or in proportion as that comes, do we build up the political party, which is called the Socialistic Labor Party. We already number several hundred thousands.

Q. If you had your theory in practical operation, would you have all the people in the United States belong to that association and be a part of it ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. All governed by the same rule?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And exactly equal?-A. Exactly equal.

Q. Dress alike?-A. No; that would be infringing on individual liberty.

Q. Where would the justice come in if you should allow one man to wear clothes like my colleague does and another like what I wear?-A. We don't propose to curtail our people at all.

Q. How could a man gratify his taste in that direction?-A. The voice of the people will always provide for diversities, for so-called varieties.

Q. Would you not, as an officer, answer him that that is an extravagance that you cannot tolerate, and that it is opposed to your system of equality ?-A. It is no extravagance.

Q. Yes, it is.-A. What is the opinion of a body-politic is the opinion of each indi̟vidual of the majority of individuals.

Q. Suppose my colleague belonged to an association, and he wanted to take a journey to the seaside or out to the mountains to have a pleasure trip, how would he provide for the expenses?-A. He would be provided for.

Q. O, no.-A. O, yes.

Q. You would soon get rid of your community.-A. Liberty is a part and parcel of citizenship, and citizenship is that which people want on the co-operative basis.

Q. Would you place no restraint whatever on the individual rights of parties to the gratification of their desires ?-A. Not within the code of the socialistic ethics.

Q. What would be your socialistic limit ?-A. It would be the united voice of the people from year to year-the public opinion.

Q. Then one year they might choose to let a man have a little more than the next?A. No; on the contrary the next year they would have more people than they had then, and vice versa.

Q. How would you provide for them?-A. They would provide for themselves. Q. How would you regulate churches ?-A. We would make them pay taxes.

Q. Who would pay the preachers?-A. Our party is our religion, and the government is our chief judge.

Q. What particular denominations would you introduce?—A. Our own; it is in reality original Christianity.

Q. So I understand; but what particular branch of the Christian church would you adopt?-A. The communistic one.

Q. And you would enforce that on all others?-A. We would not enforce it on any

one.

Q. If you adopted the communistic doctrine, and by a vote of the association you would fix the rule as to churches, schools, dress, food, labor, &c., might you not buck against a man's conscience occasionally?-A. Not in regard to little things like dress, food, &c.; there would in all probability be an enlargement of variety.

Q. The question of conscience, faith, and churches ?-A. We have done the same wherever the co-operative idea has entered into practical ethics.

Q. One of your members would probably believe in immersion, and another would not believe in it, and another would believe in this form and another in that, but you would recognize one system, and only one. Now, what would your system be?-A. We would have no such system. We would not have so-called religion in our party whatever.

Q. You said that your party was the Christian religion?-A. Originally.

Q. In what form would you express that Christian sentiment?-A. We would express it in the form which would make it the most practically co-operative possible. Q. You would allow the majority to fix the form or the special denomination of the church-A. Yes, sir; we do not have any church, understand. It is not a religious association; it is a body-politic-a political party.

By Mr. RICE:

Q. You mean any man should think religiously as he saw fit?-A. Yes, sir; all religion tolerated.

Q. If he saw fit to entertain the Catholic faith or Presbyterian, you would not control him?-A. Not at all.

Q. But supposing a man wanted to go to Newport, we will say, at whose expense would he go?-A. If he wishes to go to the seashore or to Newport, he has an opportunity to do so, as he has perfect freedom.

Q. That is he can go if he has got the means. Where would he get the money to go with-A. We propose to make a social money that should be given to him for his

labor.

Q. That is, there would be money, only it would be a different form from what it

now is?-A. It would be pretty near such money as the greenback party desire at the present time.

Q. Would each man get it according as he earned it ?—A. He would.

Q. So that if one man earned $2 and another man only earned $1, one man would get his $2 and the other man $1?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that in process of time he would accumulate more than the other man?-A. He would, until we got the plan so leveled down in the course of time that there would be equality.

Q. In your system, as you now propose it, would not the man that got the $2 of your socialistic money accumulate more if he only spent as much as the man who only got his dollar?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you would have capitalists?-A. We would, until we got the thing worked down to a state of perfection, and then we would not.

Q. When you got it to a state of perfection, what would there be to live for any longer?-A. Then we would have something to live for. As long as society rests upon the competitive basis, you cannot expect anything but injustice.

By Mr. THOMPSON:

Q. What is your business?—A. I am a teacher at present. I was a machinist until I was not wanted any longer as such.

Q. Is there any thing else you wish to say?-A. Yes, sir; I would like to state one thing, and that is in regard to the money question. The idea of a social money may be said to be the soci alistic party's idea of a social money, but so long as the greenback party does not absorb itself into and become a part of us upon the co-operative idea, then, of course, we cannot accept them into our party, but it is rapidly coming about, as we see by what our friend Carsey has said.

