Decatur Democrat, Volume 48, Number 30, Decatur, Adams County, 29 September 1904 — Page 7

lIK PARKER'S I ffl Os HMtf Sept. 26. 1904. i- t he Hon. Champ Clark and Others, ■ committee. Etc.: ■ gentlemen— ll ) my response to your Honiinittee at the formal notification ■weedings 1 referred to some matters ■ol mentioned in this letter. I desire HLt these be considered as incorporat■d herein, and regret that lack of space Hrevents specific reference to them i wish here, however, again to refer niy views there expressed as to the K>]d standard, to declare again my un■uaiified belief in said standard and to my appreciation of the action Hf the convention in neply to my comK unication upon that subject. public questions are pressing ■or decision. The Democratic party eals to the people with confidence its position on these questions will B~ accepted and indorsed at the polls, ■vijile the issues involved are numersome stand forth pre-eminent in public mind. Among these are reform, imperialism, economical and honesty in the pubKc service. I shall briefly consider ■htse and some others within the necprescribed limits of this letter, I While I presented my views at the ■otification proceedings concerning this ■-tai issue, the overshadowing impor:..e of this question impels me to re|K,r to it again. The issue is oftenreferred to as constitutionalism imperialism. ■jf w -e would retain our liberties and ■(institutional rights unimpaired we permit or tolerate at any time IK:’ for any purpose the arrogation of ■nconstitutional powers by the execu■ice branch of our government. We ■liould be ever mindful of the words iKf Webster, “Liberty is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional ■estraints and a just division of politpowers.” ■ Already the national government has Become centralized beyond any point ■ontemplated or imagined by the ■ouuders of the constitution. How tre■nendously all this has added to the Blower of the president! It has develfrom year to year until it almost |Kipi:ils that of many monarchs. While ■be growth of our country and the magtude of interstate interests may seem Bo furnish a plausible reason for this ■entralization of power, yet these same ■acts afford the most potent reason ■shy the executive should not be per- ® itted to encroach upon the other de Bailments of the government and asIBume legislative or other powers not Kxpressly conferred by the constitution. ■ The magnitude of the country and ■is diversity of interests and population would enable a determined, arnbi|Bious and able executive, unmindful of limitations and fired Bvitb the lust of power, to go far in Bit- usurpation of authority and the of personal power beBore the situation could be fully appreciated or the people be aroused. I The issue of imperialism which has B>ee:i thrust upon the country involves decision whether the law of the land the rule of individual caprice shad The principle of imperialism Bray give rise to brilliant, startling, results, but the principle of Bemocracy holds in check the brilliant and subjects him to the soBier. conservative control of the people. I The people of the United States Stand at the parting of the ways. we follow the footsteps of our along the paths of peace, prosBu'rity and contentment, guided by the B'er living spirit of the constitution Bvbkh they framed for us, or shall we Bl“ along other and untried paths hlthBrto shunned by all, following blindly Blew ideals which, though appealing brilliancy to the imagination and may- prove a will-o'-the-wisp. Beading us into difficulties from which Bt may be impossible to extricate ourBelves without lasting injury to our character and institutions? Tariff and Trusts. B Tariff reform is one of the cardinal Bn inciples of the Democratic faith, and Bite necessity for it was never greater Bl.an at the present time. It should be Bmdertaken at once in the interest of Bl I our people. B The Dingley tariff is excessive in of its rates and, as to them at Beast, unjustly and oppressively bur-Bb-ns the people. It secures to domesmanufacturers, singly or in combithe privilege of exacting exprices at home and prices far the level of sales made regular- ■? by them abroad with profit, thus a bounty to foreigners at the of our own people. It levies B>ppressive and unjust taxes upon Bnany articles forming in whole or part so called raw material of many Bf our manufactured products, not onBy burdening the consumer, but also to the manufacturer the marhe needs and seeks abroad. Its Bjnj'Jst taxation burdens the people forcing them to pay excessprices for food, fuel, clothing and |Bther necessaries of life. It levies duB>es on many articles not normally imin any considerable amount are made extensively at home, Bor which the most extreme protecBionist would hardly justify protective Boxes, and which in large amounts are Such duties have been and continue to be a direct incentive the formation of huge industrial which, secure from forcompetition, are enabled to stifle competition and practically ■° monopolize the home market. I It contains many duties imposed for

