scarcely by their own_; but _Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula
cautum._[4] Many a one for the sake of finery on the back, has gone
with a hungry belly, and half-starved their families. _Silks and
satins, scarlets and velvets_, as Poor Richard says, _put out the
kitchen fire_. These are not the necessaries of life; they can scarcely
be called the conveniences; and yet, only because they look pretty, how
many _want_ to have them! The artificial wants of mankind thus become
more numerous than the natural; and, as Poor Dick says, _For one_ poor
_person there are a hundred_ indigent.
[4] He's a lucky fellow who is made prudent by other men's
perils.
By these and other extravagances, the genteel are reduced to poverty,
and forced to borrow of those whom they formerly despised, but who,
through industry and frugality, have maintained their standing; in
which case it appears plainly, that _A ploughman on his legs is higher
than a gentleman on his knees_, as Poor Richard says. Perhaps they have
had a small estate left them, which they know not the getting of; they
think, _'Tis day, and will never be night_, that a _little to be spent
out of so much is not worth minding_; (_A child and a fool_, as Poor
Richard says, _imagine_ twenty shilling and twenty years can never be
spent), but _Always taking out of the meal-tub and never putting in,
soon comes to the bottom._ Then, as Poor Dick says, _When the well's
dry, they know the_ _worth of water_. But this they might have known
before, if they had taken his advice. _If you would know the value of
money, go and try to borrow some_; for _He that goes a borrowing, goes
a sorrowing_, and indeed, so does he that lends to such people, _when
he goes to get it again_.
Poor Dick further advises and says--
Fond pride of dress is, sure a very curse;
Ere fancy you consult, consult your purse.
And again, _Pride is as loud a beggar as Want, and a great deal more
saucy._ When you have bought one fine thing, you must buy ten more,
that your appearance may be all of a piece; but Poor Dick says, _'Tis
easier to suppress the first desire than to satisfy all that follow
it._ And 'tis as truly folly for the poor to ape the rich, as for the
frog to swell in order to equal the ox.
Great estates may venture more,
But little boats should keep near shore.
'Tis, however, a folly soon punished; for, _Pride that dines on vanity
sups on contempt_, as Poor Richard says. And in another place, _Pride
breakfasted with Plenty, dined with Poverty and supped with Infancy_.
And after all, what use is this pride of appearance, for which so much
is risked, so much is suffered? It cannot promote health or ease pain;
it makes no increase of merit in the person; it creates envy; it
hastens misfortune.
What is a butterfly? At best
He's but a caterpillar drest,
The gaudy fop's his picture just,
as poor Richard says.
But what madness must it be to _run into debt_ for these superfluities!
We are offered, by the terms of this vendue, six months' credit; and
that, perhaps, has induced some of us to attend it, because we cannot
spare the ready money, and hope now to be fine without it. But, ah!
think what you do when you run in debt: _You give to another power over
your liberty._ If you cannot pay at the time, you will be ashamed to
see your creditor; you will be in fear when you speak to him; you will
make poor, pitiful, sneaking excuses, and by degrees come to lose our
veracity, and sink into base, downright lying; for, as Poor Richard
says, _The second vice is lying, the first is running into debt_; and
again, to the same purpose, _lying rides upon debt's back_; whereas a
free-born Englishman ought not to be ashamed or afraid to see or speak
to any man living. But poverty often deprives a man of all spirit and
virtue. _'Tis hard for an empty bag to stand upright!_ as Poor Richard
truly says. What would you think of that prince, or that government who
should issue an edict forbidding you to dress like a gentleman or
gentlewoman, on pain of imprisonment or servitude? Would you not say
that you are free, have a right to dress as you please, and that such
an edict would be a breach of your privileges, and such a government
tyranical? And yet you are about to put yourself under such tyranny,
when you run in debt for such dress! Your creditor has authority, at
his pleasure, to deprive you of your liberty, by confining you in jail
for life, or to sell you for a servant, if you should not be able to
pay him.[5] When you have got your bargain you may, perhaps, think
little of payment; but _Creditors_ (Poor Richard tells us) _have better
memories than debtors_; and in another place says, _Creditors are a
superstitious set, great observers of set days and times._ The day
comes round before you are aware, and the demand is made before you are
prepared to satisfy it; or, if you will bear your debt in mind, the
term which at first seemed so long will, as it lessens, appear
extremely short. Time will seem to have added wings to his heels as
well as his shoulders. _Those have a short Lent_, saith Poor Richard,
_who owe money to be paid at Easter._ Then since, as he says, _The
borrower is a slave to the lender, and the debtor to the creditor_,
disdain the chain, preserve your freedom, and maintain your
independency. Be _industrious_ and _free_; be _frugal_ and _free_. At
present, perhaps, you may think yourself in thriving circumstances, and
that you can bear a little extravagance without injury; but--
For age and want, save while you may,
No morning sun lasts a whole day.
[5] At the time when this was written, and for many years
afterward, the laws against bankrupts and poor debtors were
extremely severe.
As Poor Richard says, gain may be temporary and uncertain; but ever,
while you live, expense is constant and certain; and _'Tis easier to
build two chimneys than to keep one in fuel_, as Poor Richard says;
so, _Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt._
Get what you can and what you get hold:
'Tis the stone that will turn all your lead in gold,[6]
as Poor Richard says; and, while you have got the Philosopher's stone,
sure, you will no longer complain of bad times or the difficulty of
paying taxes.
[6] In the Middle Ages there was a great search made for the
philosopher's stone, as it was called, a mineral which should
have the power of turning base metals into gold.
This doctrine, my friends, is reason and wisdom; but, after all, do not
depend too much upon your own industry and frugality and prudence,
though excellent things; for they may all be blasted without the
blessing of Heaven; and therefore, ask that blessing humbly, and be not
uncharitable to those that at present seem to want it, but comfort and
help them. Remember Job suffered, and was afterwards prosperous.
And now, to conclude, _Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will
learn in no other, and scarce in that_; for it is true, _We may give
advice, but we cannot give conduct_, as Poor Richard says. However,
remember this, _They that won't be counselled, can't be helped_, as
Poor Richard says; and further, that, _If you will not hear reason,
she'll surely rap your knuckles._
Thus the old gentleman ended his harangue. The people heard it, and
approved the doctrine; and immediately practiced the contrary, just as
if it had been a common sermon. For the vendue opened, and they began
to buy extravagantly, notwithstanding all his cautions, and their own
fear of taxes. I found the good man had thoroughly studied my
_Almanacs_, and digested all I had dropped on those topics during the
course of five-and-twenty-years. The frequent mention he made of me
must have tired any one else; but my vanity was wonderfully delighted
with it, though I was conscious that not a tenth part of the wisdom was
my own which he ascribed to me, but rather the gleanings that I had
made of the sense of all ages and nations. However, I resolved to be
the better for the echo of it; and, though I had at first determined to
buy stuff for a new coat, I went away resolved to wear my old one a
little longer. Reader, if thou wilt do the same, _thy_ profit will be
as great as mine. I am, as ever, thine to serve thee.
July 7, 1757. RICHARD SAUNDERS.
THE WATER-MILL.
Oh! listen to the water-mill, through all the live-long day,
As the clicking of the wheels wears hour by hour away;
How languidly the autumn wind doth stir the withered leaves,
As on the field the reapers sing, while binding up the sheaves!
A solemn proverb strikes my mind, and as a spell is cast,
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
The summer winds revive no more leaves strewn o'er earth and main,
The sickle never more will reap the yellow garnered grain;
The rippling stream flows on, aye tranquil, deep, and still,
But never glideth back again to busy water-mill.
The solemn proverb speaks to all, with meaning deep and vast,
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
Oh! clasp the proverb to thy soul, dear loving heart and true,
For golden years are fleeting by, and youth is passing, too;
Ah! learn to make the most of life, nor lose one happy day,
For time will ne'er return sweet joys neglected, thrown away;
Nor leave one tender word unsaid, thy kindness sow broadcast--
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
Oh! the wasted hours of life, that have swiftly drifted by,
Alas! the good we might have done, all gone without a sigh;
Love that we might once have saved by a single kindly word,
Thoughts conceived but ne'er expressed, perishing unpenned, unheard.
Oh! take the lesson to thy soul, forever clasp it fast,
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
Work on while yet the sun doth shine, thou man of strength and will,
The streamlet ne'er doth useless glide by clicking watermill;
Nor wait until to-morrow's light beams brightly on thy way.
For all that thou canst call thine own, lies in the phrase, "to-day;"
Possessions, power, and blooming health, must all be lost at last--
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
Oh! love thy God and fellow man, thyself consider last,
For come it will when they must scan dark errors of the past;
Soon will this fight of life be o'er, and earth recede from view,
And heaven in all its glory shine where all is pure and true.
Ah! then thou'lt see more clearly still the proverb deep and vast,
"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."
D. C. MCCALLUM.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death.
PATRICK HENRY.
The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science, that smiles in yer face while
it picks yer pocket; and the glorious uncertainty of it is of mair use
to the professors than the justice of it.
MACKLIN.
OUR MISSION.
In calm and stormy weather
Our mission is to grow;
To keep the angle paramount
And bind the brute below.
We grow not all in sunshine,
But richly in the rain;
And what we deem our losses
May prove our final gain.
The snows and frosts of winter
A richer fruitage bring;
From battling with the anvil
The smith's grand muscles spring.
'Tis by the law of contrast
That fine effects are seen;
As thus we blend in colors
The orange with the green.
By action and reaction
We reach our perfect growth;
Nor by excess of neither,
But equipoise of both.
The same code binds the human.
That governs mother earth;
God cradled her in tempest
And earthquakes from her birth.
Our life is but a struggle
For perfect equipoise;
Our pains are often jewels,
Our pleasures gilded toys.
Between the good and evil
The monarch will must stand,
To shape the final issue
By God's divine command.
Our mission is to battle
With ill in every form--
To borrow strength and volume
From contact with the storm.
In the beautiful hereafter
These blinding mortal tears
Shall crystalize in jewels
To sparkle in the spheres.
With weak and moldish vision
We work our way below;
But sure our souls are building
Much wiser than we know.
And when the work is finished
The scaffolding then falls;
And lo! a radiant temple,
With pearl and sapphire walls.
A temple far transcending
The grandest piles below,
Whose dome shall blaze with splendor,
In God's eternal glow.
Wealth is necessary; let us not disclaim against it; every nation needs
it to attain the highest achievements in civilization. But it is a
blessing only as a servant, and is destructive as a master.
JOHN P. ALTGELD.
If I were a young man I should ally myself with some high and at
present unpopular cause, and devote my every effort to accomplish its
success.
JOHN G. WHITTIER.
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
Princes and lords may flourish and may fade;
A breath can make them, as breath has made;
But an honest peasantry, a country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
War preys on two things--life and property: but he preys with a partial
appetite. Feasting on life, he licks his jaws and says, "More, by your
leave!" Devouring property, he says, between grin and glut, "This is so
good that it ought to be paid for!" Into the vacuum of wasted life rush
the moaning winds of grief and desolation; in to the vacuum of wasted
property rushes the goblin of debt. The wasted life is transformed at
length into a reminiscent glory; the wasted property becomes a hideous
nightmare. The heroes fallen rise from their bloody cerements into
everlasting fame; the property destroyed rises from the red and
flame-swept field as a spectral vampire, sucking the still warm blood
of the heroic dead and of their posthumous babes to the tenth
generation! The name of the vampire is Bond.
