. This syndicate has all its holdings in Mississippi. It includes the Marquis of Dalhousie, George Henry Howard Cholmondeley (Viscount Cholmondeley), Georgiana, Viscountess Cross; Hon. Lady Hamilton Gordon and Hon. Lady Biddulph.

Sir Edward Reid--2,900,000 acres. This is a syndicate which owns lands in Florida only. It includes the present Duchess of Marlborough, Lady Randolph Churchill and Lady Lister Kaye.

Viscount Scully--3,000,000 acres. His lordship maintains an elaborate system of bailiffs.

The Texas Land Union (Syndical No. 3)--3,000,000 acres. Interested peers--Baroness Burdett Coutts, Earl Cadogan, H. C. Fitzroy Somerset (this is the Duke of Beaufort), William Alexander Lochiel Stephen Douglass Hamilton, Duke of Deandon; the Duke of Rutland, Ughtaed J. Kay Shuttleworth and End Ethel Cadogan (maid in waiting to the Queen). This syndicate owns whole counties in Texas, and tens of thousands of persons pay its rentals.

It is claimed that fully 20,000,000 acres of American lands are thus owned by great landowners in England and Scotland. This does not include the Holland syndicate, which owns 5,000,000 acres of grazing lands in Western States, nor the German syndicate, owning 2,000,000 acres in various States. For some time past it has been evident to the foreign landowners that concerted action on their part was essential to their interests. 000910It is well known to those who have even causally looked into the matter that foreign landowning has much impeded te development of the Western Commonwealths. These great landowners positively refuse to sell. They prefer to establish a system of bailiffs, with the results that very serious complications have resulted. The State legislatures have done their best to deal with the question, but heretofore with only indifferent success. Viscount Scully is, rightly or wrongly, made the scapegote of this whole business.

He has for some years been a thorn in the path of one State administration after another, and his shrewdness in evading every provision of law diredted against him has extorted the admiration of thousands. Thus Scully practically owns in Illinois the best part of the counties of Logan, Livingston and Tazewell. The State in 1877 passed an alien land law directed solely against Scully. To evde it he insisted beforehand upon a clause in all his leses stipulating that the lessee should pay all taxes accruing against the lessee should pay all taxes accruing against the property leased. The result was the creation of a large and solid body of voters in the Scully counties, as they are called, opposed to propositions of public improvement by taxation.

The war against Scully in Illinois threw the other British landowners into a panic, and as fast as leases have fallen in they have been renewed under heavier and heavier conditions. Alien land laws have occupied the the attention of legislatures, and in Kansas and Nebraska the struggle for a time had a serious effect upon land securities of all kinds.

Finally, matters came to such a deplorable stage that a committee of the American tenantry was appointed to present a memorial to the London landowners, setting forth the ruin that stared the Western farmers in the face as the result of the rack-renting system that had been evolved out of the chaos. This memorial had a marked effect on Baroness Burdett-Counts, who insisted upon no more evictions of American farmers. It only aggravated the Duke of Southerland, who was then in sore need of funds, and he cabled his agents to collect the rents and send them ovr at all hazards001011Finding that mild measures availed nothing, the tenantry resorted to a more radical expedient. An association has been formed in Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas to resist to the utmost the demands of the English landlords. The organization is a lively one and is the first really agrarian agitation in American history. The association works more secretly than the Holy Vehm Gerichte, but it has already influenced legislation in a marked manner.

This is the development in the situation which, more than anything else caused the English landowners to form an alliance among themselves. The movement was first proposed in the interest of the Scully estate. It is intended to have an agent in attendance at the meetings of legislatures of all the States involved this winter. The matter was brought to the attention of Sir Julian Pauncefote this autumn when he visited the London Foreign Office. What he is to do in the matter no one cares to say.

The above quotations are from the Ottawa Journal.

And the "Little Giant Cyclopaedia" points out European holdings of land in this country to the amount of nearly 25,000,000 acres.

Let us quote a little further, this time from the Peninsula Farmer:

"'Is it true,' I asked a great thinker, 'that England alone holds $2,500,000,000 of United (States) securities, bearing interest, including exchange, of 6 per cent, payable in gold?'

"'Yes, according to the public statements of London statisticians. The Secretary of the Treasury says there is no public record in this country showing the amount of foreign investments. We must, therefore, go to Europe to learn, not only how much we are in debt to Great Britain, but that at least $500,000,000 additional of United States investments are held in France and Germany. This makes a total in three countries of $3,000,000,000 imposing an interest charge, including exchanges, of $180,000,000 per annum. A nice state of serfdom, isn't it?'"

Yes, foreign powers can call a halt on this country, 001112no matter what project she may have in view. Take, for example, the action of the land monopolies I have just been quoting, and the Behring Sea fishery matter, and the Nicaragua episode, and American interest at Venezuela, and the English holdings, and the readjuster matters in Virginia. Well, what about them, do you say? I say they prove that the United States is tied hand and foot by foreign powers and cannot help herself. And the "Monroe Doctrine" is no longer the Monroe Doctrine; or, in other words, if it ever did mean anything, it does not now, for it seems that the weakest of the foreign countries, even little Spain, can come into Cuba and do about as she pleases, and the United States, through her press, cries out with a loud and plaintive voice for the enforcement of the "Monroe Doctrine," but no enforcing is done. And why is the Monroe Doctrine, in such cases as I have just mentioned, not enforced? Simply because, as I have said, this country is powerless in the matter. And she is powerless because of bad government, and the bad government is by reason of poor and incompetent statesmanship, for, instead of the State and the general government studying the best good of the people--the whole people-they are almost entirely engaged in making and unmaking laws to establish white supremacy and to prevent what they are pleased to call "negro domination."

Again I ask, with all sincerity, is the white man competent of either national, State or local self-government? If so, in what has it been proven? Just here I cannot do better than to quote what another of their own witnesses has to say on the subject. The person is Governor Atlegeld of Illinois, who said in his public address delivered at Chattanooga:

"Instead of an armed force that we can meet on the field, there is today an enemy that is invisible, but everywhere at work, destroying our institutions. That enemy is corruption. It seeks to direct official action, it dictates legislation and endeavors to control the construction of the laws. It seeks to control the press, to set fashions and shape public sentiment; it has emasculated 001213American politics and places it on the low plane of jugglery. The tendency is now for political parties to drop principle and follow expediency, and their platforms are often drawn to evade or straddle every live issue. The idea is now to cajole rather than convince, to ignore great wrongs and wink at abuses, to court the support of conflicting interests, though it involves the deception of one or both. We are substituting office-seeking and office-holding in place of real achievement, and instead of great careers in public life we are facing a harvest of slippery, blear-eyed and empty mediocrity, which glides into oblivion without the assistance of death.

To be an eligible candidate for office now often means to stand for nothing in particular and to represent no definite principle, but be all things to all men, and in the end be contemptible. Thirty-four years ago the call was for men to fight an open enemy in the field. Today our country is calling for men who will be true to republican institutions at home. Never before did this republic call so loudly as it does today for a strong, sturdy manhood that will stand up defiantly and dare to do right. For more than a decade the tendency in this country has been toward a colorless and negative dilettateism, having the countenance of the Pharisee with the greed of the wolf, and drawing all its inspirations from the altar of concentrating and corrupting wealth. The flag has been praised at champagne dinners, while the very pole from which it floated was being eaten off by corruption, and republican institutions were being stabbed to the vitals. A new gospel has come among us, according to which it is mean to rob a henroost of a hen, but plundering thousands make us gentlemen.' My friends, the men of the past did their duty. Shall we do ours? They were asked to face death. You may have to face calumny and obloquy. No man ever saved his country without being villified, for all who make profit of injustice will be your enemies. But as sure as the heavens are high and justice is eternal you will triumph in the end."