the express purpose only, as was openly avowed, of furnishing a basis for reduction by means of reciprocal trade smatT' WhiC ? the Repubbcan adminRation impliedly at least, promised to negotiate. Having on this promise secured the increased duties, the Republican party leaders, spurred on by protected interests. defeated the treaties negotiated by the executive and now these same interests cling tc ' the benefit of these duties which the people never intended they should hav< and to which they have no moral right, I Even now the argument most fre fluently urged in behalf of the Dingier' tariff and against tariff reform general- i ly is the necessity of earing for our infant industries. Many of these industties after a hundred years of lusty growth are looming up as industrial ' giants. In their case at least the Dingley tariff invites combination and monopoly and gives justification to the expression that the tariff is the mother of trusts. For the above mentioned reasons, among many others, the people demand reform of these abuses, and such reform demands and should receive immediate attention. The two leading parties have always differed as to the principle of customs taxation. Our party has always advanced the theory that the object is the raising of revenue for support of the government whatever other results may incidentally flow therefrom. The Republican party, on the other hand, contends that customs duties should be levied primarily for protection, so called, with revenue as the subordinate purpose, thus using the power of taxation to build up the business and property of the few at the expense of the many. This difference of principle still subsists. but our party appreciates that the long continued polity of the country, as manifested in its statutes, makes it necessary that tariff reform should be prudently and sagaciously undertaken on scientific principles, to the end that there should not be an immediate revolution in existing conditions. In the words of our platform we demand “a revision and a gradual reduction of the tariff by the friends of the masses, and for the common weal, and not by the friends of its abuses, its extortions and discriminations,” It is true that the Republicans, who do not admit in their platform that the Dingley tariff needs the slightest alteration, are likely to retain a majority of the federal senate throughout the next presidential term and could, therefore, if they chose, block every attempt at legislative relief. But it should be remembered that the Republican party includes many revisionists, and I believe it will shrink from defying the popular will expressed unmistakably and peremptorily at the ballot box. The people demand reform of existing conditions. Since the last Democratic administration the cost of living has grievously increased. Those having fixed Incomes have suffered keenly; those living on wages, if there has been any increase, know that such increase has not kept pace with the advance in the cost of living, including rent and the necessaries of life. Many today are out of work, unable to secure any wages at all. To alleviate these conditions in so far as is in our power should be our earnest endeavor. Trust Remedies. I pointed out in my earlier response the remedy which, in my judgment, can effectually be applied against monopolies, and the assurance was then given that if existing laws, including both statute and common law, proved inadequate, contrary to my expectations. I favor such further legislation within constitutional limitations as will best promote and safeguard the interests of all the people. Whether there is any common law which can be applied and enforced by the federal courts cannot be determin ed by the president or by a candidate for the presidency. The determination of this question was left by the people in framing the constitution to the judiciary and not to the executive. -The supreme court of the United States lias recently considered this question, and, in the case of the Western Union Telegraph company versus the Call Publishing company, to be found in the one hundred and eighty-first volume of the United States supreme court reports, at page 92, it decided that common law principles could be applied by United States courts in cases involving interstate commerce in the absence of United States statutes specifically covering the case. Such is the law of the land. Reciprocity. In my address to the notification committee I said that tariff reform “Is demanded by the best interests of both manufacturer and consumer. With equal truth it can be said that the benefits of reciprocal trade treaties would enure to both. That the consumer would be helped is unquestionable. That the manufacturer would receive great benefit by extending his markets abroad hardly needs demon stration. His productive capacity has outgrown the home Market. The very term “home market” has changed in Its significance. Once, from the manufacturers’ point of view, it meant expansion; today the marvelous growth of our manufacturing industries has far exceeded the consumptive capacity of our domestic markets, and the term “home market" implies contraction rather than expansion. If we would run our mills to their full capacity, thus giving steady employment to our wersmen and securing to them and to the manufacturer the profits accruing from increased production, other markets must be found. Furthermore, whe n our manufacturers are dependent ">> raw materials in whole or part tap.,W. It ■< vK«I to of their markets abroad that tW se-

cure their materials on the most favorable terms. Our martyred president, William McKinley, appreciated this situation. He pointed out In his last address to the people that we must make sensible trade arrangements if “we shall extend the outlets for our increasing surplus.” He said: “A system which provides a mutual exchange of commodities is manifestly essential to the continued and healthful growth of our export trade. * ♦ * The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and 1 friendly relations will prevent reprisals. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times; measures of retaliation are not.” 1 This argument was made in the interest of our manufacturers, whose products, ha urged, “have so multiplied that the problem of more markets requires our urgent and immediate attention.” He had come to realize that the so called stand pat policy must give way; that there must be a reduction of duties to enable our manufacturers to cultivate foreign markets. • The last words of this president, who had won the affection of his country-1 men, ought to be studied by every man ' who has any doubt of the necessity of a reduction in tariff rates in the interest of the manufacturer. They present with clearness a situation and a proposed remedy that prompted the provision in our platform which declares, that “we favor liberal trade arrange-1 ments with Canada and with peoples ! of other countries where they can be 1 entered into with benefit to American agriculture, manufactures, mining or commerce.” The persistent refusal of the Republican majority in the federal senate to ratify the reciprocity treaties negotiated in pursuance of the policy advocated alike by Mr. Blaine and Mr. McKinley, and expressly sanctioned in tlie Dingley act itself, is a discouraging exhibition of bad faith. As already mentioned by me, the exorbitant duty imposed on many an imported article by the Dingley tariff was avowedly intended by its author not to be permanent, but to serve temporarily as a maximum, from which the federal government was empowered to offer a reduction in return for an equivalent concession on the part of a foreign country. President McKinley undertook honestly to carry out the purpose of the act. A number of reciprocity agreements were negotiated, which, if ratified, would have had the twofold result of cheapening many imported products for American consumers and of opening and enlarging foreign markets to American producers. Not one of those agreements has met with the approval of the Republican masters of the senate. Indeed they did not even permit their consideration. In view of the attitude of the present executive. no new agreement need be expected from him. Nor does the Republican platform contain a favorable reference to one of the suspended treaties. The reciprocity clauses of the Dingley act seem destined to remain a monument of legislative cozenage and political bad faith unless the people take the matter in their own hands at the ballot box and command a reduction of duties in return for reciprocal concessions. Independence For the Filipinos.

In some quarters it has been assuni- j ed that in the discussion of the Philippine question in my response the phrase "self government” was Intend-: ed to mean something less than inde- j pendence. It was not intended that it should be understood to mean nor do I think as used it does mean less than independence. However, to eliminate all possibility for conjecture I now state that I am In hearty accord with that plank in our platform that favors doing for the Filipinos what we have already done for the Cubans, and I ; favor making the promise to them now i that we shall take such action as soon I as they are reasonably prepared for it. 1 If independence such as the Cubans enjoy cannot be prudently granted to the Filipinos at this time, the promise that it shall come the moment they j are capable of receiving it will tend to stimulate rather than hinder their development. And this should be done: not only in Justice to the Filipinos, but to preserve our own rights, for a free people cannot withhold freedom from another people and themselves remain i free. The toleration of tyranny over i others will soon breedcontempt for freedom and seif government and weaken I our power of resistance to insidious usurpation of our constitutional rights. American Citizenship. The pledge of the platform to secure to our citizens, without distinction of race or creed, whether native born or naturalized, at home and abroad, the equal protection of the laws and the enjovment of all the rights and prit ileges open to them under the covenants of our treaties, as their just due, should be made good to them. In the accomplishment of that result it is essential that a passport issued by the government of the United States to an American citizen shall be accepted the wmrld over as proof of citizenship. Civil Service. The statute relating to civil service is the outcome of the efforts of thoughtful. unselfish and public spirited citizens. Operation under ft has frequently been of such a character as to offend against the spirit of the statute, but the results achieved, even under a partial enforcement of the law. have been such as to both deserve and command the utterance of the Democratic partv that it stands committed to the principle of civil service reform and demands its just and impartial enforcement. Reclamation of Arid Lands. A vast expanse of country in the west, portions of which are to be found *

In each of the sixteen states and territories, mentioned in the law. is directly affected by the national statute—the outcome of intelligent mid persistent efforts of leading citizens, providing for the reclamation of the arid lands for the benefit of home seekers. During tlie years of the development of the measure which finally received tlie vote of every member of the upper house of congress it encountered opposition, based to a large extent upon the view that the aim of its promoters was to secure tlie benefits of irrigation to private owners at government expense. The aim of the statute is. however, to enable this vast territory to reclaim its arid lands without calling upon the taxpayers of tlie country at large to pay for it. Whether the purposes of the bill will be fully accomplished must depend in large measure upon the ability. sobriety of judgment, independence and honesty of the officers of the interior department having this great work in charge. In 1902 the main canals and ditches in the region affected aggregated more than 59.000 miles, and the work of reclamation is but in its infancy. Tlie total cost of construction of the necessary head gates, dams, main canals, ditches, reservoirs and pumping stations was at that time a little over $93,000,000, which of itself suggests the hundreds of millions that may eventually be invested in the territory covered by the statute. The magnitude of the conception and the enormous expense its carrying out involves I make us realize the overwhelming importance of a broad, capable and honest administration of the work authorized by the statute if effect is to be given to that part of the plan that relieves the country at large from ultimate ability.