JOHN CLARK RIDPATH.
TO A WATERFOWL.
Whither, mid'st falling dew,
While glow the heavens with the last steps of day,
Far through their rosy depths, dost thou pursue
Thy solitary way?
Vainly the fowler's eye
Might mark thy distant flight to do thee wrong,
As, darkly seen against the crimson sky,
Thy figure floats along.
Seek'st thou the plashy brink
Of weedy lake, or marge of river wide,
Or where the rocking billows rise and sink
On the chafed ocean side?
There is a Power whose care
Teaches thy way along that pathless coast--
The desert and illimitable air--
Lone wandering, but not lost.
All day thy wings have fanned,
At that far height, the cold, thin atmosphere,
Yet stoop not, weary, to the welcome land,
Though the dark night is near.
And soon that toil shall end;
Soon shall thou find a summer home, and rest,
And scream among thy fellows; reeds shall bend
Soon, o'er thy sheltered nest.
Thou'rt gone, the abyss of heaven
Hath swallowed up thy form; yet on my heart
Deeply hath sunk the lesson thou hast given
And shall not soon depart.
He who, from zone to zone,
Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight,
In the long way that I must tread alone
Will lead my steps aright.
WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT.
ROBERT BURNS
(Considered by many the world's greatest Song writer and natural Poet.)
While Burns was yet a plow boy he was challenged by two highly educated
gentlemen, who were seated awaiting their dinner to be served at an Inn
in the town of Ayr.
The terms of the challenge was for each to write a verse on the event
of their first acquaintance, the one writing the best and most
appropriate short rhyme was to have his dinner paid for by the other
two.
Burns wrote as follows:
I Jonnie Peep,
Saw two sheep.
Two sheep saw me.
Half a crown apiece
Will pay for their fleece.
And I Jonnie Peep go free.
On another occasion while drinking at a Bar a hanger on who was notorious
for his much drinking and was dubbed the Marquis, asked Burns to write an
appropriate epitaph for his grave stone.
Burns, quick as flash and without any apparent effort, wrote:
Here lies a faulse Marquis:
Whose title is shamed
If ever he rises
It will be to be damned.
TO A MOUSE.
Wee, sleekit, cowrin' tim'rous beastie.
Oh, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou needna start awa' sae hasty.
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin and chase thee,
Wi murd'ing prattle!
I'm truly sorry man's dominion
Has broken nature's social union,
And justifies that ill opinion
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor earth-born companion
And fellow-mortal!
I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen icker in a thrave
'S a sma' o' request
I'll get a blessin' wi' the lave,
And never miss 't!
Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
Its silly wa's the win's are strewin'!
And naething now to big a new ane
O' foggage green!
And bleak December's winds ensuin'
Baith snell and keen!
Thou saw the fields laid bare and waste
And weary winter comin' fast.
And cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell;
Till, crash! the cruel coulter past
Out through thy cell.
That wee bit heap o'leaves and stibble
Has cost thee mony a weary nibble!
Now thou's turn'd out for a' thy trouble,
But house or hauld,
To thole the winter's sleety dribble
And cranreuch cauld.
But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The bes laid schemes o' mice and men
Gang aft a-gley,
And lea 'e us naught but grief and pain
For promised joy.
Still thou art blest, compared wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee,
But, och! I backward cast my ee
On prospects drear!
And forward, though I canna see,
I guess and fear.
ROBERT BURNS.
CHAPTER XI.
ORATORICAL DEPARTMENT.
The author believes he is here presenting such selections as will be
accepted as masterpieces.
Mr. Bryan's speech at New Haven, where he was disturbed by students is
taken from his book, the First Battle, and is here offered to show the
wonderful composure of the speaker, rather than to present a fine or
eloquent speech.
The New York Sun's editorial, and the resolution of the council of
Indians will show the difference of opinion that exists between
commercial editors and the men of nature. It is obvious that these
students were disturbing a public meeting, and to justify them is to
wink at crime, scorn at justice, mock at the freedom of speech and
excuse ignorance.
Certainly the Indian presents the idea of advancing forward, while the
New York Sun man is advancing (?) backward.
PATRICK HENRY'S SPEECH.
VIRGINIA MUST PREPARE FOR WAR.
There is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of
awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing
less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the
magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only
in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great
responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back
my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should
consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act
of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all
earthly kings. It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of
Hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen
to the song of that Siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this
the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for
liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes
see not, and having ears hear not the things which so nearly concern
their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it
may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and
provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp
of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the
past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in
the conduct of the British Ministry for the last ten years to justify
those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves
and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has
been lately received? Trust it not. It will prove a snare to your feet.
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed by a kiss. Ask yourselves how this
gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike
preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and
armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown
ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in
to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the
implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings
resort. I ask what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to
force us to submission. Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive
for it? Has Great Britain an enemy in this quarter of the world to call
for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No; she has none. They
are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to
bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have
been so long forging.
And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? We have been
trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon
the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of
which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to
entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have
not been already exhausted? Let us not deceive ourselves longer. We
have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now
coming on. We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have
supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the Throne, and have
implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hand of the
Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our
remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our
supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with
contempt, from the foot of the Throne. In vain, after these things, may
we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no
longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve
inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long
contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in
which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged never to
abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we
must fight! I repeat it, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the
God of Hosts, is all that is left to us.
They tell us that we are weak--unable to cope with so formidable an
adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or
the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a
British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather
strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of
effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the
delusive phantom of Hope until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?
We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of
Nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the
holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which the enemy can
send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There
is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and will
raise us friends to fight our battle for us. The battle is not to the
strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
Besides, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it
is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in
submission and slavery. Our chains are forged; their clanking may be
heard on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable--and let it come!
I repeat it. Let it come! It is in vain to extenuate the matter.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace--but there is no peace. The war is
actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to
our ear the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the
field! Why are we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would
they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the
price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death!--Speech in Convention, March 25, 1775.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S SPEECH.
SPEECH AT THE DEDICATION OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY AT GETTYSBURG,
PENNSYLVANIA, NOVEMBER 19, 1863.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a
great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that
field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that
that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we
should do this. But in a large sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot
consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what
we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us,
the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which
they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for
us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly
resolve that these dead have not died in vain; that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the
people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN'S SPEECHES.
YALE COLLEGE INCIDENT.--BRYAN SPEAKS UNDER DIFFICULTIES
I am glad that there are students here, because I want to say a word to
students. Your college has helped to add fame to your city, and those
who assemble here are supposed to come in order that they may better
equip themselves for the duties of life. I am glad to talk to students,
because, my friends, we have a cause which appeals to students. If the
syndicates and corporations rule this country, then no young man has a
fair show unless he is the favorite of a corporation. (Applause--and
yells for McKinley by a cordon of the students.) If the people have a
right to govern themselves and exercise that right, then every citizen
has an equal chance and every man may achieve what he desires. We wish
to leave all the avenues open so that the son of the humblest citizen
may aspire to the highest position within the gift of the people.
(Applause and yells repeated.)
I am not speaking now to the sons who are sent to college on the
proceeds of ill-gotten gains. (Enthusiastic applause.) I will wait
until these sons have exhausted what their fathers have left them and
then appeal to their children who will have to commence life where
their grandfathers commenced. (Great applause.) My friends, a just
government is best for the great masses of the people. Equal laws and
equal opportunities are best for nine out of every ten of us. (Yells
again repeated.) Therefore, our cause appeals to every young man who
wants to make this Government so good as to deserve the love,
confidence and the support of every citizen in this land.
We appeal not only to the students; we appeal to business men who have
been terrorized by the financial--what may I call it? (Applause.)
People have been tyrannized over by financial institutions until in
some instances it is more dangerous to raise your voice against the
ruling power than it is in an absolute monarchy. (Great applause and
yells.) If there is anybody who loves this sort of thing then I shall
offend him by speaking of it, but I shall not offend any man who loves
liberty and the right of free speech in this country. (Great applause.)
The business men have been told that the free coinage of silver would
ruin them. If it can ruin them with more rapidity than the gold
standard has ruined them, then, my friends, it will be bad, indeed,
because the gold standard has increased the number of failures among
business men, and every step that has been taken has been
followed----(Yells from the students.) I have been so used to talking
to young men who earn their own living that I do not know----(Great
applause and cheering.) I say, I have been so used to talking to young
men who earn their own living that I hardly know what language to use
to address myself to those who desire to be known, not as creators of
wealth, but as the distributors of wealth which somebody else created.
(Great applause and cheering.) If you will show me a young man who has
been taught to believe----(More yells and cries of "McKinley.")
In all my travels I have not found a crowd that needed talking to so
much as this crowd does. (Cries of "That's right.") I came to this city
something more than a year ago, and I then learned something of the
domination of your financial classes. I have seen it elsewhere, but, my
friends, the great mass of the people even of this city, will be better
off under bimetallism that permits the nation to grow, than under a
gold standard which starves everybody except the money changer and the
money owner.
We sometimes out West are instructed by your insurance companies. I
carry insurance in old line companies and in what are known as the
mutual or assessment companies. I carry insurance in fraternal
organizations like the United Workmen and the Modern Woodmen, as well
as in the old line companies, and I am glad that my assessment
companies are satisfied to take my money and give me insurance without
attempting to tell me how I must vote. Your old line companies have
seen fit to insult the intelligence of the people by attempting to
exercise a guardian care, notwithstanding the fact that we are able to
look after ourselves without their instructions.
You have laboring men also in large numbers in this city. I do not know
whether the advocates of the gold standard here who employ men in the
shops insist upon telling their employes how to vote. I have in other
places found employers who would put in envelopes the pay for the day's
work or week's work, and then print on the outside of the envelopes
some instructions to the employes. If the manufacturer, employer, or
railroad president feels that there must be something on the outside of
the envelope as well as upon the inside, let him write on the outside:
"You will find within your wages. They are to cover your work. We
recognize that the men who have sense enough to do the work we want
done have sense enough to vote right, without our telling them how to
vote."
I notice that in some places they have been organizing sound money
clubs, and they have the applicant sign a statement, saying that the
free coinage of silver would hurt him in his business as a wage earner.
I have wondered why our great financial magnates do not put in their
application a statement similar to that. Why don't the heads of these
syndicates which have been bleeding the Government make application to
sound money clubs and write in their application that the free coinage
of silver would hurt them in their business as heads of syndicates?
They want people to believe that they are entirely benevolent, that
they are philanthropists, and that what they do is done merely because
they believe that the people will be benefited by having them run the
Government, and they submit to the inconvenience of running the
Government in order to help the people, who, they say, will be
benefited. (More confusion and applause by the students.)
Why is it that the broker or the bond buyer does not write in his
application that he has a personal interest in the gold standard? Why
is it that these men want to throw upon the wage earners whatever odium
there may be in using his vote to protect his personal interests? I
believe the wage earner, and the farmer, and the business man, and the
professional man, all of these will be benefited by a volume of money
sufficient to do business with. If you make money scarce you make money
dear. If you make money dear you drive down the value of everything,
and when you have falling prices you have hard times. And who prosper
by hard times? There are but few, and those few are not willing to
admit that they get any benefit from hard times. No party ever declared
in its platform that it was in favor of hard times, and yet the party
that declares for a gold standard in substance declares for a
continuation of hard times.
Here a band which had been playing for a drill in another part of the
square came nearer and made talking more difficult, and my voice not
being in good condition I concluded my remarks by saying:
It is hard to talk when all the conditions are favorable, and I must
ask you to excuse me from talking any further in the presence of the
noises against which we have to contend today.