Indeed, the fact is that foreign powers have either 001314formed protectionates over the most of the Southern, Central and North American States, or they have formed such other treaty relations with them as to make the "spheres of influence" of almost every foreign nation such as to nullify almost entirely the "Monroe Doctrine," until, as I said before, the Monroe Doctrine means virtually nothing but an empty declaration, for the entire East treaty and protectionate rights and interest, have many other unknown and, at the present, unknowble material rights and holdings in this country, consisting of lands, mining interests, stocks, bonds etc. So, if this country were to attempt the real rigid enforcement of the so-called "Monroe Doctrine" in the case of any one of them ail the other powers of the East would come to their rescue, because of their own interests that are over here.

If further proof of the white man's unfitness for self-government, which means self-control, were needed one has only to call up his unseemly acts and conduct on the floor of the House of Representatives at almost every session of the Congress that has met since the Declaration of Independence was made in 1776. Then, again, for the least pretext, and on the slightest provocation, he will set the regularly constituated authorities ruthlessly aside and take the law in his own hand, and commit bloodshed and murder, and that, too, without any compunction of conscience whatever. Here are a set of resolutions offered and unanimously passed at a Boston mass-meeting, which shows that my picture is not overdrawn:

STRONG RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT A BOSTON MASS-MEETING.

"Boston, November 12.--Nearly 3000 people attended a mass meeting in Faneuil Hall tonight, to protest against the practice of lynching and burning negroes in Southern and other States. The meeting was held under the auspices of the various colored societies of Boston and vicinity.

"The speeches were by both white and colored men, and were vigorously applauded. Mayor Edwin U. Curtis 001415presided, and among the speakers were Congressman Elijah A. Morse, Judge Edward Walker and Father Scully. At the conclusion of the speeches Hon. George L. Downing presented the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:

"We condemn without any reservation the lynching, the mutilating, the roasting alive of men and women, now commonly practiced in parts of our country--so commonly practiced as to arrest the attention of the world. We condemn this God-defying heartlessness with most indignant feelings, as civilized beings, as citizens, as Christians.

"We are as human civilized beings, as proud Americans, made to hold our heads down in shame because of the almost daily reports which reach us of beings born in the image of God thrust into consuming fires, with all the consequent agonies, with the outraged piteously entreating their heartless tormentors for mercy, protesting their innocence even while in the very jaws of death while gazing imploring--that is, if their eyes have been gouged out--upon men, women and children, assembled from miles around to witness and gloat over God's image scoffed at while writhing in agony.

"We emphatically state that we would not stand in the way of a just and full punishment of all crimes, but the law of the land must be respected in meting out such punishment; all the persons charged with crime are entitled to a fair trial before a jury of their peers.

"The heartless, bloodthirsty disregard of the supreme law of the land must cease; Massachusetts declares it; she calls upon all lovers of law and order all over the nation to rise in their might and majesty, and say amen to the declaration. She takes no part in the falsehood that the negro race is more immoral than are other races; that they are rapists. It is her firm conviction that the charge is false; that it is manufactured to appeal to a sentiment calculated to cover up and paliate to a great extent the burning alive of black men, the real design being concealed, which is to crush the lawful-growing 001516aspirations manifesting itself among black men.

"We invoke the uncompromising spirit of Garrison, of Phillips, of Summer, of Andrew, and in their names to these defiers of God and humanity, cry out, Stop this brutality, which darkens our nation's fair name, adding that, if it be not stopped, the impetuous spirit of Crispus Attucks, of John Brown, which is still marching on, will in its march, haunt into action."

Now, if there was ever a time in the white man's history when he had opportunity to prove himself capable of independent self-government it was when he undertook to establish a republic on the western continent. But the fact is that from the very incipiency of the idea down to the present time his acts have been one long, perpetual, eternal, list of egregious blunders and mistakes, and now, after a lapse of over four hundred years since he first came on these shores, he finds himself in such a national, international, economical, financial State and interstate, moral and religious tangle and bewilderment as would make any other race on the face of the globe but the white man forever ashamed to lift its head and claim that it had ever had any part whatever to do with such a dismal failure.

Only look at the state of the country today. A deadlock almost everywhere, so that he can hardly move a wheel toward real, true and lasting progress; and corruption everywhere, so thick that, figuratively speaking, it can be felt with the hand and seen in the air. If such a condition of affairs is success in government, pray tell me what would be a failure? With a million of men out of employment, families starving to death, the country billions of dollars in debt at home and abroad, the country flooded with millions upon millions of paper bonds to be redeemed in gold and no gold production, comparatively, to pay it, and the country being drained week after week of the little that is left, in order to keep the ship of State afloat--who, I ask, with all this and a thousand times more, can call this government under the white man's rule a success? With hundreds upon hundreds of the banks into which the people were induced 001617to put their hard-earned savings gone down with millions of their money, and with hundreds of thousands of them burdened with heavy mortages, and the European evicting officer standing at their doors ready to set them out, and this government powerless to help them by reason of bad management and poor statesmanship.

The inability of proper and good government is seen in the fact that this people came together and formed the colonies into a federal compact, or union, and in one article of the federation declared it to be a compact, or union, and in another actually declared themselves to be separate and independent of said compact, and that sowed the seeds of secession and disunion, and hence the early secession of South Carolina, and finally the great rebellion. These same allwise white men attempted another great impossibility, and they are just now beginning to see it, and thousands of them do not see it yet, and that is they tried to establish and maintain a free and slave country at one and the same time, for they positively and deliberately declared, both in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, that "all men are free and equal" for the fundamental reason that they were "created so," and then set right about to make millions of men slaves. And I here and now feel like exclaming: O fools! How slow of heart you were and are to see and believe the impossibility of your task!

Another proof that the white man is not yet fitted for self-government is that he rebelled and split the Union which he himself had made for himself. He then asked to be admitted to return to the compact under an amended constitution, which still more clearly declared the oneness of the whole people, and yet he is, this present moment, busily engaged in trying to debar ten millions of citizens from their constitutional rights without the alteration of one single word in the national Constitution so that he might do so by law. Thus he shows himself not only wholly unfitted to mold and frame laws, but, as it seems, inately incapable of even being lawabiding citizens.

We might point out another source of weakness in 001718the nation's government. It is the judiciary, with its powers, discretions and privileges, which are so great that it might appropriately be called the organized aristocracy of the country, or a "government within the government," with powers far exceeding those of the other or general government. At a casual glance, this assertion may seem absurd, but on careful examination it will be found to be too true, for in many respects it is an absolute power, differing very little from an absolute monarchy, and every member is a monocrat, with more or less absolute powers and functions of office. And not only so, but the Supreme Bench of judiciary is infallible, for in the eyes and light of the Constitution it never makes a mistake, neither can its acts be reviewed, no matter how obnoxious the people may consider them and know them to be. And this makes the Supreme Court of the nation superior to the nation, for, as I have said, the nation itself cannot call in question any decision the court makes. The people, the whole people, may, through the Congress, enact any law they choose, and they may desire it to go into effect ever so much after it is enacted, but if the Supreme Court does not like it, the people cannot have it, no matter how much they may want it.

Now, what is the fact just here made plain? It is that nine men have the constitutional right conferred upon them to turn down the will of sixty-five millions of people, and they are absolutely powerless to help themselves. And yet this nation calls itself an independent, sovereign people, but where is the sovereignity of, in, by or among the people, when the people have by constitutional enactment given it away, or conferred supremacy upon nine men of its number called a court? No, there is no independence or sovereignty with the people, for they are irrevocably tied hand and foot by any and every act of the Supreme Court, and, indeed, so broad and unlimited are powers and functions of the court that it is the real lawmaking power in this country after all, for it has both power of construction and destruction, and it is unlimited and unreviewable, so they can enlarge or restrict any and every law 001819that Congress makes, and thus make the law another law, or no law at all, and this last is done simply by the use of one phrase, and that phrase is that "this law is unconstitutional." When that is said all that pertained to the law, though it contained the best brain-work in the land, all is "done for"--it is "knocked out" and counts for naught and that forever, so far as the people's power to remedy it is concerned.