VIEWS OF MR. GEORGE W. MADDOX.

Mr. GEORGE W. MADDOX appeared and made the following statement:

Mr. PRESIDENT: I appear as one of the delegation from the Congress of Humanity. My colleagues here are Mrs. S. Myra Hall, Colonel Bennett, and Professor House.

"We would respectfully state that it is a principle in civil government to make provision for all its people, either laborers, paupers, or criminals. In an efficient and economic government, whether city, State, or national, the factor of the utilization of the physical, mental, and moral force of its people is, of all others, the most important and first to be adjusted in harmony with the interest of each and all.

"Under our competitive individual system of industry, we have, as a people, come to want and poverty, and the government are obliged to provide for the enforced idlers or paupers or criminals; therefore it follows that our system of government polity is at fault, and thus the demand is made upon every statesman and philosopher to present for adoption a better, more just, and economic system.

"We need not quote facts and figures to your honorable body to show that our individual competitive method of industry has filled the country with paupers, beggars, tramps, and criminals, and is already breaking out in brigandism, until there is more danger of anarchy arising from these idle persons than from corrupt politicians and partisan demagogues, and that we cannot neglect with impunity the duty we owe to the people to make provision for the useful employment of this increasing idle class, when we know that such neglect imposes upon the government the necessity of providing for them either as paupers or criminals, and most likely as both.

"To provide for them as paupers is a useless expense without moral or material return, and degrading to the recipient. To provide for them as criminals is still more expensive to good government and public morals; but to furnish them employment in useful industry will save them from pauperism and crime and add wealth to the aggregate. Charity is temporary and will have to be gone over and over in constantly increasing munificence, because where persons find themselves under the necessity of subsisting on charity and are thus openly degraded, they lose faith and ambition in themselves, and finally come to depend upon this provision for a livelihood. The person naturally turns for relief and safety to the thing nearest to hand; therefore such a system of relief for the poor only increases the demand and aggravates the evil, while useful industry in the production of wealth ennobles both the employer and employed, and brings them into business relations upon terms of individual independence and equality. The charity method makes the relation of pauper and protector, or slave and master. Idleness provokes crime. The old proverb which says, the devil always finds some mischief for idle hands to do' is verified at every turn, and once a person is in enforced idleness and living on charity he is easily persuaded to take by stealth or force what, if able to obtain by honest labor, he would never be tempted to take; and once in the channel of lawlessness it is very doubtful whether he will ever change his life to useful industry even if an opportunity is presented; therefore idleness paves the way to crime

and degradation which the government must correct and remedy in order to protect the good and law-abiding citizens.

"Both charity and the correction of crimes are most expensive systems of governmental economies, and our purpose in addressing your honorable body is to set forth another system, which, if adopted, will be less expensive and greatly productive to the peace, morals, and wealth of both country and individual. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that great works of industrial public improvements, such as canals, railroads, widening and deepening rivers, &c., &c., for better communication between East and West, North and South, and for the cheaper transportation of the products of the country from one section to another, be at once commenced and rapidly completed and then run in the interest of the United States. All great lines of railroads from the Atlantic to the Pacific should be built and operated by the government by direct employment of the necessary workmen, artisans, engineers, &c., and never by contract, which latter method of doing public work has largely enriched the contractor at the expense and often the ruin of the actual workingman. These works should be run at such a charge as will cover expenses and leave a margin of profit to finally cancel the money or credit advanced for their construction, which money should then be de; stroyed.

"Also, we would suggest that at least 100,000 families in the large cities be organized into colonies and planted by the United States Government on the public lands, the United States issuing sufficient money to locate these colonies and place them in a self-sustaining condition, and take such lien upon the improvements of each of the colonists as that in a term of years all that was expended upon them could be paid back to the government, leaving the colonist free from debt and the government reimbursed, when this class of money could be destroyed.

"Also, the United States should issue to such States, cities, and towns as desire to employ idle persons in useful industry all the money necessary for such purpose, which money should be a full legal tender, and take such a lien on the profits of such industry, holding the town, city, or State responsible, as will in a term of years cancel such indebtedness, when this money could be destroyed. All moneys thus advanced should bear no interest, because it is only the credit of the United States that is advanced, and the waste or destruction by wear and loss in usage will cover the expense or cost of issuance, and when it is paid into the Treasury of the United States by the debts, State, city, or town, the United States will have suffered no loss; therefore it can justly be destroyed, having filled its purpose in creating wealth for such town, city, and State.