I have since learned that some misunderstood my closing words, and
thought I again referred to the students, but this is an error. They
were making no disturbance when I finished speaking. I did not even
mean to criticize the band, because I was sure that the interruption
was not intentional, but my voice being hoarse and the crowd large, it
was difficult to make myself heard even when there was perfect quiet.
The incident gave rise to a good deal of public discussion.
A few papers criticised my language on that occasion and declared that
my words provoked the hostile demonstration. As a matter of fact, the
hostility was manifested before I began to speak, and it was some
minutes before I could obtain a hearing. This is the only speech in
which I have inserted the applause, and it is only done here because
the interruptions are also quoted. The report is reproduced exactly as
it appeared at the time in order that the reader may form his own
opinion upon the subject.
The following press dispatch appeared in the morning papers of
September 3:
YALE STUDENTS CRITICISED.
Muskogee, I.T., Sept. 29.--At a mass meeting of the Cherokees,
Creeks, Choctaws and Seminoles, held here yesterday, the following
resolution was unanimously adopted:
Resolved, that we contemplate with deep regret the recent insulting
treatment of William J. Bryan by students of a college in the land
of the boasted white man's civilization, and we admonish all
Indians who think of sending their sons to Yale that association
with such students could but prove hurtful alike to their morals
and their progress toward the higher standard of civilization.
THE "SUN" DEFENDS THE YALE STUDENTS.
The New York Sun came to the defense of the boys in an editorial, from
which the following is an extract:
What did these students really do? On the day that Yale University
opened its new college year, Bryan came to New Haven and prepared
to address a great crowd at the green adjacent to which are the
college buildings of the center of university life, in a town of
which the university is the great and distinguishing feature. The
students gathered in strong force, as was natural. Practically they
were on their own ground. They expressed their feelings against
repudiation with the vigor and vociferousness of youth; and they
had a right to do it.
They ought to have done it; and the sentiment to which they gave
utterance was honorable to them. The boys made a great noise,
cheering for McKinley and yelling and jeering at repudiation, so
that Mr. Bryan could not be heard for several minutes. If they had
applauded him incessantly for even a full half hour, would there
have been any complaint of their preventing him from starting out
in his speech? Has not a crowd in the open air as much right to
hiss as to cheer? At what period in our history was that privilege
taken from Americans? These dissenting students, the reports agree,
did not offer any personal violence to Mr. Bryan or anybody else.
They did not throw rotten eggs at him or otherwise assail his
dignity, but merely shouted their college cry and yelled
derisively. They did not like the cause the speaker represented.
They detested and despised both it and him, and they made known
their feelings noisily.
Speech Concluding Debate on the Chicago Platform.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I would be presumptuous,
indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom
you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this
is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen of the land,
when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the
hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as
the cause of liberty--the cause of humanity.
When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the
table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration, and
also the resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. We
object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The
individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles
are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle.
Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed
such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before
in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out
as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. On the fourth
of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress,
issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting that the
money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring that a
majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the action of
the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request that
the believers of free coinage of silver in the Democratic party should
organize, take charge of, and control the policy of the Democratic
party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected
and the silver Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming
their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize
into a platform the declaration they had made. Then began the conflict.
With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who
followed Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory
unto victory until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to
debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain
people of this country. In this contest brother has been arrayed
against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love,
acquaintance and association have been disregarded; old leaders have
been cast aside when they have refused to give expression to the
sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung
up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been
waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn
instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people.
We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad
to compliment the gentleman from New York (Senator Hill,) but we know
that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in
a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I
say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle,
and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought
into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side.
The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor Russell) spoke of the State
of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this
convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of
Massachusetts, but we stand here representing people who are the
equals, before the law, of the greatest citizens in the State of
Massachusetts. When you (turning to the gold delegates) come before us
and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we
reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course.
We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too
limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as
much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is
as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great
metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business
man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the
morning and toils all day--who begins in the spring and toils all
summer--and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural
resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as
the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of
grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb
two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding
places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are
as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room,
corner the money of the world. We come to speak for this broader class
of business men.
Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the
Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers
of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose--the
pioneers away out there (pointing to the West), who rear their children
near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the
voices of the birds--out there where they have erected schoolhouses for
the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator,
and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead--these people, we
say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people
in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do not come as
aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the
defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned,
and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our
entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked
when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we
petition no more. We defy them.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My
friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will
spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to
stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to
them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon
which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they
must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have
arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the
income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They
criticize us for the criticism of the Supreme Court of the United
States. My friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called
attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the
dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They
say that we have passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income
tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not
unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first
time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges
changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will
change his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the
burden of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor
of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his
share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man
who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.
They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. If
you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in
searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson;
that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved
Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us
when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our
platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a
function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of
sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private
individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the
power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once
regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in
opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the
minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the
issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the Government
ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather
than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the banks ought to go
out of the governing business.
They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in
office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which is does not
mean. What we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being
built up in Washington, and which excludes from participation in
official benefits the humbler members of society.
Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The
gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the
platform providing that the proposed change in our monetary system
shall not affect contracts already made. Let me remind you that there
is no intention of affecting those contracts which according to present
laws are made payable in gold; but if he means to say that we cannot
change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned
money before the change was made, I desire to ask him where, in law or
in morals, he can find justification for not protecting the debtors
when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we must protect
the creditors.
He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the
suspension of free coinage if we fail to maintain the parity within a
year. We reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be
successful, we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own
sincerity by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he
would apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He
says he wants the country to try to secure an international agreement.
Why does he not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to secure an
international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than
there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity.
Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international
agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want
it at all.
And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us
why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the
tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands,
the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why
we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we
reply that when we have restored the money of the Constitution all
other necessary reforms will be possible; but that until this is done
there is no other reform that can be accomplished.
Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the
country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those
who believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate
our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think
that we could elect a president. And they had good reason for their
doubt, because there is scarcely a State here today asking for the gold
standard which is not in the absolute control of the Republican party.
But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a
platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until
it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr.
McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and three
months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election.
How is it today? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he
looked like Napoleon--that man shudders today when he remembers that he
was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only
that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness
the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St.
Helena.
Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change
evident to any one who will look at the matter? No private character,
however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from
the avenging wrath of an indignant people a man who will declare that
he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who
is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place the
legislative control of our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates
and powers.
We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the
paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon
which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the
gold standard is a good thing, we shall point to their platform and
tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold
standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good
thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your attention to the fact that
some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell
us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism--thereby
declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of
bimetallism is better--these very people four months ago were open and
avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we
could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the
world. If the gold standard is a good thing, we ought to declare in
favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the
gold standard is a bad thing why should we wait until other nations are
willing to help us to let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care
not upon which issue they force the fight; we are prepared to meet them
on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is
the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most
enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a
gold standard and that both the great parties this year are declaring
against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why,
my friends, should we not have it. If they come to meet us on that
issue we can tell them that they will search the pages of history in
vain to find a single instance where the common people of any land have
ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find
where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold
standard, but not where the masses have.
Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle
holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the
wealth and pay the taxes of the country"; and, my friends, the question
we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight;
upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of
"the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must
answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual
hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the
platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been
the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of
government. There are those who believe that, if you will only
legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak
through on those below. The Democratic idea, however has been that if
you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find
its way up through every class which rests upon them.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the
gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and
fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your
cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and
the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its
own people on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent of
any other nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every
State in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair
State of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by
saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will
declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It
is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions
in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of
every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to
seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our
forefathers? No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our
people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If
they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other
nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard
because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England
have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come
out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we
will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses
of the nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the
laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their
demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down
upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify
mankind upon a cross of gold.
SPEECHES OF C. A. BOGARDUS.
"I don't know much about the tariff | "I don't know much about the
question, but I think I know enough | money question, but it appears
to know that if we buy $20.00 worth | to me that if under the gold
of rails of a foreigner, the | standard we borrow $20,000,000
foreigner will have the money and | of a foreigner, when we pay it
we will have the rails, but if we | back the foreigner will have the
make the rails in America and buy | money and the interest, too, but
them of an American, America will | if we coin the silver (which
have the money and the rails, too." | is an American product) into
| American dollars, borrow
ABRAHAM LINCOLN. | $20,000,000 of an American,
| when we pay it back America will
| have the money and the interest,
| too."
|
| C. A. BOGARDUS.
|
|
"Nothing should ever tempt | "I hope nothing ever will tempt
us--nothing will ever tempt us | us to scale the debt of the
to scale down the sacred debt | nation through a legal
of the nation through a | technicality. Whatever may
legal technicality. Whatever may | be the language of the contract
be the language of the contract | the United States should
the United States will discharge | discharge its obligations
all its obligations in the | according to the contract."
currency recognized as the best |
throughout the civilized world | C. A. BOGARDUS.
at the time of payment." |
|
WM. MCKINLEY. |
|
|
"This word to all when I am dead, | "This word to all while we are
Be sure you are right, then go | alive,
ahead." | Be sure we are right, then let
| drive."
DAVID CROCKETT. |
| C. A. BOGARDUS.
SPEECHES OF C. A. BOGARDUS
ADDRESS DELIVERED AT FARMINGTON, IOWA, NOVEMBER 20, 1897, BY C. A.
BOGARDUS.
SUBJECT: HOW TO READ.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:--
It is not so much the amount of reading that educates us, as it is what
we read and the manner it is done that benefits us, for as Poor Richard
says: "The used key is always bright," so the well-read book always
shows the handling. A small well chosen library carefully read is of
vastly more benefit than the large, poorly chosen, unread volumes that
adorn the shelves of many homes. Yet I am not sure but that poorly
chosen books are better not read than read. A learned doctor once said:
"It is not what we eat that sustains life, but is what we digest."
We might well paraphrase his words and say it is not what we read that
educates us, but it is what we understand. For what we want is not
learning, but knowledge; that is the ability to make learning answer
its true end as a quickener of intelligence and widener of the
intellectual field.
We should not read to contradict; nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. This being
self-evident, we should ever remember that whatever is worth reading at
all is worth reading well. Hence, inasmuch as reading matter is always
the expression of some author's thoughts, it follows that the object of
reading at all is to learn the thoughts of the writer. So we may well
aver that to read understandingly requires thought and industry. For
reading availeth not unless done understandingly. Therefore, an article
is not read, in the full sense of the word, until it is understood.
I will close by reading an article from an old scrap-book. When it is
read I trust it will accomplish a double mission, viz: that we more
thoroughly comprehend the necessity of putting thought into our
reading; and that the real virtue in thought is acting in harmony with
the knowledge or right. The article to which I refer is entitled "An
Angel in a Saloon." I will now read it:
"One afternoon in the month of June, 1870, a lady in deep mourning,
followed by a little child, entered one of the fashionable saloons in
the city of N----. The writer happened to be passing at the time, and
prompted by curiosity, followed her in, to see what would ensue.
Stepping up to the bar, and addressing the proprietor, who happened to
be present, she said:
"'Sir, can you assist me? I have no home, no friends, and am not able
to work.'
"He glanced at her and then at the child, with a mingled look of
curiosity and pity. Evidently he was much surprised to see a woman in
such a place begging, but without asking any questions gave her some
change, and turning to those present, he said:
"'Gentlemen, here is a lady in distress. Can't some of you help her a
little?'
