CITIZENS   FOR  LIMITED  TAXATION
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation

CLT UPDATE
Saturday, July 1, 2006

Keep it "Independence Day" despite run-amok government


The House on Friday afternoon approved a $25.7 billion fiscal 2007 budget that appears to have grown by about $300 million during negotiations between the branches.

State House News Service
Friday, June 30, 2006
House, Senate vote for enlarged $25.7 billion state budget


State lawmakers have approved a $25.7 billion budget for next year, boosting spending 7.5 percent over this year, mostly through a major increase in aid to local school districts....

Lawmakers again rejected calls for an income tax cut, ignoring proposals by Governor Mitt Romney and the Senate to roll back the income tax to 5 percent. They also rejected a sales tax holiday the Senate had approved for Aug. 12 and 13.

State budget-watchers warned that the budget, $300 million higher than the original budgets proposed by the House and Senate, is too generous. The increase appears to be the largest in at least the past decade.

"The bottom line is clearly too high," said Michael J. Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation....

Romney vowed to veto the spending plan, saying lawmakers had unwisely dipped into the state's rainy day fund for $550 million to boost spending.

"It would be irresponsible for Governor Romney to sign this budget," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

The Legislature, however, would be able to override a veto easily. The Senate voted 38 to 0 to approve the budget, and the House passed it 148 to 3....

But some local officials said the increases still are not enough.

The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Mass. House, Senate approve $25.7b budget
The 7.5 percent hike is mostly in school aid


Governor Mitt Romney proposed yesterday that state lawmakers pay for the pension of a former House member who never contributed to the state pension system.

Under the terms of an amendment the governor sent to the House and Senate, members of both chambers, the governor, and the lieutenant governor would pay one-half of 1 percent of their base compensation to the state pension fund, which would cover the pension for the widow of former representative Michael Ruane of Salem, who died Sunday at age 78.

The Legislature had passed a bill granting him a $44,000-per-year pension.

The Associated Press
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Romney offers compromise on Ruane pension


My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water" was the phrase that came to mind from the original "Jaws" movie promotion back in 1975, when I learned late yesterday that the Legislature had, before leaving on an extended holiday weekend, passed a record-breaking spending plan for Fiscal Year 2007.  There's more than a passing analogy here -- with the Great White shark and the "Great and General Court" ruthlessly eating everything in sight, tossing would-be beachgoers into terror.

Only in Massachusetts can a "conference committee" of House and Senate "negotiators" reconcile their budget differences by taking the stance that -- well, "I'll give you everything you want if you give me everything I want." Increasing both branches' budget proposals by $300 million.  Raiding the so-important-to-them and the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation's (when we talk about rolling back the 19-year old "temporary" income tax hike) "rainy day fund" for half a billion dollars just so they can spend even more than this year's billion-dollar surplus.

And, oh my goodness -- Michael Widmer of MTF is again -- YET AGAIN -- "shocked, simply shocked" that spending is again out-of-control.  I'm sure the Gimme Lobby thanks MTF for providing the next "fiscal"/spending crisis cover it so desperately needed.  Recall:

In January Gov. Mitt Romney proposed a $25.2 billion state budget;

In April the House proposed a $25.27 billion spending plan;

In May the Senate's budget proposed spending $25.4 billion, and;

In July, the final budget became  $25.7 billion.

That comes out to half a billion dollars more than the governor's proposed budget;

$430 million more than the House's proposed budget, and;

$300 million above than the Senate's.

In the Massachusetts Legislature (all but three Republicans in the House and Senate voted for passage), "negotiations and compromise" within a "conference committee" has created a new definition:  "Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.  We've got their money -- let's spend it and screw any promises made to roll back taxes!"

There's not a single word in the budget about keeping that promise.  It was excised entirely. The conferees in both bodies "compromised" by making everyone happy, simply funding almost everything at a higher cost to taxpayers.

On this coincidental-or-not auspicious occasion -- the weekend over which we celebrate the 230th year since the signing of the "Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen United States of America" -- we recall the words crafted by Thomas Jefferson, in its second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

Don't forget, on Tuesday we don't celebrate the generic "4th of July."  We true Americans will celebrate Independence Day, and we will remember why we celebrate.