But I now want to advance this important thought: The President is constitutionally made the head or the chief of the nation. Is that not so? Then he is chief, or, in other words, he is the head of the nation. Yet if he votes any acts passed by Congress for whatever reasons he may give, and no matter how cogent his reasons may be, the Congress can pass it over his veto; it then becomes the law of the land. This makes the people sovereign, and if it were otherwise the President would be sovereign through the veto power. This is also what I call an outlet for the people. Why not, then, let the people have some relief in some way from what has become to be the awful dicta of the Supreme Court? The relief might be brought about by making it possible by constitutional enactment that certain cases, under certain conditions, could come back to the people, although the court had rendered an adverse decision. The people then could vote to sustain the decision of the court, or pass it over their decision just as the Congress does with the President's veto. A proper case for an act of this kind would be such a case as that of the income-tax bill. which, after all the hard work done on it, and as much as the people. wanted it, the court turned it down, and that, too, against the protest of thousands of people. So, I hold that in such cases the people are not free to make and have such laws as they want so long as their power is delegated absolutely to nine men, and that without any condition of remedy whatever in cases of gross error. I repeat that this is a very great weakness to a popular form of government.

The Dred Scott case was another that ought to have come back to the people for their decision, for Judge 001920Taney certainly did err when he declared in his dicision a colored man, or a "negro," had no rights that the white man was bound to respect. This decision was wholly erroneous, for the colored man had all the ethnic rights of man granted to him by nature, and when the confederation of colonies was made, which confederation was formed into what now is the United States, we, as the people, were included in it. So we had confederate rights; therefore the white man was in duty bound to respect, or else be false to the articles of the confederation.

Then again, we had the rights of all other men included in the Declaration of Independence, for that Declaration said, and still says, that all men are created equal by their Creator; so we had the right granted us by the Creator, which the white man was bound to respect. Then again, there were our constitutional rights, which were in no sense abridged, neither in the original document nor by the amendments that were offered when the Constitution was adopted, nor when the next two were made. So then, we had full constitutional rights, equal with the white man, which he was bound to respect. Yes, we had all this when we learned judge, by reason of his great race prejudice, decided that we had "no rights that the white man was bound to respect." And this unjust, unholy, unrighteous, ungodly decision was concurred in by the associate justices, and thus they inserted into the body politic a false and pernicious principle, which has worked untold harm and injury, not to the colored race alone, but to the whole nation, and, indeed, to humanity everywhere, and it has been an untold source of evil to the white people of this contry, for it has completely unhumanized and made them more like savages to us than a civilized, cultivated people, and so the very great slaughter of my people, without judge or jury. May God, the God of the nation, have mercy on them, change their hearts of stone, iron and brass, and give them hearts of flesh!

The excuse for the formation and continuance of the Supreme Court was that the purpose of the farmers of 002021the Constitution would have a body of judicature that was non-partisan and non-political, to whom the nation might refer all matter of State and persons, and have them finally and impartially settled. This, it is said, was the purpose of the founders of the government, and yet from Judge Roger B. Taney of Dred Scott fame, and the first, for it was in that case he ruled him out of his constitutional and confederated rights, for he had both, and he was also included in the Declaration of Independence; and all the chief justices down to the present time have all, with hardly a single exception, been party politicians of the most pronounced kind. I have said that the real legislative body in this country is the Supreme Court. The Congress is not much more than a committee to formulate matters and present them in shape for the Supreme Court to say whether they shall become the laws of the land. Let us refer to the Dred Scott decision again for an example. I have shown that all the rights, privileges and immunities of men and citizens had been granted us, and yet Judge Taney sets them all aside, or declares them all to be null and void by the following strange, monstrous and inhuman decision, that for more than a century before the Declaration of Independence "negroes" had been regarded as beings of an inferior order, altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the "negro" might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery "for his own benefit."

Judge Taney says the colored man had been thus regarded for more than a whole century before the Declaration of Independence, and yet not one word of it is mentioned, or even hinted at, in the Declaration, but, on the contrary, the colored man is declared in that document to be created the equal of the white man, and that fact is what makes the decision a monstrous perversion of truth as well as human and Divine law. He reversed the legislation of Congress by declaring the Missouri compromise unconstitutional, and so opened up Missouri as a slave State, regardless of the fact that 002122Congress had made it a free State, and the President had signed the act.

Now, all that I have said goes to show the white man in this country to be an unfit repository for the rights of the whole people, because he is too prejudiced in mind, biased in judgment and envious of heart to do justice to his own race and people, and so is totally unfitted to even concede the rights and privileges of other races. That he is envious and treacherous one has only to call to memory, as proof, the many schemes, plans, deals and bargains made in presidential nominations down to a spittoon-cleaner in the most petty office within his gift. I repeat, all is done by bargain, trade, barter, deal, etc., in a little, mean, contemptible, petty, underhanded way, that is below the dignity and manhood of all that is called manly and statesmanlike. And I here warn and beseech my people, who are just now in a formative state and condition, do not copy their example. Senator Sherman, in his recent book, has confirmed me in this conviction which I have held for years. He just opened wide the mouth of the political bag, and the pent-up, and for a long time the hushed-up and smothered, stifled "cat" springs forth, labeled with all I have just said in plain letters--yes, all may be read, and more, too--far more--in the senator's book.

The truth of it is, this country had its birth in a sharp scheme and whirlwind, and I very much fear that it will die in a great storm.

In order to further show the falsity and unconstitutionality of Judge Taney when he declared that the "negro had no rights that the white man was bound to respect," and also to further show that the colored men were already in full possession of all rights of American citizens for a year or more before the decision of the so-called learned Judge, I will here quote from "Justice and Jurisprudence," a very elaborate work issued by J.B. Lippencott & Co. in 1889: see page 528. It reads as follows:

"In early times free colored persons exercised the right of suffrage in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, and this 002223was the case in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1856, and colored aliens could be naturalized. It is not true that the Constitution was made exclusively for and by the white race; it was established by the people of the United States' for themselves and their posterity, and, as free colored people were then citizens of at least five States, and in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and for whose posterity the Constitution was established."

What more do I need to say to prove that the white man is self-governing in theory only, and is for that reason, in every practical sense, unfitted to have in his keeping the rights of the people?

Let me refer to the Monroe Doctrine again for the purpose of inserting a paragraph from the current issue of the Baltimore American, contained in its editorial, and to point out by contrast the difference of views on the Monroe Doctrine as held by the President of the United States and as expressed in his annual message to Congress and that of the above-mentioned editor and, as he says, probably by a large majority of the people of the country. The President restricts the acquirement of territory on this continent by European powers to the phrase "by force," that is, he contrues the Monroe Doctrine thus to mean, but the following paragraph takes a far wider scope of view:

"The construction now given to the Monroe Doctrine by many--probably a large majority--of the American people is that no European government shall be permitted to acquire territory on the American continent by force, treaty or purchase, or in any other way."

All the editorial says in the paragraph may be true, but it is nevertheless a fact that large quantities of this continent are now being acquired by all the ways it is so confidently affirmed they cannot be obtained-yes, by millions upon millions of acres.