"They cheerfully acceded to the request, and soon a purse of two
dollars was made up, and put in her hand.
"'Madam,' said the gentleman who gave her the money, 'why do you come
to a saloon? It isn't a proper place for a lady, and why are you driven
to such a step?'
"'Sir,' said the lady, 'I know it isn't a proper place for a lady to be
in, and you ask me why I am driven to such a step. I will tell you in
one short word,' pointing to a bottle behind the counter, labelled
whiskey, 'that is what brought me here--whiskey!'
"'I was once happy and surrounded with all the luxuries that wealth
could procure, with a fond, indulgent husband. But in an evil hour he
was tempted, and not possessing the will to resist the temptation,
fell, and in one short year my dream of happiness was over, my home was
forever desolate, and the kind husband, and the wealth that some called
mine lost, lost, never to return, and all by the accursed wine cup.
"'You see before you only the wreck of my former self, homeless and
friendless, with nothing left me in this world but this little child,'
and weeping bitterly, she affectionately caressed the golden curls that
shaded a face of exquisite loveliness. Regaining her composure, and
turning to the proprietor of the saloon, she continued:
"'Sir, the reason why I occasionally enter a place like this is to
implore those who deal in the deadly poison to desist, to stop a
business that spreads desolation, ruin, poverty and starvation. Think
one moment of your own loved ones, and then imagine them in the
situation I am in. I appeal to your better nature, I appeal to your
heart,--for I know you possess a kind one,--to retire from a business
so ruinous to your patrons.
"'Did you know the money you take across the bar is the same as taking
the bread out of the mouths of the famished wives and children of your
customers? That it strips the clothing from their backs, deprives them
of all the comforts of this life and throws unhappiness, misery, crime,
and desolation in their once happy homes? Oh! sir, I implore, beseech,
and pray you to retire from a business you blush to own you are engaged
in before your fellow-men, and enter one that will not only be
profitable to yourself but your fellow-creatures also. You will excuse
me if I have spoken too plainly, but I could not help it when I thought
of the misery, the unhappiness, and the suffering it has caused me.'
"'Madam, I am not offended,' he answered in a voice husky with emotion,
'but I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you have said.'
"'Mamma,' said the little child, who meantime had been spoken to by
some of the gentlemen present, taking hold of her mother's hand, 'these
gentlemen wish me to sing "Little Bessie" for them. Shall I do so?'
"They all joined in the request, and placing her in a chair she sang,
in a sweet childish voice, the following beautiful song:
"'Out in the gloomy night, sadly I roam,
I have no mother dear, no pleasant home;
Nobody cares for me, no one would cry
Even if poor little Bessie should die.
Weary and tired I've been wandering all day,
Asking for work, but I'm too small, they say;
On the damp ground I must now lay my head;
Father's a drunkard and mother is dead.
"'We were so happy till father drank rum,
Then all our sorrow and trouble begun;
Mother grew pale and wept every day,
Baby and I were too hungry to play;
Slowly they faded till one summer night
Found their dead faces all silent and white;
Then with big tears slowly dropping I said,
"Father's a drunkard and mother is dead."
"'Oh! If the temperance men only could find
Poor, wretched father and talk very kind;
If they would stop him from drinking, then
I should be so very happy again.
Is it too late, temperance men? Please try
Or poor little Bessie must soon starve and die!
All day long I've been begging for bread,--
Father's a drunkard and mother is dead.'
"The game of billiards was left unfinished, the cards thrown aside and
the unemptied glass remained on the counter; all had pressed near, some
with pity-beaming eyes, entranced with the musical voice and beauty of
the child, who seemed better fitted to be with angels above than in
such a place.
"The scene I shall never forget to my dying day, and the sweet cadence
of her musical voice still rings in my ears, and every word of the song
as it dropped from her lips sank deep into the hearts of those gathered
around her.
"With her golden hair falling carelessly around her little shoulders,
and looking so trustingly and confidingly upon the gentlemen around
her, her beautiful eyes illuminated with a light that seemed not of
this earth, she formed a picture of purity and innocence worthy the
genius of a poet or painter.
"At the close of the song many were weeping; men who had not shed a
tear for years, now wept like children. One young man who had resisted
with scorn the pleadings of a loving mother and the entreaties of
friends to strive to lead a better life, to desist from a course that
was wasting his fortune and ruining his health, now approached the
child, and taking both hands in his, while tears streamed down his
cheeks, exclaimed with deep emotion:
"'God bless you, my little angel! You have saved me from ruin and
disgrace, from poverty and a drunkard's grave. If there are angels on
earth, you are one! God bless you! God bless you! and putting a bill
into the hands of the mother said, 'Please accept this trifle as a
token of my regard and esteem, for your little girl has done me a
kindness I can never repay; and remember, whenever you are in want, you
will find in me a true friend,' at the same time giving her his name
and address.
"Taking her child by the hand she turned to go, but pausing at the
door, said:
"'God bless you, gentlemen! Accept the heartfelt thanks of a poor,
friendless woman for the kindness and courtesy you have shown her.'
Before any one could reply she was gone.
"A silence of several minutes ensued, which was broken by the
proprietor, who exclaimed:
"'Gentlemen, that lady was right, and I have sold my last glass of
whiskey; if any one of you want more you will have to go elsewhere.'
"'And I have drank my last glass of whiskey,' said a young man who had
long been given up as utterly beyond the reach of those who had a deep
interest in his welfare, as sunk too low ever to reform."
SPEECH AT DECATUR, INDIANA, SEPTEMBER 22, 1896.
The occasion being a rally in which the Hon. B. F. Shively, candidate
for governor, and John R. Brunt, candidate for congress, had spoken
over three hours.
The Indianapolis Sentinel said of Mr. Bogardus that "he held the
closest attention throughout, and closed _amid great cheers and cries
of go ahead_."
MR. BOGARDUS SPOKE AS FOLLOWS:
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:--That phase of the money question
which is before the American people today and upon which we will vote
in November is merely shall we, or shall we not, open the mints to the
free and unlimited coinage of silver as they are now open to the
coinage of gold. Concurrent with, and as a part of the phase, is the
declaration that when the metals are so coined that the money made
therefrom shall be treated equally under the law, and that the
Democratic idea of equal rights to each and special privileges to
neither, shall be again incorporated in our national laws. A great many
rash, and it seems to me foolish things, are being said concerning the
independent bimetallists of our country, to charge the free coinage
people with being repudiators and anarchists, is but to put the party
making such false statement in the position of a base misrepresenter,
and sooner or later the charge must slap its maker in the face. There
is no doubt in my mind, but that there is a party in this country who
is advocating repudiation, but it is not the Democratic party; it is
the Republican party that is advocating it. Webster says repudiation is
the act of rejecting or refusing. If a party desires to pay the
national debt according to contract it certainly is not advocating
repudiation, but if a party desires to violate the contract it desires
to repudiate. Now, my friends, let us get right at the facts, before we
can tell who the repudiators are; we must know what the contract is,
and then we must know what the contesting parties want to do in the
premises. I will read you a copy of a U.S. bond:
(COPY OF U.S. BOND.)
The United States of America are indebted to the bearer in the sum
of One Hundred Dollars.
This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of an act of
congress, entitled, "An act to authorize the refunding of the
National Debt," approved July 14th, 1870, amended by an act
approved January 20th, 1871, and is redeemable at the pleasure of
the United States, after the first day of July, A.D., 1907, in
coin of the standard value of the United States on said July 14th,
1870, with interest in such coin from the day of date hereof, at
the rate of four per cent per annum, payable quarterly, on the
first day of October, January, April and July of each year. The
principal and interest are exempt from the payment of all taxes or
duties of the United States, as well as from taxation in any form,
by or under State, Municipal or local authority.
Washington, July 1st, 1877.
J. M. DOTY, Register of the Treasury.
Entered (G. W. B.) (Recorded W. S.)
Now I am not trying to mislead you when I say that a party who proposes
to pay that bond according to contract is not a repudiator, nor am I
misleading when I say that a party who attempts to prevent its payment
according to contract is a repudiator. The bond, according to its own
wording, is payable in coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870.
When we learn exactly what that coin is we will then, like Saul of
Tarsus, see things in a new light. By the law that was in force on that
date silver or gold could be coined into standard money and their
standard value was their legal value. The Democratic party desires the
privilege of coining the metals according to that law, and then paying
the bonds with those coins according to that law. No repudiation there.
No, not a particle. (Cheers.) The Republicans do not want to coin
silver and gold according to that law, and they do not want to allow
the debts to be paid in gold or silver money according to that law.
There is repudiation there, yes lots of it; in fact, it is nothing but
repudiation. (Great applause.) Do you want to hear about the anarchy
part of this question? (Cries of yes! yes!) Very well, let us examine
along that line. The Democrats say that the government can coin money
and regulate its value and they will accept it in payment of a debt. No
anarchy there; no, not a bit. (Laughter.) The Republicans admit that
the government can coin money and regulate its value and make it a
legal tender. But they openly declare that they won't take it in the
payment of a debt unless they want to. There is anarchy there in
abundance, yes in great abundance. (Great and continued applause.)
Let me ask the Republicans if it is not a little strange that a law
savored with such element of anarchy and repudiation, should have been
in full force in America from 1792 to 1873, a period of eighty-one
years, and have pleased the people so well, that during all that time
no political party ever openly advocated its repeal? Is it not, I ask,
strange that George Washington, who fought so bravely for independence,
should have signed a law for repudiation and anarchy? Strange, ah, very
strange! is it not, that General Grant, when he discovered that he had
unknowingly signed a bill for the repeal of the law that they now say
would be repudiation, should have said he did not know that the law
demonetized silver, and if he had known it he would have suffered his
right arm to have been cut off before he would have signed the law.
My friends, not only do the Republicans advocate repudiation, but it
also by proposing a scarce money system is advocating confiscation of
the debtor's property, for with a large money basis, money is easier to
get than with a small money basis. Careful thought will show that easy
money means high prices, and when money is scarce and hard to get
prices are low; it therefore follows that President Lincoln was correct
when he said: "If a government contract a debt and then contract the
money before the debt is paid, it is the most heinous crime a
government can commit against its people."
We may boast long and strong of the great wisdom of our diplomats and
the brilliancy of our statesmen, but whatever they may say will never
overshadow the fact that in a people's government the people must vote
understandingly, and when we thoroughly analyze this charge of
repudiation and anarchy, we will see that it is the same old trick of
the burglar crying stop thief to the honest man, while the rogue
himself escapes.
Much is being said about our money being good abroad, and great fear is
expressed by the banker's party that our silver money under bimetallism
will only be worth fifty cents on the dollar in foreign countries. Now,
my friends, let us use common sense, and we will easily solve the
problem as to how to make our silver dollars good abroad, that feature
of the question can be accomplished by following this plain easy
method, namely, the next time a foreigner presents a bond of a few
million dollars for payment, have Uncle Sam hand the gentleman the
amount in silver dollars, then let the foreigner attend to making them
good abroad. It will be to his interest to procure a law making the
silver good in his own country. Now, I want to ask you in the name of
common sense, would not you think the foreigner crazy if when we paid
him in our silver, he would go to his own country and cry down the very
money we had paid him? Oh, no, he would not do that; he would use his
influence to have a law passed in favor of bimetallism in his own
country.
