the class of attractions in the theaters the syndicate absolutely controls.

How may the power of the syndicate as an amusement purveyor and art promoter be shown?

It may be said to appear in the fact that only one American star, Minnie Maddern Fiske, now books exclusively outside the syndicate's houses; and, at the present writing, it is reported, that not even in the American metropolis is there a single theater available to this popular actress the coming theatrical season. It is the history of the relations of the syndicate and leading actors that the syndicate seeks to book them if it can ; but in not every instance has it induced successful actors to come under its control. Although peculiar circumstances may have placed the syndicate in hostility to Mrs. Fiske, on the other hand it cannot, though it would, monopolize the services of Mr. Mansfield, America's greatest living actor, who books at houses both within and without the control of the syndicate. So it follows that while the syndicate controls much of the best theatrical talent, native and foreign, it does not control it all.

What influence has the trust had upon actors' salaries?

The salaries of the best talent have probably been increased, because there are fifty-six theaters to which the syndicate must supply attractions, and there are not fifty-six stars and good stock companies to meet the demand. Indeed, the general average of salaries in the profession has probably been raised. The people are calling for the work of artists, and talent commands its reward.

Has the syndicate raised the tax upon the public?

It has raised admissions in New York to $2, and gets the same price for its best companies in some other cities. The syndicate

Dissensions between the eastern and western branches of the Association of Vaudeville Managers of the United States were reported in daily papers of July 22 and 23, 1900. Western managers say they are not getting the players they want. The trouble seems to lie in the strength of the independent managers outside the trust. The trust has a rule that all talent booking with it for the season shall be barred from booking with houses outside the trust. The rule means that all talent employed by the trust is compelled to take a vacation of from twelve to twenty weeks each year. A Chicago manager said: 'While it is not true that we have adopted a hard and fast rule requiring all of our talent to book solely with members of the association, we have had an understanding on the subject. We do not believe that it is unjust to ask talent to confine their services to us, since the salaries we pay make it no hardship for vaudeville people to take the vacation customary to the theatrical profession. By booking with the cheaper houses the actor simply makes himself common and of less value to himself and to us. Our motive is simply to protect our interests and the large amount of money we have invested. The only people who will suffer by the arrangements are the cheap booking agents, who will be forced out of business.

itself is paying more to the drama, and in turn asks compensation from the drama's patrons.

What seems to be a fair conclusion as to the good and evil of trust control over American theaters?

Doubtless the advantages of trust control in one instance may be balanced by hardships in another; but it would seem that the elevation of the dramatic art to the high plane it should hold is more nearly within the grasp of a combination of executive and artistic talent than within that of isolated and competitive managers, who may be as remote from New York, London, Paris and Berlin in spirit as they are in capacity to command the ever developing dramatic resources of those great capitals.

Have the variety and vaudeville theaters also felt the benefits of combination?

Yes.

Chicago Tribune, July 7, 1900: "There appears to be trouble ahead for the variety stage if the Eastern members of the 'vaudeville trust' persist in their intention of reducing the salaries of the high-priced performers. The prominent players express a determination to go back to the 'legitimate' unless they continue to get the salaries they have been receiving. One singer, who has been getting $750 a week on the vaudeville stage, is now offered less than one-half that amount for the coming season, and as she can get $500 a week for singing in opera she declares her intention of leaving the variety theater. Her attitude is said to be typcial of that of all the prominent artists. They would prefer the vaudeville as long as the pay is higher and the season longer than on the legitimate or operatic stage, but unless the variety managers keep up the present prices there will be a general exodus of talent and vaudeville will drop back to the low status which it occupied a few years ago.

"The remarkable popularity of the variety entertainment has lasted unusually long for a fad, and its reign has been marked by a steady and surprising rise in the personnel of the vaudeville stage. Actors, actresses and singers of high rank have been induced by large salaries to take their turns between the funny man and the performing dogs, and the general result has been to raise the variety show to a standard of popularity and real excellence never before reached by it. The present attempt of the managers to cut down salaries is the first indication of a turn in this theatrical tide, which, taken at its flood, has led many artists to comfortable fortunes.

"Whether the reduced offers of the 'vaudeville trust' are due to waning popularity of vaudeville or simply to a desire for more profits, the result threatens to be the same. If the artists with high talents and well-known names desert the variety stage it will likewise be deserted by fashionable audiences, and the reign of vaudeville as a society diversion will be ended. The actors and singers are right when they say that the present popularity of variety is in grave danger."

The good and evil of theatrical trusts, particularly of the Hayman-Frohman syndicate, as interpreted by a hostile critic, may be found expressed in the New York Dramatic Mirror, Harrison Grey Fiske, editor. The organ of the combinations is the New York Dramatic News.

THE MONEY TRUST.

XVII.

What is meant by the money trust?

It is alleged to be that system of finance with the monopoly attributed to it, which is practiced by advocates of the single gold standard, as distinguished from that proposed by the advocates of the double standard with free coinage of silver.

What do advocates of free silver declare to be the origin, purposes and evils of the money trust?

A statement of these may be condensed from the latest book of W. H. Harvey, "Coin on Money, Trusts and Imperialism,"

1900.