The "cat" is out of the white man's business management "bag" again, and the following editorial from the Baltimore American, December 12, 1896, tells what she is labeled with. Every colored man, woman and child 002324ought to read and ponder it well, and then stop quoting and aping the white man as an example of success in great business enterprises and no longer make futile attempts to succeed with plans and management that he, in so many cases, has utterly failed, as cited in this editorial:

"We observe with interest that the Baltimore visitors who recently returned from Atlanta, and who are talking wildly about the success of the Exposition, carefully refrain from mentioning the fact that the citizens had to get together the other day and raise $100.000 to save the show from bankruptcy. In order to secure this sum one gentleman contributed $50,000. The cold, unvarnished truth is that the Atlanta Exposition will wind up its existence this month at a loss. The attendance has not come up to the expectations of its projectors, and the business men of Atlanta--the merchants and the manufactures--will be glad when it is over. The very fact that Maryland Day was the largest of the Exposition ought to have shown the Marylanders the true condition of the enterprise. * * * Granting that the Exposition could be organized and opened in time, the fact still remains that financially it would not pay and that it would not help the city. One of the men who did as much as anyone else to get the World's Fair to Chicago, and to whom was offered the director-generalship of the enterprise, told us in Chicago that the Exposition was doing the city great injury, and was costing the business men hundreds of thousands of dollars. His predicition of a collapse was dismally fulfilled, and this was the greatest of our fair. The Centennial left Philadelphia in a condition of reaction that lasted several years and cost that city millions of dollars. New York's Exposition in New Orleans was a failure, and in san Francisco the Midwinter Fair pulled through only because of the generosity of the city's rich men.

"* * * And yet, in spite of this record, Baltimore city is asked to give $500,000, the State of Maryland $500,000, the national government $2,000,000--all on 002425the uncertain basis of $500,000 in popular subscriptions, obtained largely by professional canvassing. We are filled with great plans for a $5,000,000 show, and Baltimore is advertised to the country in this manner. It is not right that the city should be misrepresented or belittled in this manner."

Again I ask, will the colored race still set the white man up as their family, church, State and business model? And if so, how much longer? And why is it that we would rather fail, following in the white man's false and deceptive wake, than to plan and succeed forourselves on surer, though it be on a slower, basis? I demand an answer to these questions. Give it, or give up the problem altogether.

I here cite another example of the white man's "wildcat" business exploits, and this time it is the words of Mr. Chauncey Depew of New York. And it will also show that there is a natural and a fictitious growth in business as in other things:

"I went through a city recently in the South which was an example of boom as against natural growth. There were streets and broad avenues, blocks of constructed business buildings, large plants built for the manufacturer to take possession of, streets of comfortable and cozy dwelling-houses, public squares and parks, a belt railway and a trolley line already constructed, and yet beyond the capitalists who invested their money, and the workmen while the construction was going on, the place had never had an inhabitant, and never will. It was built upon air and fancy

Yes, it was built upon air and fancy, and upon air and fancy alone.

The above-quoted facts show too clearly the truthfulness of the proposition with which I started out, namely, that the white man did not sit down and deliberate and count the cost, and then act upon the result of the knowledge gained by such a course, but, to quote from the editorial first mentioned, he acts entirely upon the ground of haphazard and chance, for it says:

"And yet, in spite of this record, Baltimore city is asked to give $500,000, the State of Maryland $500,000, 002526the national government $2,000,000--and all on the uncertain basis of $500,00 in popular subscriptions obtained largely by professional canvassing."

And I wish to say, this editorial shows that it is not one or two little isolated, petty cases of which it speaks, but of world-wide and universal range and scope. Yes, the most gigantic affairs of which the white man is capable, going back, as it does, forty years, and bringing down all before it to the present day, and writes on it all, "failure! total failure!"

Since I have written what I have to say about the Monroe Doctrine as it affects the relationship of other nations to this country certain negotiations which were at that time pending between this country and Great Britain have come to the surface in the form of an act of Congress calling for all correspondence of this government with England on that subject. The Secretary of State transmitted to Congress the desired information, and along with it the President sent a special message on the same subject, and the correspondence between the two governments, especially that of England, goes to show that what I had written was true, and that the Monroe Doctrine was no doctrine, or that it did not mean anything to foreign powers, from the very fact, as I have said, foreign powers have been acquiring territory on this continent from the time President Monroe uttered it--which was in 1823--to the present time--until, as I have shown by abundant proof, that this government has not the slightest idea how much of the continent is owned by outside powers. And it shows another thing, and that is that the Monroe Doctrine has never at any time since it was laid down to the present been sufficiently enforced to test the matter as to whether it would be accepted as good international law. And so another mistake and mismanagement of the white man in the government of this country. Listen to the comments of the English press on the subject:

"London, December 17.--All of the morning papers tomorrow will devote more or less of their editorial space to the discussion of President Cleveland's message 002627on the Venezuelan question and to the merits of that question itself.

"The Daily Telegraph (Liberal) will publish an editorial contending that America has no concern in the Venezuelan dispute. The editorial goes on to say:

"In truth, this invocation of the Monroe Doctrine seems, on this side of the water, to be irrelevant, because there is no question of territorial greed or the imposition of an European system. It is absurd, because a statement of an American policy can hardly claim to attain the rank of a principle of international law. By what right does the Washington government demand the arbitration of this matter, when the very theory which guides their interference has absolutely nothing to do with the points in dispute? What nation has ever agreed to the Monroe Doctrine? How often has the Washington government itself ventured to advance it?

"'We say nothing of the process of twisting the lion's tail, generally resorted to at times of electoral excitement. Yet, if it be true that all this zealous support of Venezuela originated in partisan intrigues, there is still less reason why we should submit to what, from the British standpoint, is a wholly perverse and inadmissible claim.'

"The Times says in its editorial on the situation:

"'It is impossible to disguise the gravity of the difficulties that have arisen between Great Britain and the United States. President Cleveland's message and its reception on both sides of the Senate give additional importance to the dispatches between Washington and London. The details of the boundary dispute are insignificant in comparison with the far-reaching claims advanced by Mr. Olney's dispatch and emphasized in President Cleveland's message.

"'Convinced as we are that a rupture between the two great English-speaking communities would be a calamity, not only to themselves, but to the civilized world, we are nevertheless driven to the conclusion that the concessions this country is so imperiously summoned to make are such as no self-respecting nation, 002728least of all one ruling an empire that has its roots in every quarter of the globe, could possibly submit to. The United States themselves would never for a moment dream of yielding to this kind of dictation. We are of the same blood, and shall not be less careful of our national honor.

"'We can hardly believe that the course threatened by President Cleveland will be seriously adopted by the American government, but, if so, it will be incumbent upon us, without entering upon any aggressive measures, to protect our imperial interests and to stand up for our rights under international law.'

"The Times then proceeds to argue that the Monroe Doctrine has never been recognized as international law, and it quotes Lord Salisbury's admission that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in the western hemisphere by any European State would be highly inexpedient, and then continues:

"'But the recognition of this expediency does not cover the preposterous deductions which Mr. Olney's dispatch advances and which President Cleveland makes the basis of the most astounding proposal that has perhaps ever been advanced by any government in times of peace since the days of Napoleon.

"'We desire to speak with all proper reserve, but we confidently predict that Great Britain will not admit the pretensions put forward by President Cleveland. No commission appointed by a power which is not a party to a dispute will be recognized by us as having a title of any sort to pronounce upon a boundary question. It will receive no assistance from the British authorities. Its decision will be null and void from the outset, even if its origin did not taint it with partiality. We shall be very much astonished if there is any disagreement among the organs of public opinion in this country as to the manner in which such a claim should be confronted.'

"The Times contends further that England is bound to resist the extended claim of Monroeism, and says:

"'A power which has command of the sea does not 002829regard 3000 miles of intervening ocean as severing it from its subjects.'"

Now, let me point out a few things concerning the Monroe Doctrine that present themselves to me as worthy of more than a passing notice.