"We would respectfully call your attention to the following examples where governments have profitably employed labor, diminishing idleness, creating wealth, and benefiting both the labor and the State:

"Examples.-See Jonathan Duncan's Pamphlet on Bank Charters; The Swedish Colony in the State of Maine; The System of Immigration in the Argentine Republic: Count Rumford's Method of Employing Vagrants in Munich, Bavaria. See Jared Sparks's biography of the count. The resolutions of the legislature of the State of Pennsylvania in 1836 for the employment of idle persons; the assistance of the Canadian government given to settlers upon the public lands; and also the assistance by the government in the settlement of the early colonists in New England, all of which is respectfully submitted by the Congress of Humanity."

I will simply state those; and if you would like to know what the other examples are I will also explain them. The island of Guernsey, as you know, was owned originally by the French, I think, and pending its transfer to the English there was a sort of interregnum when it had its own government. The burghers came to the governor of the island and stated they wanted means to build a market. The governor said: "Have you the site upon which to build it?" 6. "Yes." "The materials?" " Yes." The laborers?" "Yes; we have everything except the money." Said he: "I will furnish you all the money you want; and thenceforth he issued a class of paper money which he called money which was good for everything due the government-good for taxes, good for licenses, and everything that was due the government-the necessary amount to build that market. With that money they built the market; and in a period I think of ten years, more or less, the market earned that amount of money, and it was paid into the treasury and the market was public property. The governor then called the burghers together, took that money out on the public plaza and burned it, and they got a market for nothing-only the credit of the island.

By Mr. THOMPSON :

Q. Who paid for that market ?-A. It was built on the credit of the whole people. Q. Who paid for it?-A. The people paid for it.

Q. That is, the government paid for it?-A. Yes; the people.

Q. The government?-A. The government.

Q. The government took the money back in payment for taxes, you say?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Into the treasury ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then burned it up?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that the government lost just so much money?-A. Not a bit of it; it had the market.

Q. It lost so much money?—A. No, it didn't. The money had filled its purpose; it was only credit.

Q. It took it for taxes, didn't it?-A. It did; it took its own credit.

Q. Suppose it had not taken that money, it would have taken gold or silver for taxes -A. Yes, sir.

Q. Suppose that that was worth something?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Supposing it had burned up the gold and silver?—A. Inasmuch as gold and silver is merchandise, it would have been so much property destroyed if it was burned up. But this money was not merchandise; it was only the evidence of credit.

Q. Was it anything?-A. It was the evidence of credit-the same as if I took your check; your check is not money, and yet it is money.

By Mr. RICE:

Q. Suppose the market cost a million of dollars; and suppose the government had required its taxes to be paid in gold, and then took a million of dollars in gold and paid for the market, it would have cost a million of dollars to the government, would it not?-A. Yes, sir. I simply state a fact, that there was money issued which was nothing but credit, and when the credit had filled its mission it could be destroyed. I don't propose to build a market or railroad on gold when we have not got it. All I want is the fifteen thousand millions of dollars in this country to start up all the industries, and we, the people, own every dollar that is in this country absolutely.

By Mr. THOMPSON :

Q. Why did the governor of that island burn that particular money? Why not destroy an equal amount of the general currency ?-A. It would have done as well if an equal amount of the general currency had been paper like this. I don't say if I had been governor that I would have destroyed it; perhaps it was not any more money than was necessary to do business with; perhaps it was a mistake to destroy it; I don't know but it was; but I only say that with that credit the people built that market. Q. Did the people of that island pay into the general coffers of the nation the taxes of that island ?-A. I said that during this time the island was in a sort of outside government.

Q. Did the citizens pay any taxes to the general government, or was it their own local taxes alone that they paid?-A. That I don't know.

Q. If it had been a general tax on the people of the whole country, didn't the people in the other parts of the country, hundreds of miles away, assist to build that market?A. Certainly; but that was only a small island.

Q. Why should the people of Pennsylvania build a market-house in New York in the mode you describe?-A. I don't propose to do anything of the kind.

Q. That would be the effect of it?-A. No; don't misconstrue me.

By Mr. BOYD:

Q. If your doctrine is correct there would not be anything wrong in the general government building a market-house here?-A. No; I have said in this paper here--I will call your attention to it-that the United States should issue, to the city of New York, for instance, all the money that is necessary to employ the idle people here in useful industry. The first question is: Are there any idle people? Having settled that, now what do we want to build up here as an industry? Now I will tell you. We have got twenty-six miles of wharves here. General McClellan says it will cost $10,000,000 a mile to put them up permanently. Why should not the Government of the United States issue to this city $10,000,000 a mile to build those docks, which would all bring in a revenue into the city. When a tenth of the sum that is issued is paid into the treasury of the city it can afford to pay that money over to the United States; and inasmuch as it is a full legal tender, no matter whether it be the money of Pennsylvania or any other State, it makes no difference; and when it is all paid into the Treasury of the United States we could afford to destroy it if we had a plethora of circulating medium.

