a friend, there is an end to the friendship. (2) Yes; the Committee would order a primary for Governor. Of course, the twoyear governorship is of far less importance than the four-year Senatorship. A governor of Georgia has only to administer laws already made, for one state; whereas, the Senators make laws for all the states. A governor, even if he be a wicked one, can do harm for but two years, and on a comparatively small scale; a Senator can do harm on the largest scaie, and can make bad laws whose blighting effect may be felt for generations. The hands of a governor are tied, almost completely, by statutes, court-decisions, and customs: if he goes wrong, the people can very quickly take him to task, and vote him out. Α Senator has a free hand, and can vote for any outrageous bill-the people being helpless in the premises. See how Bailey of Texas is misrepresenting his people, by voting for that Republican rascal, Lorimer. He knows that they are powerless to punish him.

(4) We might as well do it.
(5) Ditto.

(6) We have spotted them. We will keep them spotted. Help us put local pressure on them.

(7) They could be-only, the people won't take the trouble to handle the lemons. Let us all whirl in, and manifest the proper amount of interest in these public matters. T. E. W.

WHAT THE PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT

WERE FOR.

Dear Sir: Please answer, through the Educational Department:

1. What theories have ever been advanced to explain the purpose of the Pyramids?

2. When were they built-the first of them?

3. What solitary wonder of Egypt exceeded in cost and splendor (if not the Pyramids) all the temples of the Greeks put together?

I am pleased with your magazine and would like the above questions answered. FLETCHER O. BAXLEY.

Clanton, Ala.

Answer.

(1) That they were burial-places for the royal families: that they were treasurehouses: that they were astronomical and religious.

(2) The first. records of Pyramids as tombs for Egyptian kings, date before the fourth Egyptian dynasty.

(3) The great Temple of Karnak.

T. E. W

(1) Seigniorage, strictly speaking, is the "toll" which the government takes out of bullion to defray the expenses of coinage. But the term seigniorage was also applied to the profit the government made under the Sherman act of 1890 and coining it into dollars.

The amount of silver necessary to make a dollar costs less than a dollar; the difference between this market value of silver bullion bought and the dollars coined out of it, was a clear gain to the government, and was called seigniorage.

(2) No. Before gold is coined a certain amount of silver, or copper and silver, has to be mixed with it to harden it. This is called the "alloy" of the gold coinage.

The government charges the owner of the gold bullion a sufficient sum to pay for the alloy. Besides this, no toll is taken or charge made for the coinage of the gold. It is "free and unlimited;" and if the owner chooses to assay his gold himself and bring it to the "standard," the government charges nothing at all for coining it into dollars for him. Down to 1875, onefifth of one per cent was charged by the government for converting gold bullion into coin, but the Resumption Act of 1875 repealed this section of the coinage law.

(3) It is worth considerably less than $20, for the simple reason that it is not all gold.

By section 12 of the coinage laws of 1793, "the standard for all gold coins in the United States shall be eleven parts fine to one part alloy." The alloy is a mixture of silver and copper.

Therefore, a $20 gold piece if full weight cannot possibly be worth more than eleventwelfths of $20, as bullion. To be exact about it, the gold in a $20 gold piece cannot sell for more than $18.33.

Gold standard leaders frequently declare that the gold in a gold dollar is worth a dollar. This mistake is founded on their

forgetfulness of the alloy of one-twelfth, which every gold dollar contains.

The fiat of the government lifts the alloy into equal value with gold: and thus it is that the one-twelfth, composed of copper and silver, is worth as much in the coin as any one of the eleven-twelfths composed of pure gold.

This is a point which the free silver Democrats never make, because they do not like to admit the power of the government's "fiat." It might carry them too far, you know.

(4) They are simple promises to pay, bearing interest, and the smallest denomination issued was $50. T. E. W.

AS TO MARSHAL NEY, AGAIN. Dear Sir: In the May number of your magazine you seem to think it strange that the alleged Marshal Ney did not return to France during the reign of Napoleon III. If I recall correctly, Napoleon III. was elected president of France in 1848, afterwards becoming Emperor. Ney of North Carolina died in 1845 or 1846, and therefore could not have returned during the second Empire.

Its true that Ney turned against the Emperor in 1814 and then again after Waterloo, but if Napoleon could have come upon the scene in 1821 or earlier, Ney would have gone over to his old master again. I do not see why Ney the Marshal, far away from home and native land and reflecting on the glorious past, would not have wept on knowing of the death of Napoleon. As to the exhumation of Ney's body in Paris, I have no authority for the statement, only hearsay.

Yours most respectfully,

H. H. NEWTON, JR.

Bennettsville, S. C.

P. S. Since you have given to the world the best life of Napoleon and the best account of the battle of Waterloo, I hope and trust you will not deny us your account of the life of Robert E. Lee and Gettysburg. H. M. N., Jr.

