Democratic Sentinel, Volume 20, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 August 1896 — BRYAN TO THE NATION. [ARTICLE]

BRYAN TO THE NATION.

Speech of the Democratic Candidate at Madison Square Garden, New York.

MU. CHAIRMAN, gentlemen of the committee and fellow citizens: I shall, at a future da; and In a formal letter, accept the nomination which Is now tendered by the Notification Committee, and I shall at that time touch upon the Issues presented by the platform. It Is fitting, however, that st this time. In the presence of those here assembled. I speak at some length In regard to the campaign upon which we are now entering. We do not underestimate the forces arrayed against us, neither are we unmindful of the Importance of the struggle in which we are engaged; hut, relying ror success upon the righteousness of our cause, we shall defend with all possible vigor the positions taken by our party. We are not surprised that some of our opponents. In the absence of better argument, resort to abusive epithets, but they may rest assured that no language, however violent, no Invectives, however vehement, will lead us to depart a single hair’s breadth from the course marked out by the National Convention. The citizen, either public or private, who assails the character and questions the patriotism of the delegates assembled In the Chicago convention, assails the character and questions the patriotism of the millions who nave arrayed themselves under the banners there raised. It has been charged by men standing high In business and political circles that onr platform Is a menace to private security and public safety; and It has been asserted that those whom I have the honor, for the time being, to represent, not only meditate an attack upon tho rights of property, but are the foes of social order and national honor. Those who stand upon the Chicago platform are prepared to make known and tp defend every motion which Influences them, every purpose whlclj animates them and every hope which inspires them. They understand the genius of our institutions; they are stanch supporrers of the form of government under which we live, and they build their faith upon foundations laid by the fathers. Andrew Jackson has stated with admirable clearness an§ with an emphasis which cannot be surpassed both the duty and the sphere ot government. He said: “Distinctions jo society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education or of wealth cannot be produced by human iustltutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of heaven and the fruits of superior Industry, economy and virtue, every man Is equally entitled to protection by law.” We yield to none In our devotion to the doctrine Just enunciated. Object of the Campaign. Our campaign has not for Its object the reeontructlon of society. We do not propose to transfer the rewards of Industry to the lap of indolence. Property is aud will remain the stimulus to endeavor and .the compensation for toll. We believe, as asserted In the declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal; but that does not mean that all men are or can be equal lu possessions, In ability or In merit. It simply means that all shall stand equal before the iaw, and that Government officials shall not, In making, construing or enforcing the law, discriminate between citizens. I assert that property rights, as Well as the rights of persons, are safe in the haads of the common people. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which power, If surrendered, will surely be used to close the doors of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost. We are not surprised to find arrayed against ns those who are the beneficiaries of Government favoritism—they have read onr platform. Nor are we surprised to learn that we must In this campaign face the hostility of those who find a pecuniary advantage In advocating the doctrine of noninterference when great aggregations of wealth are trespassing upon the rights of Individuals. We welcome such opposition— It Is the highest Indorsement which could be bestowed upon us. We are content to have the eo-operation of those who desire to have the government administered without fear or favor. It Is not the wish of the general public that trusts should spring Into existence and override the weaker members of society; it Is not the wish of the general public that these trusts should destroy competition and then collect such tax as they will from those who are at their mercy; nor Is It the fault of the general public that the Instrumentalities of government have been so often prostituted to purposes of private gain. Those who stand upon the Chicago platform believe that • the Govern iqent should not only avoid wrong-doing, hot that It should also prevent wrong-doing; and they believe that the law should be enforced alike against all enemies of the public weal. It follows as it necessary conclusion that vicious legislation must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of such legislation and not by those who enjoy Its benefits.