On yet another historical note today, Gov. Romney amended the taxpayer-funded illegitimate pension of a retired state Representative -- a pretty decent friend of taxpayers early on but nonetheless -- that of the recently-deceased Salem former-Rep. Michael Ruane.  Instead of a taxpayer giveaway to his now-widow, the governor proposed that those most concerned with the plight of their colleague's wife pony up privately to help support her, and volunteered his and Lt. Gov. Healey's support.

Former-Rep. Ruane's former colleagues crafted cover for themselves with an alleged means of recovering taxpayers' cost for this unique addition to the exploding state pension system by attaching his home after his wife passed on; but then added his children to that codicil.  As one pundit pointed out, who's going to remember by then to collect for the taxpayers?

It reminded me of the first mistake made by U.S. Congressman David Crockett, better known as "King of the Wild Frontier" by many of us baby-boomers, or even as a sacrificial hero at the Alamo to Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna's overpowering forces in 1836.  "Remember the Alamo!"

Mitt Romney apparently remembered or is philosophically akin to words of Crockett's critic, Horatio Bunce (story below).

We need more Bunces, with that kind of influence, perspective, and understanding of constitutional intent.

We need more Colonel Crocketts legislating today, who can at least finally grasp and even perhaps appreciate.

Chip Ford


State House News Service
Friday, June 30, 2006

House, Senate vote for enlarged $25.7 billion state budget


The House on Friday afternoon approved a $25.7 billion fiscal 2007 budget that appears to have grown by about $300 million during negotiations between the branches. The Senate vote of approval was 38-0.

House budget chief Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) said the House turned back most Senate-approved policy measures added to the budget as outside sections. DeLeo said the thrust of the budget is reinvesting in cities and towns, which have been trying to recover from cuts in local aid and pressure on property taxes. He said he’s aware that critics believe the Legislature is spending too freely, but feels the investments in school aid, housing, the environment and substance abuse treatment are worth it.

With lawmakers anxious to break free of Beacon Hill for the weekend, DeLeo cut his floor remarks short, saying he didn’t want to rehash comments he made privately to his colleagues during a caucus today.

The budget emerged this morning from conference committee. House Minority Leader Bradley Jones voted against the budget but opted not to offer floor remarks.

Rep. Viriato deMacedo, the Republican budget negotiator in the House, did speak on the floor and said the bottom line was higher than he would have liked and expressed hope the House might support expected gubernatorial spending vetoes.

"The economy that we are in right now is tenuous at best," said deMacedo.

But deMacedo said he voted for the budget because he likes its priorities.

The budget makes "modest progress" restoring funds cut throughout state government in recent years and funds the first year of the health insurance expansion law, according to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. But analysts at that center say their initial reading of the budget indicates that, when compared to fiscal 2001 state spending levels and adjusted for inflation, the budget spends $500 million from the rainy day fund and provides 10 percent less in unrestricted local aid, 17 percent less for higher education, and 22 percent less for public health.

Return to top


The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 1, 2006

Mass. House, Senate approve $25.7b budget
The 7.5 percent hike is mostly in school aid
By Andrea Estes and Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff


State lawmakers have approved a $25.7 billion budget for next year, boosting spending 7.5 percent over this year, mostly through a major increase in aid to local school districts.

The budget, agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators and quickly approved late yesterday, includes a 6.6 percent increase in the state's basic aid for schools, a response to intense pressure from cities and towns that have been pushing tax overrides, raising school fees, and cutting programs to make ends meet.

Lawmakers again rejected calls for an income tax cut, ignoring proposals by Governor Mitt Romney and the Senate to roll back the income tax to 5 percent. They also rejected a sales tax holiday the Senate had approved for Aug. 12 and 13.

State budget-watchers warned that the budget, $300 million higher than the original budgets proposed by the House and Senate, is too generous. The increase appears to be the largest in at least the past decade.

