with Spain, for it was admitted by them in Congress. Representative Sayres, of Texas, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the Fifty-third Congress, admitted it. In the debate on the war revenue bill in the House, April 27, 1898 (Record 102, p. 4746), Mr. Sayres contended that $400,000,000 of bonds, which it was proposed to authorize, was more than was needed. He argued that $300,000,000 was sufficient money to keep 200,000 men in the field for an entire year; but in this calculation he was leaving out of account the fact that the Navy had also to be provided for. The following colloquy ensued:

Mr. HOPKINS. This is only an authorization. There is no necessity to borrow the money unless the Government needs it. Mr. DINGLEY. Now, Mr. Chairman, on that point I desire to call attention anew to the fact that in one year of the civil war the expenditure was eleven hundred million dollars on the part of the Federal Government.

Mr. SAYRES. The year to which the gentleman refers, I believe, was 1865.

Mr. DINGLEY. Eighteen hundred and sixty-five.

Mr. SAYRES. Those expenses were counted in greenbacks, which then commanded 50 or 60 cents on the gold dollar.

Mr. DINGLEY. So you do not think it would be wise to issue greenbacks now and go back to that condition?

To this Mr. Sayres made no reply other than to say, "The gentleman must not evade the question." Coming from so eminent a member of the Democratic party in Congress, the proof is complete that a due regard for economy as well as our financial safety dictated the action of the Republican Congress in turning its face against an issue of greenbacks and adopting the wiser plan of issuing bonds.

Scanning this table, can anyone doubt that the Republican members of Congress adopted a wise course in refusing to go back to the experience of 1864, and from 1864 to 1868, inclusive, by launching another burden of one hundred and fifty million 50cent paper dollars on the people, and in the light of these exhibits, will anyone question the wisdom of offering an issue of bonds, drawing 3 per cent interest, in such manner that "the common people" may find a safe investment for their surplus earnings? The 3 per cent interest is paid by indirect taxation and is not seriously felt, whereas a depreciated dollar affects every individual, mechanic, merchant or millionaire; for 3 per cent on $150,000,000 of bonds, distributed among a population of 75,000,000 people, is about 6 cents per capita, whereas a 50-cent dollar, which the Government is unable to maintain at par, represents an individual loss of 50 cents.

The question is what is real patriotism-giving the people worthless paper money, or giving them a hundred-cent dollar and ask

them to stand by the Government like loyal citizens in time of war?

BONDS IN TIME OF WAR.

"I believe that if a Democratic administration was forced to sell $300,000,000 in bonds to run the Government in times of peace, that a Republican administration might be allowed to sell bonds enough to run the Government in time of war."-From the speech of Representative Amos Cummings (Dem.), of New York, May 2, 1898.

POPULAR LOANS AND THE GOVERNMENT.

[From the Financial Chronicle.]

The subscriptions to the "popular loan," which closed Thursday at 3 o'clock, are announced to have reached $1,325,000,000. As an indication of the credit of the Government this response from such a mass of capital for a 3 per cent loan at par, having probably only ten years to run, is highly gratifying. It affords, too, timely and impressive testimony of the abundance of wealth in our midst waiting for investment, telling the public that the only condition needed to make this wealth serviceable for industrial expansion is confidence.

TAMMANY FOR GOLD BONDS.

[From the Chicago Tribune.]

The city government of New York, which is controlled absolutely by Tammany, has just authorized the issue of bonds to the amount of $27,000,000. They are made payable in "gold coin of the present standard of weight and fineness." The Tammanyites were told that "gold" bonds would sell for more than "coin" bonds, and, as they are anxious to show that the credit of the city has not been impaired by their being in charge of its affairs, they decided to issue "gold" bonds.

That was perfectly proper, but now, after having done that, can Tammany delegates in a State or national convention indorse that Chicago platform which demands, among other things, "such legislation as will prevent for the future the demonetization of any kind of legal-tender money by private contract?" The sale of "gold" bonds by a city is as much a demonetization of legal-tender silver as an agreement on the part of an individual to repay in gold the gold value money he has borrowed. Tammany can not repudiate a platform in practice and then adopt resolutions favoring it.

The sale of "gold" bonds because they will bring more than "coin" bonds, which might possibly be redeemed in cheap silver, is equivalent to an admission that the General Government ought to sell "gold" bonds when it sells any, and that the equivocal word "coin," the use of which hurts the public credit, should be stricken out of the statutes. The businesslike course adopted by Tammany in regand to city bonds is neither more nor less than an abandonment of Bryanism. That organization can not consistently support any of his policies henceforth.

That organization can not consistently allow Congressmen to be elected in the districts it controls who will vote for the free coinage of silver into cheap dollars, to be used retroactively in the payment of existing obligations based on the gold standard. The city of New York has millions of "coin" bonds outstanding, whose value Tammany does not wish to depreciate, and whose holders it does not wish to cheat. Tammany has shown that by giving the preference to "gold" over "coin" bonds.

BRYAN.

The New York Journal's Relations to the Late Demo-Popocratic Candidate for President.

As is well-known, the New York Journal was the only influential paper in the East which espoused the cause of William J. Bryan in the last Presidential campaign and indorsed the free silver platform upon which he made his appeal for votes.

"Immediately after the election friends of Mr. Bryan, searching for his name upon the editorial page of the Journal, looked for it in vain. Apparently Mr. Hearst's Eastern paper had forgotten that there was in existence such a personage as the gifted Nebraska orator, whose incendiary eloquence in the old Coliseum building made him a Presidential nominee in 1896.

"A few days ago, however, there appeared upon the editorial page of the Journal a signed communication written by Arthur McEwen, the chief editorial writer of that paper, attacking Mr. Bryan most savagely. Afterward the Journal hastened to explain editorially that it had not officially repudiated Bryan, but would support him again in 1900 'if he is nominated.'