The Income Tax Law. The Chicago platform has been condemned by gome because it dissents from an opinion given by the Supreme Court declaring the income-tax law unconstitutional. Our critics even go so far as to apply the name “anarchist” to those who stand upon that plank of the platform. It must be remembered that we expressly recognize the binding force of that decision so long as it stands as a part of the law of the land. There is in the platform no suggestion of an attempt to dispute the authority of the Supreme Court. The party is simply pledged to use “all the constitutional power which remains after that decision, or which may come from its reversal by the court as it may hereafter be constituted.” Is there auy disloyalty in that pledge? For a hundred years the Supreme Court of the United States has sustained the principle which underlies the Inoome tax. I shall ofTer no apology for the income-tax fdank of the Chicago platform. The last ncome-tax law sought to apportion the burdens of government more equitably among those who enjoy the protection of'the government. At present the expenses of the Federal Government, collected through internal revenue taxes and Import duties, are especially burdensome upon the poor classes of society. A law which collects from some citizens more than their share of {he taxes and follecfs from other citizens less than iiejr share ig simply an Indirect means of transferring She man’s property to another man’s pocket, and while the process may be quite satisfactory to the men who escape Just taxation it can never be satisfactory to those who are overburdened. Not only shall I refuse to apologize for the advocacy of an income tax law by the National Convention, but I shall also refuse to apologize for the exercise by it of the right to dissent from a decision of the Supreme Court. In a government like ours every public official is a public servant, whether he holds office by election or by appointment, whether he serves for a term of years or during good liehovor, and the people have a right to criticise his official acts. to. •» The Money Problem. The paramount issue in this campaign is the money question. It is scarcelv necessary to defend the principle of bimetallism. No national party during the entire history of the United States has ever declared against It, and no party In this campaign has had Ahe temerity to oppofie it. Three parties—the Democratic, Populist, and Silver, Tutt-e not only declared for bimetallism, but have outlined the specific legislation necessary to restore silver to Its ancient position by the side of gold. The Republican platform expressly declares that bimetallism is desirable when it pledges the Republican party to aid in securing it as soon as the assistance of Certain foreign nations can be obtained. When they asserted that the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed toward the establishment of international bimetallism they condemned monometallism. There can be no sympathy or co-operation between the advocates of a universal gold standard and the advocates of bimetallism. Between bimetallism—whether independent or International—and the gold standard there Is an impassable gulf. Is this quadrennial agitation in favor of international bimetallism conducted iu good faith, or do our opponents really desire to maintain the gold standard permanently? If they are bending their energies toward the permanent establishment of a gold standard, under cover of a declaration In favor of international bimetallism, I am justified in suggesting that honest money cannot be expected at the hands of those who deal dishonestly with the American people. What Is the test of honesty in money? It must certainly be found In the purchasing power of the dollar. An absolutely honest dollar would not vary in Its general purchasing power; it would be absolutely stable when measured by average prices. A dollar which Increases in purchasing power is Just as dishonest as a dollar which decreases In purchasing power. It cannot be successfully claimed that monometallism or bimetallism, »r any other system, gives an absolutely Just Standard of value. Under both monometallism and bimetallism the Government fixes the weight and fineness of the dollar. Invests It with legal tender qualities, and then opens the mints to its unrestricted coinage, leaving the purchasing power of the dollar to be determined by the number of dollars. Bimetallism is better than monometallism, not because it gives 11s a perfect dollar—that Is, a dollar absolutely unvarying in its general purchasing power—but because It makes a nearer approach to stability, to honesty, to Justice, than a gold standard possibly can. Any legislation which lessens the world’s stock of standard money increases the exchangeable value of the dollar;

therefore the crusade against sliver must Inevitably raise the purchasing power of money aud lower the money value of all other forms of property. Farmers Opposed to Gold. Our opponents sometimes admit that It was a mistake to demonetize silver, but Insist that we should submit to present conditions rather than return to the bimetallic avatem. They err In supposing that we have reached the end of the evil results of a gold standardise have not reached the end. So long as the scramble for gold continues prices must fall, and a general fall In prices is but another definition of hard times. The farmal? opposed to the gold standard because they have felt Its effects. Since they sell at wholesale ahd buy at retail they have lost more than they have gained by falling prices, and, besides this, they have found that certain fixed charges have not fallen at all. raxes have not Deen perceptibly decreased, although It requires more of farm products now than formerly to secure the money with which to pay Uses. Debts have not fallen. The farmer who owed SI,OOO Is still compelled to pay SI,OOO, although It may 1 ? as difficult as formerly to obtain the dollar with which to pay the debt. The wage-earners have been Injured by a gold standard, and have expressed themselves upon the subject with great emphasis. In February, 1805, a petition asking for the Immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to 1 was signed by the representatives of all, or nearly all, the leading labor organizations and presented to Congress. The farmers and wage-earners together constitute a considerable majority of the people of the country. Why should their Interests be Ignored in considering financial legislation? Our opponents have made a special appeal to those who hold .Ire and life Insurance policies, but these policy-holders know that siuce the total premluit.s received exceed the total losses paid a rising standard must be of more benefit to the companies than to the policy-holders. Much solicitude has been expressed by our opponents for the depositors In savings banks, but these appeals will be lu vain, because savings banks depositors know that under a gold standard there Is Increasing danger that they will lose their deposits beeauje of the Inability of the banks to collect their assets, and they .still further know that If the gold standard Is to continue Indefinitely they may be compelled to withdraw their deposits lu order to pay living expense^. It Is only npv'esasry to note the Increasing number of failures In order to know that a gold standard is ruinous to merchants and manufacturers. These business men do not make their profits from the peopie from whom they borrow money, but from the people to whom they sell their goods. If the people cannot buy, retailers cannot sell, and, If the yetqllers cannot sell, wholesale merchants apd must go Into bankruptcy. Salaries In business occupations depend upon business conditions, and the gold standard both lessens the amount and threatens the permanency of such salaries. The profession* 1 classes, in the main, receive their support from the producing classes, and can only enjoy prosperity when there Is prosperity among those who create wealth. Its Effect Upon All Classes,