Panama Canal. Au isthmian canal has long been the hope of our statesmen and the avowed aim of the two great parties, as their platforms in the past show. The Panama route having been selected, the building of the canal should be pressed to completion with all reasonable expedition. The methods by which the executive acquired the Panama canal route and rights are a source of regret to many. To them the statement that thereby a great public work was assured to the profit of our people is not a sufficient answer to the charge of violation of national good faith. They appreciate that the principles and healthy convictions which in their working out have made us free and great stand firmly against the argument or suggestion ' that we shall be blind to tlie nature l of the means employed to promote our I welfare. They hold that adherence to principle, whether it works for our good or ill, will have a more benefl cent influence on our future destiny than all our material upbuilding, and that we should ever remember that the idea of doing a wrong to a smaller. weaker nation that we, or even all mankind, may have a resultant good is repugant to the principles upon which our government was founded. | Under the laws of the United States the duty is imposed on the executive ' to proceed with due diligence in the i work of constructing the canal. That duty should be promptly performed. American Shipping. Our commerce in American bottoms amounts to but 8 per cent of our total exports and Imports. For seventy years prior to 1860, when the Repub- | lican party came into power, our merchant marine carried an average of i 75 per cent of our foreign commerce. I By 1877 it had dwindled to 27 per cent. | Now we carry but a contemptibly ; small fraction of our exports and imports. American shipping in the foreign trade was greater by over 100,000 tons in 1810, nearly 100 years ago, than it was last year. In the face of the con- , tlnuous decline in the record of AmerI ican shipping during the last fortyI three years the promise of the Repub- : lican party to restore it is without encouragement. The record of the Democratic party gives assurance that the task can be more wisely intrusted to it. I It is an arduous task to undo the effect of forty years of decadence and requires the study and investigation of those best fitted by experience to find the remedy, which surely does not lie In the granting of subsidies wrung from the pockets of all the taxpayers. Investigation of Government DepartI ments. j Recent disclosures, coupled with the rapid augmentation of government expenditures, show a need of an investiI gat ion of every department of the govI ernment. The Democrats in congress demanded it. The Republican majority refused the demand. The people can determine by their vote in November whether they wish an honest and thorough investigation. A Demo cratic congress and executive will assure it. Army and Navy. We are justly proud of the officers and men of our army and navy. Both, however, have suffered from the persistent Injection of personal and political influence. Promotions and appointments have been frequently based on favoritism instead of merit. Trials and court martials have been set aside under circumstances indicating political interference. These and other abuses should be corrected. Pensions For Our Soldiers and Sailors. The national Democracy favors liberal pensions to the surviving soldiers and sailors and their dependents on the ground that they deserve liberal treatment. It pledges by its platform adequate legislation to that end. But it denies the right of the executive to usurp the power of congress to legislate on that subject. Such usurpation was attempted by pension order No 78. and effect has been given to it by a congress that dared not resent the

usurpation. It is said that “this order was made in the performance of a duty imposed upon the president by act of congress,” but the provision making the imposition is not pollited out. The act to which the order refers, which is the one relating to pensions to civil war veterans, does not authorize pensions on the ground of age. It does grant pensions to those “suffering from any mental or physical disability or disabilities of a permanent character, not the result of their own vicious habits, which so incapacitates them from the performance of manual labor as to render them unable to earn a support.” This specified requirement of incapacity is in effect set aside by order No. 78 as to all persons over sixty-two. The war closed nearly forty years ago. In the meantime many of our soldiers and sailors long survived the age of sixty-two and passed away without receiving any pension. Skillful pension attorneys, hunting through the statute, failed to find there a provision giving a pension to all who had reached sixty-two. Many prominent veterans urged the justice of congressional action giving a service pension to ail veterans. Bills to that effect were introduced in congress. And not until March of this year did any one ever claim to have made the discovery that the president had power to treat the statute as if it read that when a claimant had passed the age of sixtytwo years he is necessarily disabled one-half in ability to perform manual labor and therefore entitled to a pension. The present pension commissioner indicated his view of the order when in a recent address he thanked the president for what he had done and advised his hearers to use their Influence that a law might be passed to the same effect. Full confidence, after all, seems not to have been placed on the defense of justification, for it is pleaded in mitigation that a former Democratic president did something looking in that direction. Even If that were so, which is not admitted, our