In the first place, I wish to say it is well named when called the Monroe Doctrine, for that is what it justly and truthfully is--the "Monroe Doctrine" and nothing more, for it is not a national doctrine, because the nation has never enacted it into a national law. It was a simple suggestion of President Monroe made to Congress in 1823, when he presented his annual message to that body, as to what he believed to be the attitude this country should take and hold as to foreign powers acquiring territory on this continent. His opinion was that foreign nations should cease to establish colonies on the Western continent, and that even to seek to do so would be considered a sign of unfriendliness on the part of said foreign powers towards this nation. But Congress did not by any means, or in any way whatever, enact it into a law--that is, they did not make it a national "doctrine;" and so it still remains a "Monroe Doctrine," because only those parts of the President's message become law or the rule of this government that the Congress sees fit to take up and act upon, and there was no action whatever taken on this special suggestion of the President, nor has there been up to the present time. But there is a move now on foot, I believe, in Congress looking to the making of the "Monroe Doctrine" a national "doctrine;" but this is January, 1896, and the suggestion was made by President Monroe in 1823, just seventy-three years ago--quite a late day, is it not, to just begin to look after a matter so vitally important to the nation as now seems this one. And yet the "most superior" governing race on earth has suffered this neglect to go on for seventy-three years.

In the second place, I wish to call attention to the fact that not only did this same superior race that is so cautious and painstaking in looking after the nation's affairs neglect to see that President Monroe's suggestion 002930be acted upon and somehow put into practical force, but they also totally failed to look after the international part; for they should have without delay submitted the matter to all of those foreign nations to whom the "doctrine" was to apply to see if they would be willing to accept it as good international polity. But this was not done; nor was anything else looking to the establishment of this matter as a principle upon which operations might proceed with reference to this grave question. Just here let me insert the sentences that include the "Monroe Doctrine:"

"President Monroe's annual message to Congress in 1823 contained the following sentences: 'We owe it to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and the allied powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere; but with the governments which have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and just principles acknowledged, we could not view an interposition for oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.' Also, "The American continents should no longer be subjects for any new European colonial settlement.'"

But the Monroe Doctrine does not say that European powers which already have relationship with other governments and colonies on this continent shall not make other and further treaties and relationships with them, nor does it say how far these relations may go. Not only so, but "foreign powers" can acquire every foot of land on this continent that is not owned by this government. This can be done by purchase through the individuals who own it or by syndicate combination, and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, much less the "Monroe Doctrine."003031Again I ask, is the white man a safe custodian of the rights of the people?

We constantly hear the white man saying: "We want no negro rule in this country," and "No negro domination." But, I ask, in all earnestness and sincerity, could he possibly rule worse than the white man has, or could he dominate to greater disadvantage of the nation? For the nation is almost bankrupt, and the country is almost, if not quite, mortgaged and bonded and syndicated out to other nations, with millions of the inhabitants without a means of making a living, and the natural producers without a foreign market for their products, and with what commerce that remains stagnant and almost at a standstill both at home and abroad, and with other nations in command of the seas and turning from this country to others for their staple supplies. And now, with all these things a living, steling fact, in what sense could we, as a race, if in rule, do it with worse success than the "greatest" and "most superior" race on earth has done? That the nations are turning from us to others for their grain and other supplies you have only to read the following report. We hear in these days about the bad legislation of the days of "carpet-bag rule," but let me ask was there a worse ruling at that time than we now have? If so, when and where?

"England increased her imports of wheat in 1894 by 9,800,000 bushels over her 1892 imports, but bought 17,000,000 bushels less from the United States, and increased her purchases from Russia by 23,000,000 bushels, from the Argentine by 18,000,000 bushels, and from Australasia by 3,500,000 bushels. In 1894 she bought less wheat from Chili, Turkey, Roumania, Egypt, India and Canada.

"France grew more of her own wheat supply in 1894 than in 1892, buying less from all countries except Russia and northern Africa. She bought upward of 2,500,000 bushels less from the United States, practically the total amount of her diminished imports. Germany also bought about 8,000,000 bushels less wheat in 1894 than in 1892, taking 12,000,000 bushels less 003132from the United States, but buying considerably more from Roumania, Russia and Argentina, her purchases from Argentina increasing by nearly the same quantity that her purchases from the United States decreased."

Just here I want to give an illustration of the complicated character and the contradictory nature of the working of or carrying out the provisions of the national and State constitutions--the one is the basis of the other; that is to say, the State constitutions are modeled after the order of the national constitution. The example is this:

In the city of New York the Court of Appeals rendered a decision that "no saloon should be established within two hundred feet of any church or schoolhouse," which in itself was nothing but a farce and child's play, for what protection to the character of the youth of the country in any school is the space of "two hundred" feet? This two hundred feet, it will be remembered, are to protect the morals of our youth--that is, to keep them from having access to the saloons. But the conflict is this: Just after the aforesaid decision was passed an act was introduced in the State legislature of New Yorkk that all widows or the children of deceased fathers, or the agents of the same, be exempt from the operation of the law. Now, the conflict is that the highest court of the State makes a decision of general and universal operation, but the legislature has a right to step in and vitiate and nullify the decision to the extent of a quarter or one-half. But the conflict does not stop here, for another case can come into the courts on the constitutionally of the act of the legislature, or on some other, and most any other, technicality, constitutional or otherwise, until the whole matter may come into the Congress of the United States, and stay there, and be tangled more and more but finally some action of some sort may be had. No one knows what it may be or what kind it may be, and it does not matter much, for the whole thing must finally go to the Supreme Court of the land, which after all is said and done, is the real governing and legislative body of this country, for they can enlarge, diminish or 003233destroy all together all that has been done up to this point, or they need not make any decision at all if they do not want to do so, and there is nothing in the original constitution itself nor the amendments thereto to compel them to do otherwise, and yet the white man declares that document (the Constitution) to be the most profound piece of brain-work that it was ever the function, duty and privilege for the cogitating human brain to bring forth for the use of mankind.

But have I not shown a mixture, a conflict, a tangle, a jumble of affairs? And yet this is a part of the work, and only a part of the work of the "greatest" nation and race on the earth, for he, the white man, himself says so.

And now as to the Constitution itself, if I am at liberty to speak of that instrument, and I know of no reason why I may not, because it is that by which the citizens are supposed to be governed, whether it is so in fact or not.

Now, the Constitution, when carefully examined, presents more the appearance of the patchwork on a crazy-quilt than anything else I can think of, for it has already had sixteen patches put on to it, by the way of amendments, and all of different kinds and for different objects, and it now looks as if it will take about sixteen more to make it anything like a proper, safe instrument for the national government, for the Supreme Court, with its ruthless and heartless hand, at whose mercy the Constitution and its construing--and, yes, destroying--too has been so wisely or otherwise placed, has laid hold of a number of the most important of the sixteen patches and torn them off, and so leaves the already weak and unfinished Constitution looking worse and in a worse condition than it was before. And the patches, or amendments, that have been so violently torn away are the ones that gave protection to ten millions of the citizens of the United States in the unmolested enjoyment of their citizen rights; and so I said that the act that did this was both ruthless and heartless, and is it not? If not, why not ?

Since reading the morning papers of January 29, 1896, I now have a good illustration of the white man's 003334own self-confession to the charge I make against him of bad, loose and reckless legislation, for, in the opening of this chapter, I use the following words: "He--the white man--is not deliberate, nor careful and painstaking. So true is this of him that it seems he goes into the halls of State and makes laws simply to have them broken or overruled by the courts and construed to be defective, unconstitutional, or otherwise inappropriate and out of order." The quotations I here make are from an address of Senator Randall, State Senator of Maryland, giving his reasons for offering a bill in the senate for relief from this loose, reckless and ruinous white man's legislation. Who clamors and strives so ardently for white man's rule in government, white supremacy, and who has such awful fears of what he is pleased to call "negro domination?"