I have not attempted to describe the effect of the gold standard upon all classes—in fact, I have only had time to mention a few — but each person will be able to apply the principles according to his own occupation. It must also be remembered that It Is the desire of people generally to convert their earnings In!o real or personal property. This being true, In considering any temporary advantage which may come from a system under which the dollar rises In Its purchasing power, It must uot be forgotten that the dollar cannot buy more than formerly unless property sells for less than formerly, nence, It will be seen that a large portion of those who may find some pecuniary advantage In a gold standard will discover that their losses exceed their gains. Jefferson has said that one of the main duties of government Is to prevent men from Injuring onn another, anu never was that duty more tmporiaut than It Is to-day. It Is not strange that those who have made a profit by furnishing gold to the Government In the hour of its extremity favor a financial policy which will keep the Government dependent upon them. Is ft strange that the “holders of Investments which yield a fixed return In money” can regard the destruction of silver with complacency? We may not expect the holders of other forms of property to protest against giving to money n "disproportionate and unfair advantage over every other species of property.” If the relatively few whose wealth consists largely In fixed lnyestmentq have a right to use the ballot to enhance the valuS Of their liiYestnttjhtß, have not the rest of the people the rignt to use the ballot to protect themselves from the disastrous consequences of a rlßtng standard? The people who must purchase money with the products of toil stand In a position entirely different from the position ■ of those who own money or receive a fixed income. The well-being of the nation—ay, of civilization Itself—depends upon the prosperity of the masses. What shall It profit us to have a dollar which grows more valuable every day If such a dollar lowers the standard of civilization and brings distress to the people? What shall It profit us If trying to raise our credit by Increasing the purchasing power of our dollar we destroy our ability to pay the debts already contracted by lowering the purchasing power of the products with which these debts must be paid? If It Is asserted, as It constantly is assertesjt that thegold standard will enable us to borrow more money from abroad, I reply thatthe restoration of bimetallism will restore the parity between money and property, and thus permit an era of prosperity which will enable the American people to become loaners of money instead of perpetual borrowers. Even if we desire to borrow, how long can we continue borrowing under a system which, by lowering the value of property, weakens the foundation upon which credit rests. If the holders of fixed Investments will not listen to arguments based upon justice and equity I appeal to them to consider the Interests of posterity. Not a New Experiment. As against the maintenance of a gold standard, either permanently or until other nations can be united for Its overthrow, the Chicago platform presents a clear and emphatic demaud for the immediate restorai tlon of free and unlimited coinage of sliver and gold at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We are not asking that a new experiment be tried; we are Insisting upon a return to a financial policy approved by the experience of history and supported by all the prominent statesmen of our nation from the days of the first President down to 1873. When we ask that our mints be opened to the free and unlimited coinage of silver Into full legal tender money, we are slmpiy asking that the same mint privileges be accorded to silver that are flow accorded to gold. When we ask that this coinage be at the ratio of 16 to 1, we simply psk that our gold coins aud the standard silver which, be It remembered, contains the same amoflht of pure silver as the first silver dol-lai-mlcci at.oiir faints—retain their present weight auu nueiioSJT' The theoretical advantage of the bimetallic system Is best stated by a European writer on political economy, who suggests the following Illustration: A river fed from two sources Is more uniform in volume than a river fed from one source, the reason being that when one of the feeders la swollen the other may be low; whereas, a river which has but one feeder must rise or fall with that feeder. So, In the case of bimetallism; the volume of metallic money receives contributions from both the gold mines and the silver mines, and, therefore, varies less, and the dollar resting upon the two metals Is less changeable In Its purchasing power than the dollar which rests on one metal only. If there are two kinds of money the option must rest either with the debtor or with the creditor. Assuming that their rights arc equal, we must look at the Interests of society In general In order to determine tc, which side the option should be given. So clety Is Interested In having the option, exercised by the debtor. Indeed, there cap be no such thing as real bimetallism unless the option Is exercised by the debtor. The exercise of the option by the debtor compels the creditor classes, whether domestic or foreign, to exert themselves to maintain the parity between gold and silver nt the legal ratio, whereas they might find a profit in driving one of tlie metaU to a premium If they could then demand the dearer metal. Rights of the Debtor. The right of the debtor to choose the coin in which payment shall be made extends to obligations due from the Government, as well as to contracts between individuals. A Government obligation Is simply a debt due from all the people to one of the people, aud It Is Impossible to Justify a policy which makes the Interests of the one person who holds the obligation superior to the rights of the many who must be taxdd to pay It. When, prior to 1873, silver was at a premium, It was never contended that national honor required the payment of Government obligations In silver, aud the Matthews resolution, adopted by Congress In 1878, expressly asserted the right of the United States to redeem coin obligations In standard stiver dollars, as well as In gold eoln. Upon this subject the Chicago platform reads: “We are opposed to the policy and practice of surrendering to the holders of the ob-