present duty would be none the less plain and imperative. Our people must never tolerate the citation of one act of usurpation of power as an excuse for another. The first may possibly be due to mistake; the second, being based on the first, cannot be. In explanation, however, it should be said that the order relied on simply provided that the age of seventy five years should be regarded as evidence of inability to perform manual labor. Few men are able to perform manual labor at that age, but nearly all men are at sixty-two. The first order is based on a fact that experience teaches; the other is based on the assertion of that which Is not true as a general rule. The old inquiry. “What are yon going to do about ft?” is now stated in a new form. It is said by the administration, in reply to the public criticism of this order, that “it is easy to test our opponents’ sincerity in this matter. The order in question is revocable at the pleasure of the executive. If our opponents come into power they can revoke this order and announce that they will treat the veterans of sixty-two and seventy as presumably iu full bodily vigor and not entitled to pension. Will they authoritatively state that they intend to do this? If so, we accept the issue.”

This suggests the suspicion at least that the order was made to create an issue; that it was supposed to present a strong strategic position In the battle of the ballots. But as the making of that order was, in my judgment, an attempted though perhaps unwittingencroachment upon the legislative pow’er and therefore unwarranted by the con stltution, the challenge is accepted. If elected I will revoke that order. But I go further and say that, that being done, I will contribute my effort toward the enactment of a law to be passed by both houses of congress and approved by the executive that will give an age pension without reference to disability to the surviving heroes of the civil war and under the provisions of which a pension may be accepted with dignity because of the consciousness that it comes as a just due from the people through their chosen representatives and not as largess distributed by tlie chief executive.

Forsign Relations. The foreign relations of the government have in late years assumed special importance. Prior to the acquisition of the Philippines we were practically invulnerable against attacks by foreign states. Those tropical possessions, however, 7,000 miles from our shores, have changed all this and have in effect put us under bonds to keep the peace. The new conditions call for a management of foreign affairs the more circumspect in that the recent American invasion of foreign markets in all parts of the world has excited the serious apprehension of all the great Industrial peoples. It Is essential, therefore, more than ever to adhere strictly to the traditional policy of the country as formulated by its first president and never. In my judgment, wisely departed from—to invite friendly relations with all nations while avoiding entangling alliances with any. Such a. policy means the cultivation of peace instead of the glorification of war. and the minding of our own business In lieu ot spectacular intermeddling with the affairs of other nations. It means strict observance of the principles of International law and condemns the doctrine that a great state, by reason of its strength, may rightfully appropriate the sovereignty or territory ot a small state on account ot its weakness. It means for other American states that we claim no rights and will assume no functions save those ot a friend and ot an ally and defender as against European aggressions. It means that we repudiate the role ot the American continental policeman. that we refuse to act as debt collector for foreign states or their citizens. that we respect the independent sovereignty of each American state and its right to preserve order and otherwise regulate Its owp internal affairs In its own way. and that any intervention In it*

affairs by us Is limited to the single office of enabling its people to work out their own political and national destiny for themselves free from the o®ercion of any European state. Raform In Governmental Expenditures. Twenty-eight years have passed since the Democratic party of the state of New York in convention assembled recomm< nded to ths national Democracy the nomination of Samuel J. Tilden as Its candidate for the presidency and declared it to be “their settled conviction that a return to the constitutional principles, frugal expenses and administrative purity of the founders of the republic is the first and most imperious duty of tlie times—the commanding Issue now before the people of the Union.” This strong expression was called forth by the national expenditures for the year lx<o, which amounted to $274,000,090—a situation which, in the opinion of a majority of our people. justified an imperative demand for reform in the administration of public affairs. As the expenditures of the last fiscal year amounted to the enormous total of $582,000,000, it Is evident that a. thorough investigation of tlie public service and the immediate abandonment of useless and extravagant expenditures aro more necessary now than they were then. This astounding increase is out of all proportion to the Increase of our population and finds no excuse from whatever aspect we view the situation. The national Democratic platform declares that “large reductions can easily be made in the annual expenditures of the government without impairing the efficiency of any branch of the public service.” Can there be any doubt of the accuracy of this statement? Between the expenditures of the year 1886, amounting to $242.000.000. and those of the last fiscal year—the seventh