But you may urge that he might not succeed in his effort, and he would
have a lot of half value American dollars on hand that would not be
good abroad. Very well, the worst thing that could possibly happen to
us under circumstances of that kind would be when the foreigner found
he could not pass the money abroad he would discover all of a sudden
that the money is good in America, and as a matter of fact he would
spend his money where it would be taken for goods. So we see that we
would thus either force a recognition of our money abroad or else we
would control the markets of the world. Then in reality we would pay
our debts abroad in American produce at a fair price and keep our money
at home, where it belongs, as a medium of exchange. And we would then
realize the wisdom of the Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone when he said to the
English Parliament that "so far as England was concerned bimetallism to
them as a creditor country would compel them to pay more for American
produce," but the grand old man in his frank and honest manner added,
"so far as America is concerned, it would immediately give her control
of the markets of the world."
When we lament the fact that under our present financial system the
rich are growing richer and the poor are becoming poorer day by day, we
hear some one say, "that is true, but the law of the survival of the
fittest is to blame for those facts." If you will pardon me for
seemingly diverging from the subject I will say something in regard to
the abuse of the law of the survival of the fittest. Yes, I admit that
under any law, and under any conditions, those who are best suited to
the conditions under which they live will get on better than those who
are not so well suited by nature to combat for existence and
prosperity. Nature has so laid its plans that, at or near the equator
in the warm climate tropical fruits grow better than they do in
Iceland, while the pine trees, true to nature, thrive best in cold
regions. The Polar bear enjoys the snows of Alaska, but would suffocate
in the tropical heat of Borneo or Sumatra. True to the law of the
survival of the fittest, the elephant and ostrich thrive in sunny
Africa, but would perish in Norway's winters. These things are true,
because all nature is in perfect harmony with itself. When carefully
considered, we find that the reason some things prosper in one place
and perish in another is merely that they are fitted for the conditions
in which they thrive and are unfitted for the vicious surrounding in
which they perish. The lion and tiger prosper among vicious beasts, but
the child and lamb survive better where love, mercy and righteousness
reign.
Let us suppose that Christ and John L. Sullivan were contesting for the
pugilistic championship under London prize ring rules, most assuredly
Sullivan would win in the first round. But let us change the conditions
and make the place of contest the pulpit of a Quaker church, and the
subject: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,
for such is the kingdom of heaven," don't you think Sullivan would be
quite out of place and Christ would be the victor on that occasion?
Suppose a fine pasture, bountiful with grass and water should be well
stocked with a few hundred sheep and lambs and lurking around in hidden
nooks of the field were a dozen or more Norway wolves; the sheep and
the wolves are in the same pasture, I want to ask you, my friend, what
kind of stock do you think the farmer will have in that pasture in a
few days if he says to himself the law of the survival of the fittest
will protect those sheep if they are fit to live, and if they can't
survive then I will shear the wolves for my winter's wool. My friends,
if that farmer ever got any wool from those wolves he would have to get
it from their stomachs; he couldn't shear it from their backs, because
it don't grow on that class of animals. What would you think of the
farmer's good wife if after the wolves had killed and sucked the warm
blood of the last lamb she would in her supreme recognition of the law
of the survival of the fittest take from her child's grave the
tombstone that had carved thereon the image of a little lamb at rest
under the weeping willow and place in its stead a statue of marble with
the life-sized image of a wolf with the blood of a lamb streaming from
his teeth? No, that would not be the act of a sane mother, nor would
the farmer willingly leave the sheep in the pasture with no other
protection but the wolves.
Under laws recognizing viciousness the most vicious will survive best.
Our country and her people are industrious and willing, but we are in
debt, having promised to pay American dollars that by the vicious
system of contracting the money under the gold standard which makes
dollars harder and harder to get, which is only another way of
expressing the fact that wages and produce will go lower year by year
under the system of greed that is accompanying the gold standard in all
countries. But one thing can help the masses of our people out of the
bondage of debt, and that thing is higher prices for labor and produce.
Higher prices in America will follow either of two causes--foreign
famine and war or bimetallism and an increased volume of money. The
latter is within our control, the former method no one should desire.
Let us not disclaim against the wolves, for scientists tell us that the
shepherd dog that so kindly protects the sheep is a direct descendant
of the wolf, but he has been domesticated by the law of man. So we see
that under the vicious law of the survival of the fittest the wolf as a
master was a sheep destroyer, but under the civilized law of the
survival of the fittest, the descendant of the vicious wolf as we know,
the shepherd dog is a servant of the sheep. Gold is good money, but as
a master it is a tyrant. Let us hitch it side by side with silver and
paper money, put it all under direct control of the government, and the
wealth of this nation will be our servant, but with gold in control our
nation's wealth becomes a hard master.
The other day, while on the train, in conversation with a rich banker,
the subject of the rich and poor came up. He said "there was nothing in
the law that tended to make people rich or poor." His idea was that
individual prosperity came from each man's ability as a financier.
"Why," said he, "don't you know that if the property was all equally
divided among the people, the same people who now have it would get it
again in a very short time?" I asked him if he was willing to change
certain laws about the banking business, then divide the property and
money of the United States equally among the people? He said "he did
not want to have any such thing done." When I asked him to specifically
name his objections to such a transaction, he replied "that it would
not be fair to take what he made and give it to some one who had not
made it." Then when I reminded him that he had said he would have it
all back in a short time, he said that "if the law was changed about
banking he would not have the same chance to get it back that he now
had to keep it." I told him that I agreed with him on his last
statement, but if I should agree with him in his first statement I
could not see how the changed law and division of property would affect
his ability, and if it did affect it, then I said the banking law must
be a part of his ability. Then he replied that "banking laws were
something that our congressmen would attend to." At this part of the
conversation the train stopped and the banker bade me good-by and with
a pleasant smile greeted a crowd that was waiting at the depot to
escort him to the opera house, where he was to make a speech in favor
of a law allowing the banks to issue all the money and retire the
government from the banking business. The fellow was a candidate for
congress.
As the train left the station I took from my valise a little book of
statistics and found that 79 per cent of our Congressmen and 63 per
cent of our Senators were either bankers or bank directors, then I
thought his last remark was true, that our Congressmen would attend to
the banking laws all right, especially from a banker's point of view. I
then thought of a path up the mountain side that was so crooked a
traveler going up would meet himself coming back.
Thanks for your attention.
SPEECH DELIVERED AT JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 15, 1897, BY C. A.
BOGARDUS.
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I am going to request my hearers
this evening to be not possessed of party prejudice. If there is any
one feature of the human mind that works more disaster to civilization
and humanity, than another, that feature is political partyism made
blind by prejudice. Prejudice blinds the eye to light and benumbs the
mind until reason is shut out. The Bible says, "And if the blind lead
the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
In examining any proposition we should not proceed to change reasons
and facts to suit our thoughts, but rather remove all prejudice from
our mind and then change our thoughts to agree with the facts. For my
part I would that all voters and their wives and children would form
themselves into a party of political truthseekers. When that is done
humanity, justice and a pure government of all the people, by all the
people and for all the people, will form the armor of our civilization.
But as long as blind partyism prevails men will get into heated
political discussions that only widen the gulf of misunderstanding.
Misleading newspaper articles will make the gulf deeper, and the
cunning hand of plutocracy and coercion will widen the waters of the
gulf into a vast restless ocean, without even the signs of a rainbow to
tell them that the great storm of poverty and human slavery to the
money power, that knows no love, no mercy, no justice or Christianity,
shall not continue forever and anon.
As we stand on a mountain crest and cast our eyes over the wide extent
of country, it is the more prominent features that impress themselves
on our vision. The lesser details, the waving field, the blooming bush,
the evergreen moss, the singing bird and fragrant rose, which attract
the attention and admiration of the immediate bystander, are lost to
our view by the distance. But the range of forest-clad hills, the
winding river, the crystal lake, the wide expanse of fertile plains and
snow-capped mountain peaks, determine the landscape and claim our
attention.
We of the United States are today surrounded by the Anglo-American
civilization of the closing days of the 19th century. Let us from this
height glance along the road of our nation's journey hither. We can at
best only hope to notice the more prominent lines of advance. To
carefully trace the growth of all the departments would not only
greatly exceed the limited time at our command this evening, but would
also confuse us by the multiplicity of subjects demanding our
attention.
When God created man in his own image and placed him on earth, He gave
man dominion over the earth and all the fullness thereof. There is an
old maxim which teaches, that through respect for the giver, we should
not give, barter or sell away a present. God gave the earth and all
that is in it to mankind. May we not here ask, to what mankind was the
earth given? And what is meant by man? It is plain to the student that
by man is meant all mankind, for all time so long as he shall live, for
we find in research of the scripture that "God is not God of the dead,
but of the living." I want to ask you in the name of justice and
humanity, should a great majority of mankind now, in the strongest and
most highly civilized country, give the earth and its abundance to the
money corporations, trusts and combines, that are in reality
transforming our beloved republic into a "Den of Thieves;" or should we
keep possession of the bountiful gift, that our children and the
children of the generations to follow will inherit the land, that was
so graciously presented to all mankind, by an all wise Providence?
One of the uppermost features in our civilization today is our national
medium of exchange, called "money." Reasonable men of all parties agree
that our money should be sound and honest, and limited only in amount
by the necessities and requirements of the citizens of our country, in
striving after a nobler and higher civilization in which the greatest
good to the greatest number shall be the pinnacle of ultimate
achievement.
In June of 1896, the representatives of a great party met in national
convention in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and outlined a party platform
in which we find a plank which says: "We are therefore opposed to the
free coinage of silver, except by international agreement with the
leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to
promote, and until such agreement can be obtained, the existing gold
standard must be preserved."
As we think of and discuss this or any other proposition, the question
foremost in our mind should be: Is that proposition, if adopted, likely
to promote the interest of an independent liberty loving, Democratic
people, or will it, if adopted, work in an opposite direction?
In my judgment, a careful examination of that plank will reveal the
fact that it is hypocritical in the extreme, and in itself makes by its
own declaration, improbable the very thing it pretends to advocate and
pledge itself to support, namely: Bimetallism, by an international
agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world.
There is no business man, farmer or politician who has ever
successfully accomplished any undertaking by adopting the idea most
prominent in this plank, which is declaring bimetallism to be right,
and then saying that we cannot and will not do anything to procure it
if the leading commercial nations of the world do not consent to it.
Let us examine this plank in detail, and see if the general proposition
of waiting for our common enemy to assist us in helping ourselves is
not ridiculous.
We notice that the party in drawing up this plank, says: "That they
pledge themselves to promote bimetallism by agreement;" then in the
next clause, say, "and until such an agreement can be obtained, the
existing gold standard must be preserved."
Let me illustrate: Suppose this gentleman on my right having a horse
fairly worth on the market $100, should say to the young man on my left
that he desired to sell the animal. If the young man wished to buy he
would ask the price of the horse. I ask, what would the owner receive
for his steed, if he should reply, "Well, I ask $100, but if you will
not give that much, I will take $25."
Now, my gold standard friends, do you not know that the purchaser would
take advantage of the seller and only give $25 for the horse.
When the party at St. Louis pledged themselves to promote international
bimetallism, and then asserted, "until such an agreement can be
obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved," they in effect,
like the man with the horse, put their business in the other fellow's
hands; for was not that clause simply another way of saying to the
foreigner, if you will not give us bimetallism we will take the gold
standard, although we prefer the bimetallic standard?
Fellow citizens, I ask you in the name of American independence, does
it not appear as though there was a colored gentleman somewhere in the
background? Let us examine further, and we will see that the colored
man wears a British coat of arms, and has his American office on
Williams street, New York city.