ligations of the United States the option reserved by law to the Government of redeeming such obligations In either silver or gold cola.” We are told that any attempt upon the part of the Government to redeem Its obligations dn silver would put a premium upon gold, but why should It? The Bank of France exercises the right to redeem all bank paper In either gold or sliver, and yet France maintains the parity between gold and silver at the ratio of 15V4 to 1, and retains In circulation more silver per capita than we do In the United States. It may be further answered that our opponents have suggested no feasible plan for avoiding the dangers which they fear. The retirement of the greenbacks and treasury notes wouljl not protect the treasury, because the same policy which now leads the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem all Government paper In gold, when gold Is demanded, will require the redemption of all silver dollars and silver certificates In gold. If the greenbacks and treasury notes are withdrawn from circulation. More than this. If the Government should retire Its paper and throw upon the banks the necessity of furnishing coin redemption, tbe banks would exercise the right to furnish either gold or silver. In other words, they would exercise the option, Jnst ns the Government ought to exercise It now. Tbe Government must either exercise the right to redeem lta obligations In silver when silver la more convenient or it must retire ail the sliver and silver certificates from circulation and leave nothing but gold aa legal tender money. Are our opponents willing to ontline a financial system which will carry out their policy to Its legitimate conclusion, or will they continue to cloak their designs In ambiguous phrases?

Neceaeity for Bimetallism. There Is an actual necessity for bimetallism. During the last twenty-three years legislation has been creating an additional demand for gold, and this law-created demand has resulted In Increasing the purchasing power of each ounce of gold. The restoration of bimetallism In tbe United States will take away from gold Just so much of Its purchasing power as was added to It by the demonetization of silver by the United States. The sliver dollar Is now held up to the gold dollar by legal tender laws and not by redemption lu gold. We contend that free and unlimited coinage by the United States alone will raise the bullion value of silver to Its coinage value, and thus make silver bullion worth $1.20 per ounce In gold throughout the world. The best-known law of commerce Is the law of supply and demand. A reduction In the volume of money will raise the purchasing power of the dollar; a new demand for silver created by law will raise the price of silver bullion. International bimetallists must rest their opposition upon one ground only—namely: That the supply of silver available for coinage Is too large to be utilize! by tbe United States. Will Be No Fifty-Cent Dollars. rerhr.ps the most persistent misrepresentation that we have to meet Is the charge that we are advocating the payment of debts In 50-ceut dollars. Under present laws, a silver dollar, when melted, loses nearly half its value, but that will not be true when we establish l mint prise tor silver and leave no surplus silver to drag down the price of bullion. Under bimetallism silver bullion will be worth as much as silver coin. Just as gold bullion Is now worth ns much as gold coin, and we believe that a silver dollar will be worth as much ns a gold dollar. The charge of repudiation comes with poor grace from those who are seeking to add to the weight of existing debts by legislation which, makes money dearer, and who conceal their designs against the general welfare under the euphonious pretense that they are upholding public credit and uatlonal honor. In answer to the charge that gold will go nbroad, It must be remembered that no gold can leave this country until the owner of the gild receives something In return for It, which we would rather have. In other words, when gold leaves the country those who formerly owned It will be benefited. There Uno process by which we can be compelled to part with our gold agnlust our will, nor \p there any process by which silver ban be forced upon us without our consent. Th* one thing necessary In order to maintain the parity Is to furnish a demand great §nough to utilize all the silver which will ceme to the mints. That Mexico has failed to do this Is no proof that the United StaUs would also fall. It Is often objected that the prices of gold and silver capuot be fixed In relation to each other because of the variation In the relative production of the metals. This argument also overlooks tbe fnct that if the demand for both nvtals at a fixed price Is greater than the supply of both, relative production becomes immaterial. If, as Is asserted by our opponents, the free coinage of silver Is intended only for the benefit of the mineowners It must be remembered that free coinage capuot restore to the mine-owners any more than demonetization took awav. The restoration of silver will bring to tile people generally many times ns much advantage aa the mine-owners can obtain from It. While it Is not the purpose of free coinage to especially aid any particular class, yet those who believe that the restoration of sll’/ef Is needed by the whole people should no*, be deterred because an Incidental benefit will come to the mine-owner.