The nearer a nation becomes a nation of home owners and independent employment the nearer it approaches a true democracy. The nearer it approaches a nation of tenants and dependents the nearer it comes to monarchy and empire. Classes are exacting tribute from masses. The total absence of money would abolish business. It cannot be left to a class which deals in money for profit to say how much money shall be put in circulation. It is a false notion that they who deal in money know best how to legislate about it. There is greater need for a normal supply of money than a normal supply of wheat. A normal supply

From address by National Anti-Trust Conference, Chicago, Feb. 12, 13 and 14, 1890: "We declare that the problem of trusts is inextricably interwoven with the money question. We see today the effort made systematically, and it would seem with fair prospects of success, to turn over to the banks the control of the circulating medium of the country. But the banks in their turn are controlled by those giants of finance termed 'trust magnates.' These potentates hold and control blocks of bank stock. They sit upon boards of directors. They are in position to extend or to deny credit, to ease or to tighten the money market, to make prices of securities rise and fall, and to enrich or to ruin men engaged in great enterprises. As trust magnates they compel their banks to refuse assistance to competing concerns; as bankers they.finance the trusts in which they are interested. Since this alliance amounts to a community of interests between the trusts and the great banks, it is clearly inexpedient that the control of the volume of the circulating medium of the nation shall be delivered over to the corporations."

of money for the United States is the quantity necessary for use in the exchange of all products, for conducting all business, and travel, and education, and the expense of running the govern

ment.

All the money in the United States, outside the treasury, is about $1,963,716,148. Now, business men to perform the exchanges have borrowed from the 12,804 banks, $5,751,467,610three times as much as there is in existence—and for this sum they are paying the bankers $345,000,000 in interest. The banks are able to lend all the available money in the United States, not in people's pockets, to the extent of three times its quantity, because the banks loan the same money three times, and are therefore interested in limiting its supply, in closing the mints to silver. The issue of money is a government function. It is as important to protect the money as it is to make it. Either the government must run the banks or the banks will run the government. The total individual deposits are $7,513,954,361. If there is but $1,963,716,148 in existence and so the treasury reports-how is it

"The act of March 14, 1900, marks a new era in our finances and our currency. This law marks a unique rate of interest on government bonds, and SO affects the earnings of capital in all uses. It does away gradually with treasury notes and puts silver certificates in their places. It opens the door wide for increase in the notes of national banks. It gives parity to all our currency. On the face of all our money, paper and coin, white and yellow, on all our bonds, all wages, all trade, all banking, all business, it brands deep and sure, to be read of all men for all time, the pledge of gold. The rate for money is less in our country than in any point in Europe, except Paris, and often lower than on that bourse. Before next autumn the addition to the number of banks, under this act, will not be less than 800, with a capital of $20,000,000. The capital of the national banks before September next will be likely to be $633,000,000, and a safe estimate of the bank notes issued by that date is $350,000,000. The inflation probably is great; the extreme inflation probable for the season can not run much above the standard of December, 1873. The most timid cannot find here cause for alarm. Not by statutes alone has gold become the master element in our currency. For three years more than ever before has the yellow metal been thrusting itself into our markets, our vaults, into the pockets of the people. The stock in our country passed the billion mark last December. On May I the gold in coin and certificates in circulation reached $814,063,155, 40 per cent of all our money afloat, including banknotes. It meant a great deal that in each of the past four months gold has gone into our currency at an average rate of $8,740,000 a month, or over $100,000,000 a year. By their latest reports all the national banks held in coin, certificates and clearing house receipts for gold $298,381,172, and all other banks, $74,409,976. The treasury of the United States is richer in gold than any other nation or any corporation or combination. Its treasure in this form in its vaults, mints and assay offices was on May 2, $427,238,600, and it grows. A. drain on the treasury is inconceivable, because no gold can go out unless it is paid for in what is really gold. The day has dawned, then, when any endless chan' must have all its links of gold."-ELLIS H. ROBERTS, United States Treasurer, in "Chicago Banker," for June, 1900.

possible to make deposits as above mentioned unless in the elastic way described? In short, if from the deposits are taken the loans and discounts, $5,751,467,610, there is left the money in the banks -$1,762,486,751. Under the operation of our banking laws it is only a question of time when I per cent of the people will own all the property, and 99 per cent will be tenants.

What special privilege do the bankers have?

‘Another special privilege the bankers have is to borrow money from the government at one per cent per annum. They have long had a law to that effect. Under the law they do it in this way: They take government bonds to the treasury at Washington and borrow up to 90 per cent of their face value, money on which they pay ONE per cent per annum, continue to draw interest on the bonds and are exempt from taxation.

"Under this law a banker can take $100,000 in government bonds to Washington, on which he is drawing and will continue to draw, 4 per cent, with principal and interest exempt from tax

The consolidation of certain Chicago banks in 1900 shows the principle of combination to be quite as economic in finance as in industry. The Bankers' National, organized 1892, capital $1,000,000, E. S. Lacey, exComptroller of the Currency, president, will absorb the Lincoln National Bank, organized 1887, capital $200,000, V. C. Price, president. The resources of the Bankers' National are $11,037,188; its deposits, $9,577,035. The resources of the Lincoln National are $1,092,509. A greater consolidation will be that of the Corn Exchange National, the Northwestern National and the America National. The Corn Exchange, absorbing the other two, alone retains its identity; president, Ernest A. Hamill. On June 29, 1900, the status of the three banks was as follows:

The presidents of the three banks are: Corn Exchange, E. A. Hamill; Northwestern, E. Buckingham; America National, Isaac G. Lombard. The largest stockholder in the Corn Exchange is its vice-president, Charles L. Hutchinson, who has 1,550 shares. The largest consolidation is that of the First National with the Union National, the arrangement to become operative September 1. The deposits of the First National, reported