We will make no mistakes in our conclusion if we understand the facts,
and to more clearly appreciate the full international effect, of the
plank under examination, let us draw another picture from human nature.
We will imagine you people of Jacksonville to be a little sporty, and
that you have in your midst a prize fighter of whom you are quite
proud; we will suppose that Springfield has a character of the same
kind, and the St. Louis Athletic club should offer $50,000 as a purse
for a fistic contest between these two champions, $40,000 to be the
reward of the winner and $10,000 to soothe the wounds of the defeated
pugilist. We will suppose the fight is arranged and the men go into
careful training, the time for the mill has at last arrived, the ring
is complete, and all details perfect. A large audience has assembled
and betting is liberally indulged in; of course Jacksonville sports
back their home man. At the appointed hour the contestants enter the
ring. Then you see your Jacksonville man is much the superior in
appearance to the Springfield upstart. Your man being the quicker and
stronger, has a longer reach, and is the more scientific. (America is
quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is more scientific than
any other nation on earth.) You feel sure your man will win the fight
on short notice, in fact you almost pity the man from Springfield, to
see that he must compete in a fistic combat with such a giant as the
Jacksonville Gladiator. The referee announces that Marquis of
Queensbury's rules are to govern, he looks at his watch and announces
that in one minute the fight will be on, the fighters raise their hands
to position. When just a few seconds of time still remains before the
slugging is to commence, your Jacksonville man says to his opponent,
hold on, if you don't run, I will. What, I ask you, would you think of
your prize fighter then? Think of the United States training for a
century for supremacy of American self-government over foreign
monarchical governments, then when all things are completed for the
final fight of the survival of the fittest, a great party saying to the
monarchies of Europe, "we know bimetallism is right, but if you will
not consent to it, then we will stick to the gold standard. If you
don't run, we will." (Great laughter and applause.)
Party prejudice prevailed and through the misrepresentations of the
papers and certain unscrupulous politicians the party making those
representations carried the election. International bimetallic
commissioners were sent to the foreign countries to procure this great
international agreement, and did they get it? Facts answer no.
Let me again implore you to lay aside party prejudice and look matters
squarely in the face, and we will immediately see, that not only did
Mr. Wolcott and his party make a signal failure in procuring
international bimetallism, but by the very terms of the St. Louis
platform it was impossible for him to succeed in his alleged purpose.
Now, my friends, let us suppose Mr. Wolcott and his two associates are
in England talking with the rich moneyed men for international
bimetallism and Mr. Wolcott is dealing out sledge-hammer argument in
favor of international bimetallism, using the same argument in England
the Bryan Democrats used in the campaign of 1896 in the United States.
The financial men of England would then say to Mr. Wolcott, did you say
that bimetallism in the United States meant 50-cent dollars? Mr.
Wolcott would answer, "Yes, I said that;" whereupon the Englishman
would say, "Then international bimetallism would mean international
50-cent dollars." Question No. 2. Mr. Wolcott, did not you say
bimetallism in the United States meant repudiation? Yes, would come
from Mr. Wolcott. Then the Englishman would reply, "Would not
international bimetallism mean international repudiation?" Question No.
3. "Mr. Wolcott, did you not tell the people of the United States that
free silver over there meant anarchy and lost confidence?" Again Mr.
Wolcott is forced to admit that was just what he said here in 1896. In
a triumphant air the Englishman would say international free silver
would mean international anarchy and international lost confidence.
(Laughter and applause). If Mr. Wolcott should further continue the
argument, what could the poor fellow say if the Englishman would draw
the Republican platform of '96 on him and read the following: "And
until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be
preserved." Johnny Bull would add, "You Americans served notice on us
that all we had to do was to stick to the gold standard and you would
also stick to it."
"Now, we money men of England think we can get more bushels of corn,
oats, rye and barley, more days labor of you fellows for what you owe
us under the gold standard than we could under international
bimetallism. We know it is hard on you, but it is the making of us, and
we will stick to the gold standard; and as you said you would stick to
it if we did, all we can do for you, Mr. Wolcott, is to serve you a
fine wine supper, and tell you to return to America and stick to the
gold standard." (Great applause.)
My friends, the most ridiculous proceeding I ever heard of was the
Republican party sending commissioners abroad to procure international
bimetallism with that plank staring them in the face. I want to ask you
if you do not think that if Mr. Wolcott would have taken a carload or
two of the Republican literature of 1896 and handed out the pamphlets
to the Englishmen, saying this is what we think of free silver in the
United States, will you help us to have it by an international action?
Would not that kind of literature hurt the cause instead of helping it?
For my part, I have no objections to the President sending a Senator
from Colorado to the foreign countries to advocate bimetallism, but I
do insist that he sent the wrong senator. Most certainly Mr. Teller
could have gone abroad with a little handful of free silver literature
that was left over in the campaign of '96 and accomplished more, in a
day's honest consistent work, for bimetallism, than could Senator
Wolcott with the tons of gold standard pamphlets published by the
Republican party. (Great applause.)
A noticeable fact is that one of the greatest job lots of political
trickery and deception that was ever attempted in America has been
practiced in the United States since the month of June, 1896.
Later in the season the so-called Gold-standard Democrats conventioned
in Indianapolis; their money plank reads, "We assert the necessity of
such intelligent currency reform as will confine the government to its
legitimate functions, completely separated from the banking business,
and afford to all sections of our country a safe, uniform and elastic
bank currency, under government supervision, measured in volume by the
need of business." Strange as it may seem, while Mr. Wolcott was
abroad, pretendingly for the purpose of procuring bimetallism by
international agreement, the President and Secretary of the Treasury
were working up a scheme to have the gold standard adopted according to
the tenor of the Indianapolis platform. When we consider 7,000,000
voted for international free silver, and 6,500,000 voted for
independent free silver, we see the United States has 13,500,000
bimetallists; only 134,000, or less than one per cent, voted the
Gold-standard Democratic ticket. Yet, my friends, we today find Mr.
Gage trying to overrule the desire of more than ninety-nine per cent
and put into law the will of less than one per cent of our voting
population. And what amount of money do the gold standard people want?
They say they want it safe, uniform and elastic, measured in volume by
the need of business. Will you tell me by whose business they wish to
measure the volume of money? It cannot be the farmers' business and the
merchants' business they would have to measure the volume by, for that
would make a double standard of measurement, and they tell us we cannot
have but one standard of measurement.
Then I ask, whose business will measure the amount under such a law? To
me the answer comes back in reverberating tones repeated with emphasis,
measured in volume according to the bankers' business, of course. Our
philosophers tell us there are two kinds of elasticity--elasticity by
compression and elasticity by expansion. Thus an elastic substance
after being either compressed or expanded when released, returns to its
original shape and size, so when the bankers want money expanded in
volume according to the need of their business, they would expand it,
and whenever their business ends are best accomplished by contraction;
then, of course, contraction is the program with them. While the
government is completely separated from the banking business so they
can furnish no relief, we might compare that system with an alligator
on the banks of a Louisiana river lying out to sun himself; he gets the
bankers' elastic idea in his head, and his upper jaw flies over his
back, and his mouth is twice as large as when it is closed, elasticity
by expansion. (Laughter.) A sweet substance gathers on his open mouth,
and the flies light there to eat it (just as the people will gather
around the bankers for money when there is no other place to procure
it). The flies gather thicker and thicker, and the mouth gets bigger
and bigger, more and more elasticity by expansion; finally the
alligator, like the banker, happens to think that there is another kind
of elasticity, when down comes the upper jaw on the lower jaw and the
flies are caught in the trap, and the Government shall go out of the
banking business to furnish no relief or escape (cries of good, and
cheers). My friends, if I mistake not, every cry of the Republican
party from the time of John C. Fremont until the campaign of 1896 has
been against banks issuing paper money except that the Government was
strictly in the banking business. Have not they always told us, that
when state or other banks issue paper money without the Government in
the banking business to back up the issue, such money in case of a
failure of the issuing bank became wild-cat money, and did they not say
to us wild-cat money made paupers? Now they go squarely back on all
they have taught us on the money question, and advocate the wild-cat
money system themselves according to their own statements. One thing I
will concede is, that the Republicans and gold standard Democrats are
certainly on their past statements entitled to the $1,000,000 offered
by the United States patent office for the invention of a perpetual
motion, would not they have a complete and perpetual motion in their
bank issuing money with the Government completely separate from the
banking business, for we see the bank issue would be made of paper, so
we have the perpetual motion in this simple problem. Rags make paper,
paper makes money, money makes banks, banks make paupers, and paupers
make rags. Rags make paper, paper makes money (great cheer and
laughter).
Now, my friends, let me read you a plank in a platform that contains
the spirit upon which our forefathers freed the thirteen American
colonies from England, the spirit on which their descendants maintained
American liberty and builded from 3,000,000 population along the
Atlantic shores in 1781, a nation of 70,000,000 grand Anglo-Americans,
with their half a hundred states and territories extending from the
rock bound coast of the pine tree state to the golden gates of
California, stretching over a vast area of more than 3,000,000 square
miles, with great cities, towns, villages and hamlets, with our
colleges and universities that are equaled by none in Europe. I will
now read you the money plank of the Chicago platform, which contains
the spirit represented by the statute at New York, of liberty
enlightening the world. It is as follows: "We demand a free and
unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of
16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We
demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender
equally with gold, for the payment of all debts public and private, and
we favor such legislation as will in the future prevent the
demonetization of any kind of legal tender money by private contract."
While bimetallism is the theme this evening, you will excuse me for
intruding on your time long enough to briefly comment on the spirit of
that plank that shines prominently above all other issues in the
Chicago platform--it is these simple words, "Without waiting for the
aid or consent of any other nation." I want to ask you, what would have
been the result if our forefathers in 1776 had adopted any other spirit
than this? Does not the answer immediately echo that we would be today
English?
History tells us that while the British red coats with their muskets
were invading the colonies, a handful of bold liberty loving men met at
Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence. You may read
that instrument and you will see that it declares for American liberty
from an American point of view, without waiting for the aid or consent
of any other nation. When bold old non-international agreement John
Hancock read that declaration, he made a speech to the multitude in
front of Liberty hall, in which he implored them to throw aside trivial
differences, and on the main question of independence, all good liberty
loving people should hang together. Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we
must all hang together or we will all hang separate." In Franklin's
witticism, I think I can see the solution of our present financial
trouble--the good people of all parties must solve the problem, then we
must all hang together or we will all hang separately to the tail of
the old British lion, and while we voters are thus suspended, the cubs
of that lion will devour the young Anglo-American eagles before they
scarcely have time to scream for mercy.
Not only did that spirit of independence pervade in Philadelphia in
1776, but it was foremost at Bunker Hill. But Benedict Arnold and Major
Andre seemed to have taken a different view, and the former fled to
English assistance, the latter was executed because of his attempt to
do likewise. But the spirit of independence, without waiting for the
consent of any other nation, shone forth like a plumed knight or a
mighty gladiator on the 19th day of October, 1781, at Yorktown, when
the British gave up their swords and surrendered to the liberty loving
fathers of America. Do you think Cornwallis would have surrendered to
Washington if the Colonial Congress had declared that they would
promote independence by international agreement, and until such
agreement could be obtained, the existing will of King George must be
maintained, and if Washington and his army had fought for English
instead of American supremacy?