Projects for Change of Ratio. The argument that a silver dollar Is heavier than a gold dollar, and that, therefore, silver Is less convenient to carry In large quantities, is completely answered by the silver certificate, which Is as easily carried as tfce gold certificate. There are some who, while admitting the benefits of bimetallism, object to coinage at the present ratio. Those w'lo have advised a change In the ratio have usually suggested that the silver dollar b<* doubled. If this change were made It would necessitate the recolnage of 4,000,000.-000 of silver Into 2,000,000,000 of dollars. There would be an Immediate loss of $2,000 000,000, but this would be the least of the Injury. A shrinkage of one-half in the silver money of the world would mean a shrinkage of one-fourth in the total volume of metallic money. The people of the United States would be Injured by a change In the ratio, not because they produce silver, but because they own property and owe debts and they cannot afford to thus decrease the value of their property or increase the burden of their debts. Iu 1878 Mr. Carlisle said: “Mankind will be fortunate Indeed If the annual production of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the annual Increase of population and Industry.” A change in the ratio is not necessary. Hostile legislation lias decreased the demand for silver and lowered Its pylce, and, by Increasing the demand for gold, has raised the value of gold when measured by other forms of property. We ar® told that the restoration of bimetallism would be a hardship upon those who havj entered Into contracts payable In gold colt;, but this Is a mistake. It will be easier to obtain the gold with which to meet a gold contract, when most of the people can use Silver, than It Is now when every one Is trying to secure gold. The money which Is by law made a legal tender must in the course of ordinary business be accepted by ninety-nine out of every 100 persons. Why should the one hundredth man be permitted t« exempt himself from the general rule? Special contracts have a tendency to Increase the demand for a particular kind of money nnd thus force It to a premium. Have not the people a right to say that a comparatively few individuals shall not be permitted to derange the financial system of tne ustlon In order to collect a premium In case tjhey succeed In forcing one kind of money to a premium? Walt for No Other Nation. In conclusion permit me to say a word In regard tp international bimetallism. We are not opposed to an International agreement looking to tbe restoration of bimetallism thmpghout the world. The advocates of free coinage have on all occasions shown their wlplngness to co-operate with other nations la the reinstatement of silver, but they are not willing to await the pleasure of other governments when Immediate relief Is needed by the people of the United States. We shall not offend other nations when we declare the right of the American people to §overn themselves and, without let or hlnrance from without, decide upon every ?uestlon presented for their consideration. h taking this position we simply maintain the dlgr.ty of 70,000,000 citizens who are second u none In their capacity for selfgovernm*nt. The gold standard has compelled the American people to pay an ever increasing tribute to the creditor nations of the world—ft tribute which no one dares to defend. I assert that natioual honor requires tl;e United States to secure Justice for all Its citizens as well as do justice to all Its creditors. Honest differences of opinion have always existed and ever will exist as to the Ijglslatlon best calculated to promote the public weal; but when It Is seriously asserted that this nation must bow to the will of other nations and accept the policies which they insist upon, the right of selfgovermy.ent Is assailed, and until that question is jettled all other questions are Insignificant Citlzeps of New York: I have traveled from the center of the continent to the seaboard that I might. In the very beginning of* the campaign, bring you greeting from the people out West and South and assure you th*t their desire Is not to destroy but to build up. I ask, I expect, your co-opera-tlou. 'it is true that a few of your financiers would fashion a new figure—a figure representing Columbia, her hands bound fast with fetters of gold and her face turned toward the East, appealing for assistance to those who live beyond the sea—but this figure can never express your Idea of this nation. With a government which derives Its powers from the consent of the governed, Reeurcs to the people freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech; guarantees equal rights to all, and promises special privileges to none, the United States should be an example in all that Is good, and the leading spirit In every movement which has for ite object the uplifting of tbe human me*