The address asserts that six hundred and sixty-five new laws were passed at the meeting of the legislature in 1894, which was only one-half of those introduced, which was 1330. Think of it, citizens and colored citizens especially, for it is you whom the white man bends all of his energies to prove incompetent to manage the affairs of State. The address confesses that the legislation was had--part of it, to delude the public-- the white public, of course--and that the fact of their becoming laws shows that the white public were and are easy dupes to be deluded. It also shows that part of these useless laws were passed for private purposes, under the head and title of "general laws," which shows the rascality and unfitness of the white man for a proper and safe legislator of the people; and, to make the matter worse, it says that a large portion of this miserable, trashy and harmful legislation is done under cover, that without the people who sent them there to do business for them knowing anything whatever about it.

Ah, does this not present and make known an awful state of affairs in the white man's boasted republic?

The address also states that a good part of this vile and corrupt legislation is for the express purpose of 003435plugging or blocking the way of certain corporations. This is another bold and open confession that nothing virtually is done on the ground of principle and statesmanship, but all on the basis of tricks, bargains and sharp dealings.

Again I ask, in all earnestness and sincerity, is the white man fit to govern a people, a nation, a State, a district, county, city, town, ward, precinct, his own home or individual self? If he is, what, when and how has he shown it to be so?

The following is the address to which I have referred:

"Senator Randall today introduced a bill designed to simplify and expedite future legislation. In speaking of the measure. Senator Randall said:

"The object of the bill is to introduce improvements into the methods of legislation. It is in line with similar attempts that have been made in other States of the Union. Maryland is far behind many of her sister States in this respect, for nothing has been done since the Constitution of 1867, and that Constitution added very few safeguards, if any, to those imposed by previous constitutions on legislative methods of procedure. As matters are at present, a flood of bills is poured into the legislature at each session, many of them so carelessly drawn and ill-considered as to be almost unintelligible. If they are intended to become generallaws they are either killed or somewhat moulded into shape by the standing committees and in their passage through the two houses. If they are bills amending the local codes of the city of Baltimore or of the counties they are referred to special committees, the members of which take the word of the member who introduced them that 'it is all right,' and unite in the favorable report which shoves them along. If it is a private bill, creating or amending the charter of a corporation, for example, very little notice is taken of it, unless some antagonistic interest happens to hear of it, or the newspaper correspondents call attention to it.

"'There is an immense amount of really unnecessary legislation. There are a great many bills introduced 003536under the garb of a general law, but really meant to meet some special case or to further some private end. In years gone by there were a great many bills introduced for the simple purpose of blackmailing or 'plugging' corporations. I have known the same section of the code to be amended three times at one session of the general assembly, and repeals by implication are frequent. It is impossible for any committee or for any member to carry in memory the subjects of all bills introduced at a session, to say nothing of their contents. People and communities injuriously affected by general measures, local measures and private measures introduced frequently hear nothing of them until they have become laws and it is too late to protest.

"'It is to meet all such cases that this bill was prepared. It is based upon the recommendations of the report made to the New York legislature a few days ago by the Saxton Committee, appointed a year ago to investigate this very subject. The States of Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana have constitutional provisions on the subject of publishing notice of intention to apply for certain bills before they can be considered by the legislature. That is one of the requirements of this particular bill as to proposed local or private laws. It would be better if we could get those provisions into the Constitution as the States mentioned have done, but as that is a protracted mode of accomplishing the object, this bill undertakes to deal with it as Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont have done--that is, by statute. Virginia attains somewhat similar ends by the rules of its house of delegates, which require petitions and published notice where the proposed law relates to a local interest or to a private interest or corporation.

"'This bill requires copies of such proposed laws to be filed with the Secretary of State at least thirty days before they are introduced; that a petition, signed by twenty persons, shall be filed at the same time, setting forth the object and need of the law proposed: that such laws shall be printed at the expense of the promoters, 003637and that certain notices by publication shall be given of them, and direct service of notice also on corporations or officials affected by them.

"It also provides for committees of revision in the two houses to point out inaccuracies in the text and references contained in all laws and other considerations affecting the form of or necessity for the law. Those committees and the members generally are to have the assistance of a law clerk, who is to be a counselor of at least ten years' standing, and who to assist members and committees in drafting and perfection statues, examining and in passing upon the proposed laws, petitions for laws, affidavits of notices, etc., filed with the Secretary of State.

"'Another advantage to be secured by the bill will be the saving of expense to the State in the matter of engrossing and printing; the expenses of those matters will be refunded to the State by the promoters of bills of that class, and thousands of dollars will be covered into the treasury at every session in consequence of its passage.

"'One of the consequences of the present system of legislation is that the first month of the session is usually barren of actual laws. The first month, or onethird of the present session, has nearly expired, and yet not a single bill has been passed by both houses. This is because bills, with very few exceptions, are prepared, engrossed and printed after the legislature convenes, and those processes take time. The result is frequent long recesses during the first month of the session, and a feverish rush and tumble on the part of the members to get their measures advanced as final adjournment approaches. Now, if this bill becomes a law, the legislature will find a month's work already cut out for it when it convenes, many bills already engrossed and on their printed files, with their pros and cons set forth in their accompanying petitions and answers.

"'I think the bill will be found to be in the right direction at any rate. At the session of 1894 there were six hundred and sixty-five laws passed by the legislature of Maryland. This was about one-half of the number 003738introduced, and yet only four hundred and seventy-two were printed before their passage. This alone shows the impossibility of carefully considering the twelve hundred and more introduced. The cacoettus leges ferendi, against which Lord Coke inveighed, is being treated and controlled in all civilized commmunities, and the time, labor and brains of legislators concentrated on matters of real importance.'"

But there is still another department of the white man's greatest and best system of government on earth to which I call your attention, and that is the jury system, or the much-boasted-idea of trial by jury.

Now, I wish to say that the said jury system is simply a sure and easy means for certain rich and otherwise influential parties to escape the justice of the law when confronted and charged with the committal of any crime. Yes, I say other influential persons, for there are any number of persons who are very far from being rich, or even in comfortable circumstances of life, who, for other obvious reasons, are greatly influential with the powers that be, for political, social and financial reasons, etc. These and other reasons without number make the system an awfully dangerous one for the proper and just and rightful government of a people, because under it, almost invariably, the innocent are punished and the guilty go out free. It is also a most effectual system for the covering of crime. First, beginning with the coroner's jury; then the grand inquest; then the petit jury. They are all three refuges for the criminal classes of any city, county or State in this country. But, oh! when one comes to consider the real origin of the custom of trial by jury, of the origin of the jury as a mode of trial, what a jumble mixture, mire and muck, there is of idea and no idea, thought and no thought, as to when, where and how the system ever came into use, for there are over twenty different sources of origin and circumstances given as to how it came about. But there is some evidence that it might have arisen in the more dark, ignorant and inexperienced age of the white man's effort of trying to govern and to be the governor of everything but himself; 003839and so the present system may have arisen out of his custom of trying the beasts and animals of the field and the insects of the ground, such as flies, mice, snails, etc.

Now, I do think those wise and judicial solons might have let the poor snail off on the ground that he could hardly have traveled fast enough to have gotten to the place of his alleged crime, but it seems that nothing in time passed the great and mighty white man's ignorance and hate, and it is not much better in many respects today.