I want to say to you that it was not the international agreement spirit
that won in the war of 1812 at New Orleans. General Jackson told his
Kentucky riflemen to keep their powder dry and guns well loaded, and
when they were close enough to see the white of the enemies' eyes to
shoot directly between them. History tells us that the third volley
charmed and the British surrendered to the American army once more
without an international agreement.
In the blackest of the dark days of the late rebellion when the
possible, and to a certain extent the seeming probable success of the
confederacy was spreading like an appalling cloud over our country, we
find it on record that the English were preparing their man-of-war and
navy to assist the South when the illustrious Lincoln said, "Hands
off," and it was so; suppose Mr. Lincoln had said to England, "Let us
have an international agreement that you are not to interfere." Why, my
friends, I believe England would have signed such an agreement the day
after Mr. Lincoln had acknowledged the independence of the Southern
States, and not before. We may as well know that the success of a
Republican or Democratic form of government is envied by all the
monarchies or empires where the people have less self-government. The
gold standard monarchies or empires will never, knowingly, do anything
to improve times in a republic and thus create among their subjects a
desire to throw off the monarchial yoke of oppression.
I know that much has been said against the American republic becoming
entangled with the European powers, but I fear that many in treating on
this line do not show the real menace of such an entanglement. We all
know that the laws of the empires and monarchies are in the interest of
the moneyed classes, and we are proud to say that in America our laws
are for the masses.
Let me tell you by way of comparison why we should keep out of an
international agreement entanglement on the money question. I will use
the tariff as an illustration. I care not what your politics may be,
you will all agree with me that there was one redeeming feature in the
McKinley bill. That some good feature was in the Wilson-Gormon act, and
the same quality of goodness today shines forth in the present Dingley
tariff law. Do you ask what that feature is? I answer it is this: That
law was passed by the independent action of the American Congress. If
we do not like it we can repeal it, without waiting for the aid or
consent of any other nation on earth.
Our Government bonds are all payable in coins of the United States of
the standard weight and value of July 14, 1870; that weight was 23.22
grains of gold or 371.25 grains of silver to the dollar. The value of
those coins was that they were a legal tender in the payment of debts.
If we have an international agreement for bimetallism we can not have
it all our own way--the foreigner would be entitled to a voice. Suppose
we would fix the ratio at any other than the ratio of July 14th, 1870.
Then our dollars would no longer be of the weight that the bonds call
for and the foreigner would have the best of us, for our own coins
would not be a legal tender in payment of our bonds. Now suppose we
wanted to repeal that law, could we repeal it by international
agreement? Well, I guess not. The foreigners would never consent to the
repeal of a law that was to their advantage. Therein lies the real
menace of an international agreement even if we could get it. The only
way we could ever get rid of that agreement would be just to back
squarely out, then we might properly be called repudiators.
We often hear it said that the congress of 1792 used great care to put
just a dollar's worth of silver in a silver dollar and dollar's worth
of gold in the gold dollar. Now while it is true that according to the
law of April 12, 1792, a dollar's worth of silver was put in the silver
dollar, the amount of silver became worth a dollar as a creature of
law, and it is not true that the silver dollar became worth a dollar
because of the value of the silver contained in it. That congress made
the dollar just as God made man. God said, "Let us make man," and the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. God did not
study and bother his mind about taking a man's worth of dust to make a
man. No, he took some dust of the ground and formed therefrom a man and
by his own authority breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and
man thus became a living soul. God then gave man legal authority over
the living creatures of the earth and also gave him authority to
replenish the earth. Man's rights came from the power of God.
The constitution says congress shall have power to coin money and
regulate the value thereof. So congress made the dollar as God made
man, and the American congress formed the dollar of the silver and gold
of the earth, put the eagle on one side of the coin and breathed into
that coin the legal tender law, and the bimetallic dollar became a
living soul of prosperity for eighty-one years as long as the silver
and gold were allowed to fly side by side; but when in 1873 the wings
were clipped from the silver and the legal tender breath shut off, then
the gold had to do all the work; it being too weak to do so, adversity
came.
They tell us that law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes
in value. Let us for a moment form ourselves into a party of
truthseekers and look up the record as to that proposition. The law of
April 2nd, 1792, said 371.75 grains of silver could be freely coined
into one dollar, or two halves, or four quarters, or ten dimes, each to
be a legal tender at its face value, if not worn, for any amount; that
law also said 24.75 grains of gold could be coined into coins of the
value of the dollar; of course you understand the gold was in higher
denominations than the dollar. Now let us watch carefully as to whether
or not the law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes. In
1834 the law said 23.20 grains of gold when coined in American money
constituted a dollar. Let me see, the gold has changed all at once and
the law regulates the amount of gold that goes in a dollar. In 1837,
the law requires 23.22 grains of gold to the dollar, another change. In
1853 the law says that no longer shall it require 371.75 grains of
silver to make a dollar's worth of fractional coins, but that 342.22
grains of silver would make two halves, four quarters or ten dimes, and
they should be a legal tender in the payment of debts for $5. In '73
the coinage of the standard silver dollar was stopped by law, and
silver fell in price. In 1878 the Bland-Allison act allowed the coinage
of the standard silver dollar. In 1890 the Sherman act called for more
silver coinage and the price of silver immediately advanced. In 1893
the coinage of silver was again stopped and the price of silver
dropped, hence we see that the law does regulate values, and that gold
does change in value so far even as the dollar is concerned. A teacher
once told Benjamin Franklin that a boy told him, if he would take a tub
weighing 100 pounds and put 500 pounds of water in it, which only about
half filled the tub, the tub and water would weigh 600 pounds, but if
he would put a live fish weighing 100 pounds in the tub, the tub, water
and fish would not weigh more than 600 pounds. Can you explain that
curious contradiction of the law of gravity, asked the teacher of
Franklin. Whereupon Mr. Franklin requested his interrogator to call at
his office next day. Franklin procured a tub weighing 100 pounds, put
in it 500 pounds of water, and the weight was 600 pounds, just as the
boy had told the teacher; then Mr. Franklin added a 100-pound live fish
and the total weight was 700 pounds. The next day the teacher called on
Franklin for his solution of the great problem, whereupon Franklin
replied, there was but one solution to the question. "What is that?"
anxiously inquired the visitor. "Why," replied Franklin, "the boy
lied."
My friends, when they tell us the law cannot regulate value and that
gold never changes, and when we examine the records and see that gold
does change and that law does regulate value, we say there is but one
answer to them, and that is just as Franklin answered the teacher about
the boy.
We hear it said by the Republicans that free silver would drive gold
out of the country; our Democratic friends tell us that free silver
will not drive gold out of the country. So we see on that point people
seem to differ in opinion. For my part I believe that free silver
either will drive the gold out or else it will not. I want to ask the
Republicans to acknowledge for the sake of argument that silver would
not drive the gold out. Now, let us examine the question if silver
don't drive the gold out, and we have a block of gold large enough to
make into $100, and a block of silver sufficiently large to make into a
like amount, if the gold-standard Democratic idea prevails, all the
money we could coin would be the $100 from the gold, for silver could
not be coined, but if bimetallism prevailed we could coin $100 from the
gold and $100 from the silver, making $200, that is, if the silver does
not drive out the gold. But the Republicans may urge that free silver
would drive out the gold by the gold going at a premium over silver,
then we would coin the block of silver into 100 legal tender dollars
and the gold would be exchanged for a block of silver say 25 per cent
larger than the block that drove it out, and we would coin that block
into 125 legal tender dollars, adding it to the silver that stayed at
home, making 225 dollars, just $25 more than we would have if the gold
did not advance to a premium. But they tell us that would be coining
the cheapest metal. Now, honor bright, you Republicans cannot complain
of that for the reason I will presently explain. We often hear it urged
that during the eighty-one years of bimetallism in the United States
only about 8,000,000 silver dollars were coined, and that subsequently
to 1873 more than 400,000,000 have been coined. True, there were only
about 8,000,000 dollar pieces made of the silver metal, but there were
more than $8,000,000 made because of the silver, for as France had a
ratio of 15-1/2 to 1 against our ratio of 16 to 1 our gold stayed at
home and the silver was at a 3 per cent premium over the gold according
to the French ratio, then a $100 block of gold drove a $100 block of
silver to France, and drove from France to America a block of gold
large enough to make $103. So we had our gold made into $100, and the
gold that came from France in exchange for silver made into $103,
making a total of $203, whereas we could only have had $200 if one
metal had not gone at a premium. History, arithmetic and common sense
prove the correctness of this proposition.
Abraham Lincoln once said he did not know much about the tariff
question, but he thought he knew enough to know that if we bought $20
worth of steel rails of a foreigner the foreigner would have the money
and we would have the rails; but if we made the rails in America and
bought them of an American, America would have the money and the rails,
too. Now, my Republican friends, don't you believe that? I do. I may
not know much about the money question, but I think I know enough to
know that if under the gold standard we borrow $20,000,000 of a
foreigner, when we pay it back the foreigner will have the money and
the interest, too, but if we coin the silver, which is an American
product, into legal tender dollars, borrow $20,000,000 of an American,
when we pay it back it kind of seems to me somehow that America will
have the money and the interest, too. What say you, Lincoln
Republicans? But another objection is that we would have a great
commerce destroying flood of silver in this country. Let us examine
that proposition as seekers after the truth. Here comes Mr. Foreigner
with a carload or two of silver, the United States mints coin it into
legal tender American dollars and hands it back to Mr. Foreigner. Now,
Mr. Foreigner will either take that silver money away with him or else
he will leave it here. If he takes it away it will not flood this
country, will it? Well, if he leaves it here he will either give it to
us or buy something with it. Now, if he gives it to us, will not you
Republicans be willing to take your share? Won't you Democrats
willingly receive your share? And, I ask, is there a gold standard
banker in all America who would not, with just a tiny wee bit of
persuading, be willing to take the shares of both Republicans and
Democrats? Now, if Mr. Foreigner should buy something with this great
flood of silver we can see the wisdom of Mr. Gladstone when he said,
"If America should adopt bimetallism they would within six weeks
control the markets of the world."
A favorite expression of our Republican friends is, that because Mexico
does not maintain a parity between gold and silver under bimetallism,
the United States cannot. When a man tells us that we should pity him.
If we examine that question by comparison we will see the party making
such a statement is either not sincere, or else he is not posted on the
relative strength of the United States and Mexico. Records show that
Mexico has 700,000 square miles of land, more than one-half of which is
nearly or quite barren desert or waste land, leaving only about 350,000
miles of arable land, 4,981 miles of railway, 27,861 miles of telegraph
line and a population of 10,000,000 Indians and Spaniards. The United
States has 3,460,000 square miles, over two-thirds of which is arable
land, and very productive of the staple articles consumed by the most
enlightened nations of the world. We have 170,000 miles of railway,
780,000 miles of telegraph line, and a population of 72,000,000
Anglo-Americans; thus we see we have over ten times as much arable land
exclusive of Alaska, thirty-four times as much railway, twenty-nine
times as much telegraph line, and over seven times the population of
Mexico. In size, wealth, commerce and science, Mexico is not to be
compared with the United States.
When we compare Mexico with the United States, we are comparing it with
the most gigantic country of the nineteenth century. You can form the
United States into eighteen states each as large as Spain, or
thirty-one states as large as Italy, or sixty-two states as large as
England and Wales. What a mighty confederation of land, water,
commerce, wealth and people is the United States when we come to think
of it. Why, friends, we can take five of the six first-class countries
of Europe--France, Great Britain and Ireland, Germany, Austria and
Italy, then add Mexico--let some mighty smith forge them all together
into one vast empire, and you can lay them all down in the United
States, west of the Hudson river, twice.