"The Journal now follows up its first attack by another three column communication by Mr. McEwen, which contains dozens of such charming paragraphs as this:

"Everything now points to the renomination of Mr. Bryan in 1900. It is the knowledge of that which causes Democrats of my kind to deplore that as he comes to be better known, to be subject

to a critical examination when men are not excited by a political canvass, he grows smaller rather than bigger, and instead of being a man of lofty and simple and utterly sincere mind, appears to be revealing himself merely as a superior specimen of the smart lawyer-politician of the cornfed Middle West, a class with which those who know Congress are familiar.'

Editor Hearst, having been forced into a declaration that his paper would support Bryan in 1900 "if he is nominated," is evidently doing everything in his power to prevent such a contingency. It is hardly a manly form of journalistic warfare, but the chief tenet in the creed of yellow journalism. is, "The end justifies the means,” and the New York Journal believes in that principle.— Chicago Times-Herald.

BRYAN OPPOSED TO AN EFFECTIVE NAVY.

“I believe in a sufficient navy. We have this now, either in existence or in construction. We do not need more.”—Speech in the House of Representatives, July 9, 1892.

VOTES AGAINST THE USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NEW MEXICO.

[From the Cougr. ssional Record of Thursday, June 27, 1894.]

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report title of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

"A bill (H. R. 353) to enable the people of New Mexico to form a constitution and State government.".

Mr. SMITH of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to amend by inserting on page 5, in line 52, after the word "control," the following: "And in all of which public schools the English language shall be taught." We certainly should have in every public school in that State the English language taught. Many of the citizens of the present Territory do not speak English, and in a large percentage of their schools the English language is not taught. I am satisfied that the German, the French, the Spanish, or any other language may be taught, but I am especially anxious, and I believe the people of this country are, that in this and in all of the States the English language shall be taught in all the public schools. Where is the American citizen who will object to this reasonable provision? (To Mr. Antonio Joseph.) Do you decline to accept the amendment?

Mr. JOSEPH. I decline to accept it.

Mr. HOPKINS of Illinois. Does the gentleman, upon reflection, still insist upon his objection?

Mr. JOSEPH. I do, most emphatically.

Mr. HOPKINS of Illinois. Well, I trust there is patriotism enough

in this House to decline to admit New Mexico into the Union as a State unless so just and proper an amendment as this be adopted. Mr. GEAR. It is well-known fact that 70 per cent of the population of New Mexico are either Spanish or of Indian descent. It is only a proper precaution when these people come here and ask Statehood in the American Union to require that their children shall be taught the language of the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Illinois. If we admit New Mexico I hope it shall be with the understanding that although you may now teach the English language, hereafter you must teach it—the language of the American people and of all our country. (Applause on the floor and in the galleries.)

Mr. BURROWS. I call for the yeas and nays.

The amendment was again read. The question was taken; and there were-yeas, 84; nays, 117; not voting, 148.

Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I offer the amendment which I send to the desk.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio.

The Clerk read as follows: "After line 52, insert 'And for teaching the English language as a branch of study in all public schools, but not to the exclusion of other languages.'

The question was taken, and there were:

Yeas, 81-Adams (Ky.), Aitken, Aldrich, Baker (Kans.), Baker (N. H.), Bartholdt, Bingham, Boen, Boutelle, Bowers (Cal.), Broderick, Brosius, Bundy, Burrows, Cannon (Ill.), Chickering, Cooper (Wis.), Cousins, Curtis (Kans.), Dalzell, Daniels, Davis, Dolliver, Fletcher, Funk, Gear, Hager, Hainer, Harmer, Hartman, Haugen, Heard, Heiner, Henderson (Ill.), Hepburn, Hermann, Hitt, Hopkins (Ill.), Hudson, Hull, Johnson (Ind.), Johnson (N. Dak.), Kem, Keifer, Lacey, Lapham, Lester, Linton, Loudenslager, Lucas, Mahon, Marsh, McCall, McKeighan, McNagny, Meiklejohn, Mercer, Milliken, Payne, Perkins, Pickler, Randall, Ray, Reed, Reyburn, Russell (Conn.), Smith, Sperry, Stephenson, Charles W. Stone, William A. Stone, Strong, Tawney, Updegraff, Van Voorhis (N. Y.), Van Voorhis (Ohio), Wanger, Wever, Wilson (Ohio), Woomer, Wright (Mass.). Nays, 115-Alderson, Alexander, Allen, Arnold, Bailey, Bankhead, Bell (Colo.), Bell (Tex.), Berry, Black (Ga.), Boatner, Bower (N. C.), Branch, Brookshire, Brown, BRYAN (Nebr.), Bunn, Bynum, Cabaness, Cadmus, Caminetti, Capehart, Caruth, Catchings, Clancy, Clark (Mo.), Clarke (Ala.), Cobb (Ala.), Cobb (Mo.), Cockrell, Cooper (Fla.), Cooper (Ind.), Covert, Cox, Crain, Crawford, Cummings, De Armond, De Forrest, Dinsmore, Dockery, Enloe, Epes, Erdman, Fyan, Geissenhainer, Grady, Graham, Hall (Mo.), Hare, Hayes, Henderson (N. C.), Holman, Hooker (Miss.), Hunter, Izlar, Jones, Kyle, Latimer, Lawson, Layton, Livingston, Lynch, Maddox, Maguire, McAleer, McCreary (Ky.), McCulloch, McDannold, McDearmon, McEttrick, McGann, McLaurin, McMillin, McRea, Meyer, Money, Montgomery, Morgan, Moses, Ogden, O'Neil (Mass.), Page,