after Grover Cleveland ceased to be president—aggregating $582,000,000, there is a difference so great as to excite alarm In the breasts of all thoughtful men. Even excluding the sum of $50,000,000 paid for the Panama canal rights and to the state of Panama, the expenditures of the last fiscal year exceeded the sum of $532,000,000. being more than double the expenditures of the government for all purposes during the first year of Mr. Cleveland's administration. The expenses of the first four years succeeding the last Democratic administration amounted to the enormous average of $511,000,000 per year. This large expenditure was due to a considerable extent to the cost of the Spanish-American war. which occurred during that period. But the termination of that war brought no relief to the treasury, for the average annual expenses of the government during the thee subsequent years ending June 30. 1904. were about $519,000,000. which is the largest sum hitherto reached during a like period since the close of the civil war. This draft upon the revenues of the country has had the effect which might have been anticipated, and now w-e have presented the reverse of the situation, which led to the famous observation, “It is a condition and not a theory which confronts us.” for. although the present Incumbent found at the close of the first fiscal year during which he assumed control of the administration a surplus of receipts over expenditures of more than $91,000,000, there was an excess of expenditures over receipts at the close of the last sis-ii year of $42,000,000. and the official monthly reports made by the treasury department show that the expenditures are continuously and rapidly increasing, while the receipts are diminishing. In this connection It is Interesting to note the recent administrative orders forbidding government officers from making public any statement of estimates on which future appropriations are to be based. If a man of ordinary intelligence and prudence should find In the operating expenses of his business such a tremendous percentage of Increase, would he not promptly set on foot an Inquiry for the cause of the waste and. take immediate measures to stop it. especially when trusted employees have been found dishonest and convicted and a widespread impression exists that a thorough investigation may discover other cases of malfeasance? When the chief executive reported to congress that “through frauds, forgeries and perjuries and by shameless briberies the laws relating to the proper conduct of the public service in generat and to the due administration of the postoffice department have been notoriously violated • • • " there was a general popular demand for a rigid, sweeping Investigation by congress In addition to that undertaken by the executive himself. Such an investigation the Republican majority In congress would not permit, although the minority insisted that the interests of good government demanded it. And the minority was right. The liberality, patriotism and national pride of the people should not be made an excuse for waste of the public funds. Official extravagance Is official crime. There is not a sentence in the Republican platform recommending a reduction In the expenditures of the government, not a line suggesting that the Increase in the cost of the war department from $34. - 000,000 In 1886 to $115,000,000 in 1904 should be inquired Into, and not a paragraph calling for a thorough investigation of those departments of the government In which dishonesty has been recently disclosed. The people, however, can by their votes, if they desire It. order such an investigation and Inaugurate a policy of economy and retrenchment. It is safe to say that this will not be accomplished by indorsing at the polls the Republican majority of the house of representatives which refused the investigation and made the appropriations. nor by continuing in power the administration which made the disbursements. Reform in expenditures must be had in both the civil, military and naval establishments in order that the national expenditures may be brought to a basts of peace and the government maintained without recourse to the taxes of war. Conclusion. I have put aside a congenial work, to which I had expected to devote my life, In order to assume as best 1 can the responsibilities your convention put upon me I solicit the cordial co-operation and generous assistance of every man who believes that a change of measures and of men at this time would be wise, and urge harmony of endeavor as well as vigorous action on the part of all so minded. The Issues are Joined, and the people must render the verdict. Shall economy of administration be demanded or shall extravagance be encouraged? Shall the wrongdoer be brought to bay by the people, or must justice wait upon political oligarchy? Shall our government stand for equal opportunity or for special privilege? Shall it remain a government of law or become one of individual caprice? Shall we cling to the rule of the people, or shall we embrace beneficent despotism? With calmness and confidence we await the people’s verdict. If called to the office of president I shall consider myself the chief magistrate of all the people and not of any faction, and shall ever be mindful of the fact that on many questions of national policy there are honest differences of opinion I believe in the patriotism, good sense and absolute sincerity of all the people I shall strive to remember that he may serve his party best who serves his country best. If it be tne wish of the people that I undertake the duties of the presidency I pledge myself, with God's help, to devote all my powers and energy to the duties of this exalted office. Very truly yours, ALTON B PARKER.