Wittingly has it been said that the United States has the natural basis
for the greatest continuous government ever established by man. Mexico
has less than 100 miles of inland navigation, while the United States
has over 35,000 miles. Steam boats can go up the Mississippi, Missouri
and Ohio rivers over 2,500 miles from the Gulf, thus carrying our
seaboard into the very heart of our continent. As to our resources, the
crop of 1879, after feeding our population, furnished for export
283,000,000 bushels of grain. This vast crop was raised on 164,215
square miles, or less than one-twelfth of our arable land. It is
estimated that if all our arable land was under the plow, it would feed
a population of 1,000,000,000 people, and furnish for export
1,000,000,000 bushels of grain food for export. But what can we say of
the people of Mexico and the United States? The difference in our
population is not alone the difference between 10,000,000 in Mexico and
72,000,000 in the United States, but the difference between 10,000,000
Indians and Spaniards and 72,000,000 Anglo-Americans.
Mexicans and Indians are but semi-civilized, and the Spaniards are,
generally speaking, a sluggardly, non-advancing people, while the
Anglo-Americans of the United States are the most highly civilized
people on the earth, wide awake and progressive in science, literature
and mechanical inventions. At a recent exposition in Paris where the
foremost nations of the world were exhibiting for premiums five gold
medals were given for the greatest inventions or discoveries, and how
many came to the United States? Only five; that is all. Now to say that
because Mexico cannot maintain a parity between gold and silver,
America cannot, is just about like saying that a Kentucky race horse
cannot beat an English horse because a Mexican donkey cannot do so. My
friends, our ability to maintain a parity between gold and silver is
our ability to absorb money in our daily and yearly business. Give our
country the increased volume of money that bimetallism will give us
instead of the necessary contracted volume that the gold standard
leaves us, and we will have a genuine lasting wave of prosperity moving
westward from New England, starting the shops at increased wages. That
wave will meet with joy the western prosperity wave that sets in motion
the mining and agricultural interests of a patient and patriotic
people, the eastern and western wave will shake hands with the southern
cotton growers and northern wheat raisers. From the four quarters of
our nation prosperity will spring up from an American point of view
without waiting for the aid or consent of any other country, and
without international agreement. Then will a mighty people standing for
humanity and general prosperity, shout aloud, "We lead, let others
follow." I thank you for your attention. Good night.
WHAT NEXT?
Patrick Henry, the revolutionist, on March 25th, 1775, said: "I have
but one lamp by which my feet are guided and that is the lamp of
Experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past."
Patrick, the Irishman, always said, "our hind sight is better than our
front sight." Right in the beginning let me say that inasmuch as an
open confession is good for the soul, I most emphatically and with one
gulp swallow this doctrine in toto. I take it for granted that a vast
majority will, without much persuasion, acknowledge that our historical
knowledge has been garnered by looking backward.
Experience shows that causes, equal to each other, produce equal
effects; hence to arrive at a rational conclusion as to what must we do
to be saved from Eastern Imperialism or its equal, Western greed,
supported by law, let us look at the United States in retrospect.
My space is limited. I shall bid for your gratitude by being brief.
I consult my watch, a beautiful piece of machinery, and learn that it
is three o'clock; it is July 21st, 1902. It has been raining, or rather
drizzling for about twenty hours. It is an ideal time for reflection.
Near the window where I sit is a large, vacant lot. The grass is
fragrant, its surface is smooth and elevated. I remember viewing the
same lot eight years ago, just after a similar rain to the one that is
now abating. The lot was then a large pond, eighteen inches deep. What
a change labor has made on its surface! Looking another direction, I
see a lot, now covered with water as it was eight years ago. I will
venture the assertion that it will be covered with water a thousand
years hence, unless labor improves it as it has the one just mentioned.
My library contains several volumes devoted entirely to the history of
the United States. They all say that four hundred years ago, what is
now the United States was a vast territory of uncultivated land,
crossed by the mountain ranges and rivers, that still hold forth. There
were also people here, and they had a government. We call it tribe
rule, and tribal relations. They were savages. Hence, looking backward
as far as history permits, we find the United States a tract of land
that was the home of Nature, and Natures, beasts. Inhabited by the
roaming Indian, whose government and mechanical ability were as widely
different from the present style as the City of Chicago is from old
Fort Dearborn, in Lake Michigan swamps of 1811.
History recounts that European government had succeeded in governing so
that the toiling subjects preferred to come to America, and dwell among
Indians, and rule themselves, than to stay in Europe among friends, and
be ruled by the old style, European government. Be it remembered that
it was not the tangible improvements which were the handiwork of labor,
from which the poor of Europe fled. But it was the European laws that
oppressed them. It was oppression from which they were fleeing. They
did not come to the New Connecticut because it was new, but because it
was the only available place for them. They did not come to America
because they did not like law, or because they did not want to worship
God, but to gain justice and privilege of worship.
The poor came to America to earn a living without kingly interference.
The king sent rulers not to earn a living, but to _get_ a living. The
poor said, "I will go to America and eat bread in the sweat of my
face." The ruler said, "Where you go, I will go also, and I will eat
bread in the sweat of your face." Thus we see that the oppressed came
to America to avoid tyranny, while simultaneously the rulers came over
to impose the very rule the toilers were seeking to avoid. So
successful were they in their purpose that in 1776, the toiling class
(who are always in the majority), concluded that they needed no more
European rule, and in seven years of war, the idle rulers were driven
from America.
In forming the new government, the people, who had so courageously
fought to drive out England's "Kingly" rule, commenced to look for
formulas for a government. They turned to England for precedents,
consequently a government was formed, which in many respects resembled
the English government. Especially was this resemblance noticeable in
the Supreme Court, for the Judges hold office for life, during good
behavior. Right here let me observe that there is no good reason why
the inferior courts should not have a life tenure of office, if such a
policy is correct for the Supreme Court, and if it is better for
inferior courts to hold office for short terms, it is best that the
Supreme Court be subject to the same policy. It is ridiculous that our
representatives should be made such by popular vote, and the laws they
make be construed by a set of judges whose office expires only when the
spirit judge has a harp, and the dust judge has a coffin. Popular vote
retires the inferior judge, a fashionable funeral retires the supreme
judge, but the robe is left as the imperial emblem. It seems to me it
is time to abolish the life tenure of office with our Supreme Court,
and it is entirely fitting that their robes be hung in the curio hall
of some popular museum, as a souvenir of a ridiculous custom no longer
desirable in a popular government. Let me here drop a thought. You may
have it for what you think it is worth. The expressed will of a
majority of the people should be the Supreme Court decision in the
United States. Were that the case an income tax would be
constitutional, and a tariff between the states and some territory
owned and controlled by our government would be unconstitutional.
Since the victory at Yorktown, great questions have been argued and
settled by the laboring men and inventors; great questions have been
argued, but not settled, by the politicians. Washington used candles,
we use electric lights. Washington's four men picked the seed from
twenty-five pounds of cotton per day; four men in our generation, gin
25,000 pounds per day; Washington traveled with horses and oxen, thirty
miles per day; we travel by steam 1,000 miles per day; Washington sent
a letter one hundred miles and waited a week for the answer; we
telegraph thousands of miles and get an answer within the hour;
Washington's voice could be heard a quarter of a mile; we talk and
carry on conversation hundreds of miles. Each of these propositions,
and thousands of others have been settled by the inventors and toilers.
In short and in fine, the difference between the United States with her
natural resources of 125 years ago, and the United States of today,
with her vast farms, great mines, magnificent cities and half a hundred
thousand miles of railroad, and other improvements too numerous to
mention, all this difference, I say, is co-extensive with America
_before and after_ taking the labor treatment. But what can we say of
the politician and his doings during these years, stripped of all
ambiguity, when we tell the unpolished, but plain truth, we must say he
never advanced one iota until he was routed from his old position by
the toiling masses. It is curious to note that every new social,
political, and ethical idea hatches in the same mind and is developed
by the same crowd that contrives the machinery and builds the cities,
railroads, farms, mines, etc.
The politicians, except where labor has compelled them to march
forward, stand where Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson put them when
the Constitution was adopted. Of course there were some steep places in
our governmental structure, and where labor has not buoyed up the
politician, he has occasionally slid back to the rules of King George
the III. As King George had one tax for England at home, and another
for the Colonies, so with us, of late, we have one tax for ourselves
and another for our possessions. (We should, however, give the
politician, due credit for the way he spells colonies.) English style
is to commence with a "C." Our modern style necessitates commencing
with a "P." Then, the pronunciation is different; in England it is
"Colonies," in America, "Possessions." Yet all over the world they mean
the same, to-wit, the strong taxing the weak without allowing
representation.
It is literally true that Henry, Jefferson, Washington, and the Adams
argued the slavery question. As long as we retain the Philippine
Islands, that question still faces us, for their advent to our
possession brought slavery for us to foster, and we are fostering it.
The money question was argued one hundred years ago, and it is still up
for argument.
Politicians still are turning on both wings of the tariff. Republicans
hold to the argument that the European manufacturers, because of the
low wages paid their workingmen, would undersell our home manufacturers
if free trade was adopted by the United States. Democrats contend that
Free Trade will work to benefit 99 per cent of our people, where, as
they claim, protection benefits only 1 per cent, to the injury of the
masses. According to the Chicago Tribune of July 19th, 1902, Europe is
afraid that, unless a high tariff law protects it, American
manufactures will flood their markets, thus hindering their home
industry.
Strange, indeed, that in America we should fear free trade with Europe,
because they pay low wages, and Europe fears free trade with us,
because we pay higher wages.
Another peculiar thing is shown in the Tribune article, when it
mentions that there is not much fear that European nations will agree
on a general tariff law, because, as it says, "Austria might want to
admit free the very articles that France, Germany or England might want
to shut out." Wonder how much the tariff barons of the United States
would pay the Tribune editor for an article in favor of a high
protective tariff that would say, "There is not much danger of a
general tariff law continuing in the United States, because Texas or
Kansas might want to admit free the very things that Massachusetts or
Connecticut might want a high tariff imposed on."
Let us acknowledge the truth. Tariff laws are class legislation. It is
odd, indeed, that we should have such great regard for the interest of
the foreigner on the money question, and then so utterly ignore his
interests on the tariff question. If our hind sight were not better
than our fore sight, it would seem queer to hear politicians advocate
the gold standard and a high tariff, and with the same breath rage
against the trusts, when the trust is simply the fruit of these two
laws.
It were as logical to send a highwayman, train robber or an incendiary
to Congress to break up bank robbings and general stealing as to send
an advocate of the gold standard and protective tariff to Congress to
break up the trusts.
The inventor and laborer are a congenial team and, under their
influence, the world improves and enriches.
The politician and money power are another well mated team, and under
their rule they get the wealth that the other team produces.
The people elect the Representatives; the money power gets the
legislation. Lincoln called the United States a government "of the
people, for the people, and by the people." We have outgrown Lincoln's
time, and there is a suspicion that we are a government of the Trusts,
and for the Trusts, by the Representatives.
I suggest that inasmuch as our Representatives have become
misrepresentatives for the masses, and tools for the classes, it would
be wise to adopt pure Democracy and make our laws by direct legislation.
Then we will have a government of _all_ the people, by _all_ the people,
and for _all_ the people.--If not this plan, what next?