But do not lose sight of the thought which suggested that the system of trial by jury might have grown out of the custom of trial, conviction and punishment of the lesser animals. The following quotation will serve as evidence to point out its possibility:

"In the Middle Ages the lower animals were frequently tried, convicted and punished for various offenses. Mr. Baring-Gould has collected some curious cases of this kind. In 1266 a pig was burnt at Fontaney-aux-Roses, near Paris, for having eaten a child. In 1386 a judge of Falaise condemned a sow to be mutiliated and hanged for a similar offense. Three years later a horse was similarly tried before the magistrate and condemned to death for having killed a man. During the fourteenth century oxen and cows might be legally killed whenever taken in the act of marauding, and asses, for a first offense, had one ear cropped; for a second offense, the other ear, and if ofter this they were asses enough to commit a third offense their lives became forfeit to the Crown.

"'Criminal' animals frequently expiated their offenses like other malefactors on the gallows, but subsequently they were summarily killed without trial and their owners mulcted in heavy damages. In the fifteenth century it was popularly believed that cocks were intimately associated with witches, and they were somewhat credited with the power of laying accursed eggs from which sprang winged serpents. In 1474, at Bale, a cock was publicly accused of having laid one of these dreadful eggs. He was tried, sentenced to death, and, together with the egg, was burned by the executioner 003940in the market-place amid a great concourse of people. In 1694, during the witch persecutions in New England, a dog exhibited such strange symptoms of affliction that he was believed to have been ridden by a warlock, and he was accordingly hanged.

"Snails, flies, mice, ants, caterpillars and other obnoxious creatures have been similarly proceeded against and condemned to various punishments, mostly in ecclesiastical courts. And, stranger still, inanimate objects have suffered the same fate. In 1685, when the Protestant chapel at Rochelle was condemned to be demolished, the bell thereof was publicly whipped for having assisted heretics with its tongue. After being whipped it was catechised, compelled to recant and then baptized and hung up in a Roman Catholic place of worship.

"Probably similar absurdities may have been perpetrated in our own country, for it must be remembered that only in the present reign was the law repealed which made a cartwheel, a tree or a beast which had killed a man forfeit to the State for the benefit of the poor. It had been said that punishment is not likely to be efficacious unless it swiftly follows the offense. This was improved on by a Barbary Turk, who, whenever he bought a fresh Christian slave, had him hung up by the heels and bastinadoed, on the principle, it is supposed--though the application is decidedly singular--that prevention is better than cure."*

*This quotation is from "All the Year Round."

I will be more than glad to have the white man point out any branch of the colored race whose ignorance was ever so dense as that, and it will be remembered that some of these things, according to this author, happened as late as the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. But just think of it! Why, twenty persons were put to death on the simple--yes, foolish-- superstitious charge of witchcraft in Massachusetts as late as the year 1692. (See Emery E. Child's "History of United States," page 18.) You see, that was only 204 years ago. And not only so, but there was a time when the 004041white man taught it as a science, which the following words of J. Richardson will show:

"It is not a hundred years since the conjuration of witches, demons and fairies was commonly practiced and taught in London by Lilly and others."

But stop! The white man of today would have the world believe that it is only the colored race that ever believed in any of the above-named things, when the facts are they have been transmitted by them as a precious legacy from generation to generation, down to the present time. But let us go back to the Monroe Doctrine and that Venezuelan and arbitration matter again, for I want to make some further quotations and statements that will go to show that the white man on this side of the water is not nearly so shrewd, wise and sagacious as he has thought and proclaimed himself to be, for we repeat that in State and interstate, national and international affairs he has let things run at fearfully loose and odd ends, and the whites of this country have not yet gotten their eyes fully open to those facts, for if they had they would not be perpetually boasting of the independence of this nation to all others, but would remember that there is an interdependence to which the whole human race is heir. To show more clearly that the United States has no good and reasonable ground for continually crying in that silly, selfish and meaningless phrase, "America for Americans," I will simply call attention to the fact that five other nations own 3,455,396 more square miles of territory on this continent than the United States do, for the holdings of the five nations are the enormous sum of 7,058,386, and according to an editorial in the Baltimore evening World of Saturday, February 22, 1896, the United States owns only 3,602,990 square miles of this continent. See editorial of the World, which I shall quote. The five countries to which I have reference are England, Brazil, France, Spain, and Holland. I here quote the editorial:

"The scheme proposed in the London Times for the settlement of the Venezuelan boundary question has 004142many good points. It seems, however, that the plan originated in Washington, and is not an English idea. Mr. Smalley's dispatch suggested that two United States and two English arbitrators should determinate the Venezuelan frontier, and if these four were unable to agree, a fifth neutral member should be called in. Considering the territorial possessions of England on the American continent, she has a right to a voice in settling the boundary dispute by arbitration. Her possessions cover 3,634.782 square miles. The United States have 3,602,990 square miles, and Brazil comes next with 3,218,166 square miles. No other State on this continent has one-quarter as much ground as any one of these. Viewing the arbitration question from the above standpoint, there is some reasonableness in the proposal made at Washington."

But take the white man in any branch of life's affairs, and he will be found not disposed to co-operate on a fair and even way with his fellow-man, but his disposition is to compete and contest, and he does not even do that on rational, racial and humane principles, but rather on that low, groveling, animal basis, which far better befits the animal than the man. Just take him in a business point of view and study him in a mercantile light, and the most that can be said of him in truth and fairness is that he is a regular gambler in the staples and means of human life and livelihood. And not only so, but the very terms he uses to designate his stock-gambling tricks are barbarous in the extreme. Take, for example, the terms "bulls" and "bears"--two of the most greedy and ferocious beasts of the field and forest. And then the office to be filled by the parties representing these terms are low and degrading in the extreme, for one is to represent the bear in nature, to pull man down and destroy him by squeezing him to death, and the other is to represent the maddened bull, whose nature it is to toss man up on his horns and then gore him to death. Now, when we think of the fact that these practices have been the food that the white man's nature has fed on since 1775, can it be any wonder that we find the business world in the state it is today 004243--all demoralized, panic-stricken and untrustworthy? But, in order to substantiate what I have been saying, I now quote from the "American Cyclopaedia" as follows:

"Bears and bulls, terms first applied in the London Exchange to speculators in stocks. Two parties having contracted, the one to deliver, and the other to take stocks, at a future time, at a specified price, it is the interest of the delivering party, in the intervening time, to depress stocks, and of the receiving party to raise them. The former is called a bear, in allusion to the habit of that animal to pull down with his paws, and the latter a bull, from the custom of that beast to throw up his horns. There is ordinarily no exchange of stocks, but when the time of delivery arrives the losing party pays the difference between the price of stocks then and at the time the contract was made. The terms are now recognized in the exchanges of the largest cities of England and America."

Now, just read the following dispatch from New York to the Baltimore evening World (December 21, 1896), for the great Master has said, "Out of their own mouths will I judge thee." Yes, read it, and read it again, and then ponder over it, and think over it as an object-lesson of the true principles upon which the business of this country is carried on.

And, again, it will be seen on examination that while at Washington the District of Columbia is the proper place for the government center, according to constitutional enactment, nevertheless it seems that New York is the real place, after all. I will just here insert the dispatch; it is as follows--but notice how very striking are the headlines to this most significant dispatch:

WALL STREET ROBBERY

THE PANIC A MALICIOUS DESIGN UNPARALLED IN HISTORY.Collision Between Bears and Foreign Trading Houses.How It Was Worked.

"New York, December 21--Wall Street witnessed another exciting scence this morning when the stock exchange opened. Long before the hour large crowds had massed themselves in the circular galleries, standing in rows of two and three deep. The operating brokers, looking grim and worried, were about early discussing with much animation the critical situation. Hopes for a brighter outlook today were numerously expressed, The bulls and bears were common in their declaration to try and steady the market.

"Immediately after the chairman's gavel announced the opening of the market there was a repetition of yesterday's wild scenes. The various posts were at once surrounded by tumultuous crowds, and operations began with an exciting scramble. The confidence anticipated did not manifest itself. There was a smashing of stock all around, and as price after price went lower a feverish feeling began quickly to spread among the operators. Call money opened at 25 to 50 per cent., but there was no business at these rates.

