the Government. Neither one of these agencies can be economically and properly handled without the others. The postal system is already operated by the Government, but is incumbered by the other agencies being under private monopoly control. Even being deprived of these, no one dares to suggest that the mail service should be turned back to private control.

The Opposition to Government Control

Mr. Presidents, the opponents of Government ownership present certain statements to prop up their opposition. They say, for instance, that it would give neither as good nor as cheap service. They cite the freight and passenger charges, on Government owned systems, as evidence that they are more expensive.

We will not now take time to prove the difference in the conditions where they make the comparisons, and which accounts for the difference in costs in most cases, for we call on you to note the fact, that no case exists where any government now does or ever has operated all the services which we have designated as necessary to make either fully successful.

The postal system, to be sure, is successful when compared with privately owned business of any kind, but it would be preeminently more successful, if the other services we designate, were also operated by the Government. It requires them all to make the success of either such as it should be.

The one claim which the opponents of Government ownership present, which they pretend is sufficient to settle the problem, is that it costs more for the service.

We deny the truth of that statement. For the sake of the point they claim to make, but not otherwise, we might admit that the direct charge for passenger and

freight services is less on privately owned than Government owned railways. But as we have already shown, it is not sufficient to simply have the transportation system operated by the Government, but the other utilities to which we have called your attention, should be, too, in order to have any of them completely successful, but even without the complete control by the Government of all of them, the argument is not closed.

Mr. Presidents, the ultimate cost of a service involves more reckoning than the direct cost. The original failure on our part to take into account the indirect dividend and profit results of private ownership of public utilities is the mistake that we, as well as they, have made, but will not hereafter overlook. In Government operation of public utilities, all charges for service will be applied to maintain and improve the system, or a part will be so used and the rest applied to other kinds of service, thus reducing taxes.

In the private operation of public utilities, on the other hand, the profits with a reasonable margin for risk are absorbed by the officers and stockholders, the largest of which, control banks and other trusts, from which money is borrowed and materials bought. These concerns on the side charge enormous profits which are paid, and are added to the capitalization, and the service taxed to pay interest and dividends upon the whole. In that method the Money Trust group pyramid their profits both ways, and keep the centralized capital growing larger and larger each succeeding year.

That kind of exploitation, taking in all the trusts, has grown to such proportions that there is no doubt that it already equals three-fourths of the costs of the trust controlled commodities, thus forcing us to pay as much as four times the physical cost when we buy

these. This arbitrary condition is expressed in "Truth No. 2," (see index) is increasing all the time. That is what constitutes the indirect charge, which the opponents of Government ownership either are ignorant of or seek to conceal the fact, and keep us from finding it out. In Government ownership we would escape the trusts, providing we governed the three main agencies yet to be taken over.

Conclusion of Memorials

Mr. Presidents, the above are our standing memorials. We petition you for the action on your part as stated in them that we desire. We pledge you our support— with all the vigor of our manhood and womanhood, and the power of our numbers, over 100,000,000 including our children, and in whose interests and the future generations, we especially dedicate our most loyal and continuous support. We repeat as we began:

You, Mr. Presidents, are of us-selected by and from us, and have our consent to lead us, but we are not blind followers, for should you attempt to lead us in the wrong way, we will not follow. We are the sovereigns-represent the republic in fact we are the republic, and do not intend that the republic shall be a hollow mockery by leaving to its presidents or to any other officials or associations, the whole responsibility. Now please take notice of what we have demanded in these memorials, and lead us so we may secure the results that we have indicated to be fair and right, and that are in the interests of all mankind.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Too many of us have been asleep. Those, however, who excited us to war may not yet realize what they did, for nothing could be more effective than war to wake us up. That was not what they wanted. But possibly what we needed to

bring us to a full realization of our responsibility to make our nation a republic in fact, as well as in theory.

that

Mr. Presidents, as our final words, we say to you, a majority of us agree that the individual initiative developed to its highest is the ideal, but the work of attainment must be under circumstances to afford equality of opportunity so far as just rules effectively enforced can make it. The avenues of development must be thrown wide open, by placing the communication, the finance and the transportation agencies everywhere at the service of all at cost with no profit to either individuals or government for the service.

NOTE. The peoples of Europe's war nations had to sell their holdings of American stocks and bonds to aid in carrying on Europe's war. Wall Street conceived the scheme of getting these stocks and bonds, but make the American consumers pay for them while the Wall Streeters should own them. The first step was to close the New York Stock Exchange; their second step was to make Congress give them hundreds of millions of emergency currency; their third step was to export $6,000,000,000 in value of American products in excess of what we got back; their fourth step was to raise the price on like products to American consumers approximately $17,000,000,000 over the former prices, and as a consequence the Wall Streeters now own the stocks and bonds that the peoples of the European war nations had to sell, while the people of America were forced to pay for them, and in addition many billions to finance the campaign of deception that has been carried on, as well as to aid paying the expenses of the war, and several of these same Wall Streeters are on the finance committees to manage our own war finances. What is the answer to that, patriotic Americans?

CHAPTER VIII

THE POLITICAL PARTIES

We are willing to listen to all kinds of praise of our own political party, but many of us will neither reason nor analyze when a criticism is made upon the political party to which we individually belong. We stand for any attack of the others for their mistakes. But we wish to fight for our own, almost as we would fight against an insinuation reflecting upon the honor of our mother, wife, daughter, sister or lady friends. There is a difference, however a wide difference in dealing with politics. There is an appeal from a party. The party is not the supreme power. It is less than the State. The State is over all. A political party is merely incident to the program of the State and is not even recognized by the Constitution. The political parties are unofficial, but legally recognized bodies of individuals associated, who believe, or think they believe, in their respective party principles.

There is an individual prejudice on party problemsmuch less now, however, than hitherto. One can get a hearing now even before the most prejudiced, who in the early stages of party organization would not reason upon this subject. My discussion is entirely nonpartisan, but may arouse in some readers partisan resentment, because I shall have no hesitation in showing how utterly ridiculous the party rule for the last fifty years has been.

In the early proceedings of any political party-that is, before it begins to deal with the State, and in its first efforts when it acquires State power, it is practically