Q. Do you call that money?-A. I call it credit; and I give the same definition to money that Webster, that Plato, that Aristotle and Demosthenes did.

Q. There is no difference between money and credit?-A. Money is public credit. Gold and silver ain't money until you have stamped it and made it money. It is merchandise all the time. That is the curse of this country, that we take a thing and make money out of it that is merchandise, and it fluctuates in the market according to the value of it.

By Mr. RICE:

Q. Does the price of property fluctuate according to the amount of money?—A. Largely so, owing to speculation.

Q. Supposing there are $800,000,000 of money in this country to-day, and supposing two years from now there are $1,600,000,000 of money in the country, would that difference in amount affect the prices of property?-A. It would under our present system, for money always goes into great centers. That is the mischief of it, and I would prevent that; I would regulate that; I would have the government, from the municipality up to the national government, step in, and where private enterprise fails to keep the wheels of industry in operation the government should step in and keep them going, so that no individual would have an excuse for begging or stealing on the plea that he cannot get work at living wages. Thus, you see, the government would prevent these great monopolies in the hands of individuals; would destroy speculation. Q. You are wandering from the point. Prices would be affected by the difference in the amount of the currency, you say.-A. Yes, sir, likely.

Q. And is speculation encouraged by a fluctuation of prices?-A. Speculation to-day is and has been in the great centers of money. That is where it is. Now, when those who control the money market-I don't care who they are-call it in it stops speculation, and the result is that everything shrinks, and as they let it out it inflates. As they lend it to A, B, C, and D it inflates values, because every one is going to buy something for cash and sell it for cash. He has borrowed something and thinks he can get something for nothing.

Q. If the government lets it out it will inflate the same as if a capitalist let it out, would it not?-A. No; I beg pardon. What is the government? I am the government; I am the sovereign; you are the sovereign. The people are bigger than Congress, yet Congress to-day is bigger than the people, I acknowledge. They do what they please; but the government should be the people and conserve the people; and if the people make an industry that costs $10,000 or $10,000,000, and it earns 5 per cent. in dividends, it is earned for the whole people and not for a government nor for an individual.

Q. We know all that you have been saying. We want to get information on something else if you will give it to us. Why won't the money that is laid out by the gov ernment inflate prices the same as money that is laid out by capitalists?-A. I have made no provision for letting out money on interest.

Q. I don't care whether it is laid out on interest or not.-A. I say money should be put in circulation by producing wealth. I make a provision here that when it has filled its purpose of producing that wealth, and that wealth has earned its dividend to the amount of the cost, the money is destroyed. Where is your inflation?

Q. Supposing there is going to be twice as much money next year as this, will the house we own to-day sell for more than it does now ?-A. Under the present system it will; but under my system-that is, the government doing the work-it prohibits it being inflated to that extent that it would be under the competition system.

Q. Supposing the government this year is going to do $100,000,000 worth of work all over the country, and is going to pay for it in the kind of money you speak of, there will be $100,000,000 more currency next year until that is taken in somehow ?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. That will affect prices until it is taken in ?-A. Yes, sir; individual prices.

Q. Now, when it is taken in it will affect them again. Prices will go down when it is taken in, won't they?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that you have got prices up when the money is out, and down when it is taken in and destroyed, have you not?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that promote speculation?-A. Yes, sir. I don't propose that you shall create a system for me. My system is to issue $100,000,000 this year and $100,000,000 next year, and one hundred or one thousand millions a year if necessary to develop the country, and when it has earned the amount by those useful industries, call it in and destroy it. Where is the inflation? You constantly aid your people to work, and you say you cannot have this money unless you go to work.

By Mr. THOMPSON:

Q. But you say you would issue $100,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 a year if the people required it?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when it is earned you would call it in and destroy it?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you mean by that-when it is earned, call it in and destroy it ?—A. I take the Guernsey market; it earned that money; it was paid in, and it was not further needed.

Q. The government issues a hundred millions of dollars. I earn $1,000 of it, and I get $1,000 from the government, do I? How will the government call in that money from me? I have got it and own it.-A. Exactly; it has gone into your hands, but some one has to pay taxes. That property which was created earned a dividend, didn't it?

Q. You want to call in and destroy my money?-A. You want to know how it is that you are going to have the $1,000 and the government have it too?

Q. No; I have earned $1,000 and have got it in my pocket; you want to call it in