Answer.

I did not remember-if I ever knewthe date of the death of the pathetic Ney of North Carolina.

While it is true that Louis Napoleon was not elected President of the French Republic until 1848, it is likewise true that the Bourbons were overthrown in 1830. With the "Revolution of July" put an end to the proscription of the Bonapartists. Such Napoleonic soldiers as Marshals Mortier and Soult held the highest offices. The Napoleonic ult grew stronger and stronger, until there was an imperative demand for the return to France of Napoleon's body.

Had Marshal Ney re-appeared, among the French, at any time during the last fifteen years of the life of Peter Stuart Ney, he would have been welcomed with unbounded enthusiasm.

Had the North Carolina school-teacher been the unfortunate Marshal, he could not have resisted the temptation to return to his family and native land. He had possessed large estates, which were restored to his son; and he would not have been human had he not wished to meet his wife and children again. Even prior to 1830, it would have been perfectly safe for him to correspond with his kins-people and friends in France. No one claims that he did so.

Napoleon's body was carried back to Paris, in 1840. It was known, throughout the civilized world that this dramatic event was in preparation. Months were required to arrange for it. Other months were required for the outward voyage and the homeward cruise. The approaching pageant, in Paris, was the talk of millions of men. It occupied prominent space in all the gazettes. Practically everybody knew about it. To say that Michael Ney-hot, impulsive, lover of adulation-would have kept on teaching school in North Carolina, when the mere sight of him at Napoleon's second funeral would have electrified and rhapsodized the whole of France, is altogether unbelievable. The call of Home and of Glory would have been answered by Ney in person had he been alive.

T. E. W.

SOME QUERIES ON SOCIALISM. Dear Sir: Will you kindly answer the following questions through the Educational Department of your monthly Jeffersonian:

(1) Has Socialism ever been tried anywhere? If so, with what results?

(2) Under Socialism, will a man be allowed to choose his own place of abode? And those who owned homes before it came in power, will they be allowed to remain in their homes? Please give proof either way.

(3) Who is the founder of Socialism, and when was it founded? Please give the last national platform of the Socialist party. Thanking you in advance for answering the above, I remain,

Yours truly, A SUBSCRIBER. Olney, Texas.

(Answer.)

(1) Yes, repeatedly, and from time immemorial. It was given a fair trial in ancient Sparta; and it proved an utter failure.

In other parts of the ancient and modern

world it has been tried and found wanting. In the first colonization of our own country, it was practised, for a short while, and abandoned, as unworkable!

(2) No. Socialists propose a new order. of society in which "Captains of Industry" will boss every thing and everybody. People will be "assigned" to their vocations by "society;" and society will decide the value of one's work.

Society will relieve the Head of the Family of his responsibility for its maintenance. The wife and children will look to "Society" for grub and education. Thus home-life, as we know it, would be abolished especially as Socialism does not admit of the private ownership of land, or other property. Under Socialism, communism would prevail; that is to say, property would belong to society, and not to the individual citizens. No man could own a home, a horse, a cow, or plantation implements. These are all "materials of production;" and the individual could not own them.

For proof see the National Platform of the Socialist Party of the United States.

(3) St. Simon, Fourier, Babœuf, La Salle, Engels, Karl Marx, Her Bebel. These were the founders of modern Socialism; but the doctrine, in one shape or another, is coeval with the human race. It reaches back, through Thomas More and Rousseau, to Plato; and from Plato it can be traced to ancient Peru, on the one hand, and to India, on the other.

(4) The following is the last of the platforms of the National Socialist Party: National Platform of the Socialist Labor Party, Adopted at New York, July, 1908. The Socialist Labor party of America, in convention assembled, reasserts the inlienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We hold that the purpose of government is to secure to every citizen the enjoyment of this right; but, taught by experience, we hold furthermore that such right is illusory to the majority of the people, to wit, the working class, under the present system of economic inequality that is.essentially destructive of their life, their 1.berty, and their happiness.

We hold that the true theory of politics is that the machinery of government must be controlled by the whole people; but again, taught by experience, we hold, furthermore, that the true theory of economics is that the means of production must likewise be owned, operated and controlled, by the people in common. Man cannot exercise his right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the ownership of the land on and the tools with which to

work. Deprived of these, his life, and his fate fall into the hands of the class that owns those essentials for work and production.

We hold that the existing contradiction between the theory of Democratic government and the fact of a despotic economic system-the private ownership of the natural and social opportunities-divides the people into two classes-the capitalist class and the working class; throws society into the convulsions of the class struggle, and perverts government to the exclusive benefit of the capitalist class.

Thus labor is robbed of the wealth which it alone produces, is denied the means of self-employment, and, by compulsory idleness in wage slavery, is even deprived of the necessaries of life.