"As the morning wore along commission houses were in the receipt of investment orders, and under this buying the strictly gilt-edged issues took on a steadier tone. Money on call was also offered down to 10 per cent., and this had some influence on the market. When the hands of the big clock in the board pointed to the noon hour and the chairman announced the close of business a great shout of relief went up from the floor which almost shook the famous building.

"New York, December 21.--The failure of Hatch Bros, was announced at New York Stock Exchange at 11.15 A.M., and at 1:30 the failure of H.K. 004445Burras & Co. was announced. Mr. Burras has been a member since December, 1876.

"New York, December 21.--The Times prints the following about the day in Wall Street: 'Collisions between bear operators in stock and foreign trading houses smashed prices in Wall Street, ran money rates up to 90 per cent., withdrew $3,400,000 from the gold reserve and caused several financial failures. Declines affected the entire trading list. Losses ran as high as ten points at one time in several substantial securities.

"'Accustomed as is the financial district to wicked work in the security market, yesterday's performance surpassed in malicious design and manipulative cunning and boldness anything ever before attempted. Its success was complete, and that it should have been so was amazing, since those well informed knew how it had been brought about. Men who engineered the decline used the Venezuela incident as a pretext. They had been in high feather since the President's message came out, and issued from the beginning the most gloomy predictions of its financial results. The worst apprehensions had not expressed fear of anything approaching the happenings in intensity or scope. Since operators usually read London quotations the first thing in the morning. In the last few days special significance has attached to them because of rumors of English intention regarding America securities. Casual observers might have supposed that yesterday's London quotations reflected a wholesale overthrow of American securities there. From best available sources of information it appeared that London sales did not exceed 50,000 shares of stock.

"'Since there was danger of a failure of the bear plot through this inadequate agency alone, even with London a present source of financial anxiety, plans were laid to supplement attack through London quotations by pushing up rates for money here. Houses that handle foreign loans became tools in this scheme. They called loans rapidly at the opening of business, and money jumped from 2 per cent. to 7 per cent. at once. The combined influence of London quotations and high 004546money caused the sale of 240,000 shares of stock in the first hour. Money advanced by leaps. The leaders apparently had been frightened and refused to put it out again. An excited demand for it resulted, and before two o'clock the rate touched 90 per cent. The sudden withdrawal of $5,000,000 of loans by foreign houses, including Canadian banking agencies, did the business, especially as that money was kept out of the market.'

"London, December 21.--Stock-exchange market opened panicky. American railroad stocks were demoralized, notwithstanding the fact in the first hours of the session the prices were better than at the close yesterday. The fluctuations were rapid and somewhat violent. Many stocks were unsalable.

"Philadelphia, December 21.--L. H. Taylor & Co., bankers and brokers, failed this morning--one of the oldest firms on the street.

"Boston, December 21.--Price & Co., Congress street stock brokers, have failed. The announcement was made on the stock Exchange this morning."

"The White Man in Government" is the subject of the chapter, and my purpose is to review his management of the affairs of the people under the many different aspects in which he is called upon to act for them, and we are now asking the very important question, how has he managed and dealt with their interests? Has he guarded, protected and improved them to the people's advantage and betterment? But the sad answer must emphatically be, "No, not by any means." But, on the contrary, it must be said that the people's means and moneys have been woefully wasted, their interests shamefully slighted and neglected and the profits turned to the personal gains and ends of those who have had them in charge. And, indeed, it seems that everything the white man puts his hand to flies up, like a skyrocket does, into the air, then quivers, sparkles, splutters, and makes a great display, then explodes, and then shattered, torn and wasted remains fall lifelessly to the ground again.

But there is a case just now before the public that 004647pre-eminently goes to show the white man's unfitness and inability to properly and economically manage the people's matters, whether it be private, State or national concerns. It is the failure of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which is the very first railroad enterprise the white man ever undertook to construct and manage in this country, and now that has largely proved a failure, so far as the largest part of the shareholders is concerned. Of course, the holders of preferred stock are not at all injured by the failure, but it is the common holder, the common people --yes, the many--who have shares of stock that will suffer. Then, again, there were five years that the road, on account of bad management, reckless expenditure, wasteful and useless changes, falsely called "improvements," only 3 per cent. dividends were declared; two years, 2 1/2; one year only 2, and for nine years none at all. Neither have the common-stock holders received a dollar on their investments since 1894, and I wish to say that it does not help the matter any to state that the affair of the company have only "gone into the hands of receivers," for I consider that only a more pleasant way of announcing a failure, and it also means that the common-stockholders are to deprived of their dividends in order that the receivers may be paid, and that the preferred stocks may earn dividends. Not only so, but in the case now before us the white man has had every advantage to show himself a success, for he not only had the aid of the State, but of the national government also; and the aid was important and material by way of government and State investments and legislative enactments, judicial decisions, the exemption of the entire property from taxation, etc. Yet the white man, under such favorable circumstances as these, could not keep that important enterprise afloat. And now, I ask again, where are the grounds for his much-boasted superior business capacity? In what has it shown itself?

But if I were in need of other evidence to prove the white man's unfitness and incapacity to legislate for the people I have it here before me now in the form of 004748a "special" to the Baltimore American of the present date(March 5, 1896)under the caption, "Legislators in a Row," and the "row" was in the Virginia legislature at Richmond, and the quotation will show why it arose; and the incident will also give us an insight into the white man's modern and improved methods of legislation, and that is, when he finds his opponent's head so hard that it will not or cannot quite take in his arguments, take a big club and use that on it a while and see if he cannot soften it a little and make it more susceptible to a proper conception of such weighty and ponderous matters and arguments as he is advancing and advocating.

The special dispatch also says a plot has been discovered that was on foot to steal the bill that is before the legislature, and the author of it had to take it from the senate chamber and carry it to the governor's mansion and get him to lock it up in his combination safe to keep it from being stolen before it could be passed upon by the legislature. Then may it not well be seriously and earnestly asked, what is this government of ours, with such a condition of affairs, coming to? And what may we expect will be the end?

"A good deal of excitement exists here in regard to a personal attack in the senate chamber this morning on senator W.M. Flannagan, the Republican member from Powhatan country, by Senator H.D. Flood, the Democratic member of Appomattox. The weapon used was a walking-stick, and the blow was above the ear, and made a cut several inches long, down to the bone, and had to be sewed up. Flannagan's friends claim that Flood struck him without warning, and Flood's friends indignantly deny this. Delegate Coles, the Republican member from Nothumberland, swore out a warrant for Flood, but before it was served Flood surrendered himself to the police, and was bailed for $2500 to await developments in Flannagan's condition. Flannagan was the leader of the minority party in the senate, and his aggressive contests over election matters brought forth many personalities in debate, and at different times Flood was very cutting in his remarks. 004849These Flannagan returned in kind, and last Thursday characterized one of Flood's statements as being not true. One newspaper quoted the words used as "entirely untrue," and another quoted him as saying "utterly false." These last words Flannagan acknowledged in an interview yesterday as being his words, and the fight this morning was the result. Flannagan has been badly nauseated all day from the effects of the blow. He was reported worse tonight, and his mind is said to be flightly. * * *

"Mr. Maupin, the author of the anti-racetrack gambling bill, this evenuing confirmed the rumor that there was a plot on hand to steal the Maupin bill while it was pending in the senate, the idea being to duplicate the Indiana coup worked by the gamblers on the legislature of that State, and prevent it reaching Governor O'Ferrall's hands until it was too late to put through another bill. Mr. Maupin was warned of the plot by a person whose identity he will not disclose. He notified the clerk of the senate of the plot, and with his own hands took the bill to the governor, and it was locked in the safe of the executive office until needed in the senate."