"The bottom line is clearly too high," said Michael J. Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

Along with a recently approved economic stimulus bill and a supplemental budget, lawmakers have authorized "a level of spending that is not sustainable over the longer term and is not reflective of the state's stagnant economy," said Widmer, president of the nonpartisan group.

Romney vowed to veto the spending plan, saying lawmakers had unwisely dipped into the state's rainy day fund for $550 million to boost spending.

"It would be irresponsible for Governor Romney to sign this budget," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.

The Legislature, however, would be able to override a veto easily. The Senate voted 38 to 0 to approve the budget, and the House passed it 148 to 3.

Lawmakers said they had to restore funding to schools as much as possible after years of devastating cuts.

"The reality is you've got a very limited time-frame to educate these kids," said Senator Robert A. Antonioni, Democrat of Leominster. "Really, the amount of money we put into the effort does make a difference. I don't apologize for that. I don't think any of us should be ashamed to put more money into public education."

Senator Therese Murray, Democrat of Plymouth and chairwoman of the Ways and Means Committee, defended the increased spending.

"Investing in our public school districts gives communities the means to provide the best education for our children possible," she said.

Those who lobbied the Legislature hard for more aid -- including Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association -- hailed the budget as a major step forward for cities and towns slammed by budget cuts in recent years. "I don't think anyone believes that this is an overnight recovery," he said. "But this is obviously a good news budget for cities and towns."

But some local officials said the increases still are not enough.

Carl Valente, Lexington town manager, said the budget doesn't restore school funding to 2002 levels. Last month, voters in Lexington rejected a tax override for schools, forcing them to send layoff notices to more than 30 teachers and other staffers.

"That's the more difficult side of this," he said. "Even though this is more money than we anticipated, it's nowhere near enough."

In its budget, the Legislature also seeks to prevent Romney from asserting control over the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board by extending the term of board member Jordan Levy, who is loyal to chairman Matthew J. Amorello. Romney, who has called on Amorello to resign over his management of the Big Dig, plans today to replace Levy on the five-member board with his third appointee, Beth Lindstrom.

The budget extends Levy's term until next January, after Romney has left office. Fehrnstrom called this measure "unconstitutional."

As part of the budget, the Legislature also passed initiatives designed to tighten rules for sex offenders. Under the new law, sex offenders who repeatedly fail to register with the state's sex offender board would be placed on lifetime parole, requiring them to be supervised and monitored throughout their lives. Offenders who commit certain crimes against children would be subject to lifetime parole if they fail to register even once.

Another change requires sex offenders to register at any address where they spend more than two weeks a year.

The wording closes a loophole that lawmakers said had allowed some offenders to stay at secondary addresses, such as a girlfriend's apartment, and go unnoticed by local police departments or neighbors.

The budget also protects the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, which Romney threatened to abolish earlier this year, by establishing it as a permanent 27-member panel.

In addition, the budget increased spending on human services, public safety, and healthcare. It boosted funding of substance abuse programs, the State Police crime lab, metropolitan area beaches, and the new Office of Dam Safety.

Return to top


The Associated Press
Saturday, July 1, 2006

Romney offers compromise on Ruane pension


Governor Mitt Romney proposed yesterday that state lawmakers pay for the pension of a former House member who never contributed to the state pension system.

Under the terms of an amendment the governor sent to the House and Senate, members of both chambers, the governor, and the lieutenant governor would pay one-half of 1 percent of their base compensation to the state pension fund, which would cover the pension for the widow of former representative Michael Ruane of Salem, who died Sunday at age 78.

The Legislature had passed a bill granting him a $44,000-per-year pension.

Romney estimated the cost of his arrangement at $275 per member per year, and $675 and $600 annually for the governor and lieutenant governor, respectively.

The Legislature's bill would impose a state lien on Ruane's house to recover the pension costs once Ruane's widow, Helena, dies.

One House member was dismissive of Romney's proposal. "That's the most politically expedient thing I've ever heard in my life," said Representative Kevin Murphy, a Lowell Democrat. "We devised a way to pay for the Ruane pension."

Return to top


The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis
Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884

 CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support -- rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --"

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very wel