Against such a system the Socialist Labor party raises the banner of revolt, and demands the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class.

The time is fast coming when, in the natural course of social evolution, this system, through the destructive action of its failures and crisis on the one hand, and the constructive tendencies of its trusts and other capitalist combinations on the other hand, will have worked out its own downfall.

We, therefore, call upon the wageworkers of America to organize under the banner of the Socialist Labor party into a class-conscious body, aware of its rights, and determined to conquer them.

And we also call upon all intelligent citizens to place themselves squarely upon the ground of working-class interests, and join us in this mighty and noble work for human emancipation, so that we may put summary end to the existing barbarous class conflict by placing the land and all the means of production, transportation and distribution into the hands of the people as a collective body, and substituting the co-operative commonwealth for the present state of planless production, industrial war and social disorder-a commonwealth in which every worker shall have the free exercise and full benefit of his faculties, multiplied by all the modern factors of civilization. T. E. W.

CLEVELAND'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION.

Dear Sir: In the article, "Story of Some Photographs," in your March issue, you refer to the second administration of President Cleveland as "the rottenest we have ever had since those which followed Lincoln." Please illuminate this by particularizing. There have been so many insinuations made about President Cleveland's personality that one does not know what you mean, whether you refer to matters of public policy or not. During the excitement and the animosities of the Civil War, President Lincoln, who was not a

polished expression of manhood, was called everything most uncomplimentary; a "boor," even-but he had the soul and genuine spirit which has made his name immortal. Cleveland had also the rough exterior, and his political enemies naturally have made all they could of this, but this opposition has been discouraged by men who try to be fair even to an opponent. Now, what and how much does your expression mean? Give us the particulars. Belleville, Ill. J. A. REID.

(Answer.)

General Grant was personally honest; but his administration was perhaps the most corrupt that our country has known. The demoralization following four years of titanic Civil War was in full force during the old soldier's two terms.

As to Cleveland, the facts are indisputable. Bear in mind that he was not only a coarse-fibred man, who was a bachelor until middle age, but he was a New York politician.

He had, while Governor, signed the bill which broke up the separate schools in New York City and threw white and black children together, on a footing of Social Equality. He afterwards denied this, but I produced the official record of the fact.

He denounced the Wilson-Gorman tariff as an act of party perfidy and dishonor; but he did not kill it with a veto.

His Secretary of the Treasury wrote the Sugar schedule, at Havemeyer's personal dictation. Cleveland knew that Carlisle did so, in compliance with the promises made the Sugar Trust before it contributed $500,000 to the Democratic campaign fund. Yet, knowing all the facts, Cleveland allowed the Sugar shedule, thus Lought, to become a law; and he allowed Carlisle to remain in the Cabinet.

Having assured the country, in his Warner letter that he went no further against silver coinage than to oppose an unlimited amount of it, he never rested until, by the use of Presidential influence and patronage, he secured enough voters in Congress to repeal the only statute under which we could get any addition to the free silver coinage on the same terms as were given to gold.

Indeed, the Sherman law provided, in so many words, that the. silver certificates should be redeemed with the silver dollars coined from the bullion bought from month to month, by authority of the Sherman act.

By surrendering the option to Wall Street, the bankers created the endless chain, which caused Cleveland to exclaim: "My God, Oates, the bankers have got the Government by the leg!"

The endless chain was this:

The bankers would collect a large sum in silver certificates, and take them to the Treasury, demanding that they be redeemed in gold. Even Greenbacks were thus "redeemed," in plain violation of law. When the bankers had drawn out sufficient gold to lower the Gold Reserve below $100,000,000, their newspapers would raise a howl, and demand that bonds be issued, to get back the gold into the Treasury.

Thus the bankers had a picnic. They drew out the gold, with silver certificates and greenbacks; and then put it back, in exchange for bonds. It was the disgraceful surrender of popular interests to the Wall Street interests that had been witnessed in many years. Not until we saw how President Roosevelt acted, during the panic of 1907, could one imagine that an equally shameful sacrifice of the general interest could be made to the special.

During this carnival of treasury-looting, Cleveland and Morgan held their famous conference, at midnight, in the White House. By a private, secret deal, Morgan was given gold-bonds, at a lower price than the New England railroads and the Jamaica negroes were getting for their gold-bonds.

Morgan and Belmont made a proft of $11,000,000,000 on the bonds, just as soon as they could be put on the market.

Such a clamor of indignation followed that even Cleveland was forced to offer the remainder of the bond-issue to the public. These brought a much higher price than Morgan had paid for his. When the Paris Rothschild died, some years later, a large block of these "midnight" bonds were found among his assets. Therefore, it would seem that the Rothschilds were in cahoot with Belmont and Morgan.

Incidentally, the American representative of the Rothschild interests has been a power behind the throne, in the national Democratic party, for the last fifty years. T. E. W.