Democratic Sentinel, Volume 20, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 September 1896 — M’KINLEY PRESENTS HIS LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE BARTINE TO M’KINLEY. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

M’KINLEY PRESENTS HIS LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

BARTINE TO M’KINLEY.

The Ex-Consreasman Writes a Letter Recalling Congressional History. Hon. Wm. McKinley, Canton, Ohio: Dear Sir—You are the Presidential candidate of the Republican party upon a platform unequivocally committing you to the policy of maintaining the gold standard In this country until bimetallism can be secured by International agreement. As neither you nor the party which you represent offers a suggestion upon which we can ground a hope of obtaining such an agreement, the financial plank of the platform upon which you stand must Unregarded as a declaration In favor of pern&petftly adhering to the present gold system. In your letter of acceptance you treat the money question as the foremost Issue, and discuss It at considerable length, giving to the present monetary policy of the Republican party your unqualified indorsement. It Is scarcely necessary for me to remind you that by such course you have assumed a position quite different from the one you occupied but a comparatively short time ago. That ve.ry able men may and do honestly change their opinions upon questions of wisdom and expediency, no fair-minded person will deny; that when they do so change their opinions. It Is both their privilege and their duty to shape their actions accordingly is beyond all controversy. But where the subject involves moral considerations, where It Is simply a question of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, the same principle cannot apply and the same latitude of change cannot be allowed. It is this distinction that has prompted me to address you through the medium of an open letter. No one can read your published acceptance without being Impressed that you regard the maintaining of the gold standard not merely as a wise and judicious policy, but as absolutely essential to the preservation of our “financial honor.” You assert that the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 10 to 1 would at once lead to the “debasement” of our currency to the level of a “53cent dollar, •npairlng the obligations of existing contracts,” and bringing a long train of terrible calamities In Its wake. Throughout your entire discussion of the question, the germinal Idea Is that parity with gold Is the Infallible test of honesty In money, and that any currency cheaper than gold at Its present appreciated value Is, of necessity, dishonest. You are certainly aware that the campaign committee of the Republican party Is literally flooding the country with books, papers ana pamphlets, In which it Is broadly declared that the financial issue, as now made, Is simply a question of “honest money” vs. “dishonest money.” There Is no reason to doubt that you are In perfect and harmonious accord with your committee. Hence the conclusion comes irresistibly that you regard the advocates of unrestricted silver coinage as being deficient In personal Integrity, and as seeking to establish a monetary policy that will dishonor the American name. Being one of those whose personal integrity Is thus Impugned, I make freft to remind you that In the year 1878, as a member of the House of Representatives, you voted for the famous “Bliid bill,” providing for the unrestricted coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. At that time the commercial value of the bullion which you voted to coin into a dollar was a little more than 90 cents. It had been much lower, but at the time your vote was cast It had risen considerably as a result of political agitation and prospective free coinage. You will also remember, I am sure, that the Bland bill was at the time denounced as “repudiation” and “rank dishonesty” by many of (the prominent financiers who are now giving you their earnest support. In view of these facts, would you regard It as Impertinent for me to request a public statement of your opinion as to whether or not the Bland bill was a “dishonest” measure, calculated to “debase” our currency and “dishonor” the country? If you answer in the affirmative. In justice to yourself you should Inform the country why you voted for It. If your answer be In the negative. It should be supplemented by an explanation of how an act that was honest In 1878 can be dishonest In 1896. It Is true that the vote in question was cast eighteen years ago, but even then you were old enough to know the difference between sight and wrong. It Is also true that silver Was not at that time so far below the gold level as it is now; but in this connection you will allow me to suggest that there is no difference whatever In principle, nor even In degree, so far as the question of dishonesty Is concerned. Petty -larceny Involves the same moral obliquity as grand larceny. If It Is dishonest to coin 53 cents’ worth ot'sllver Into a dollar. It Is equally dishonest to coin 93 cents' worth Into a dollar. But neither of these explanations is available because of other highly significant circumstances In your Congressional You have probably not forgotten that you were a member of the Fifty-first Congress and a candidate for the Speakership of the House. 1 am very certain that the Republican members of that body from the far West have not forgotten how anxious you were for their support, and how earnestly you reminded them that you had voted for free silver nearly twelve years before. I was one of those Western members. At that time (1889), when silver bullion had fallen to less than 75 cents on the dollar In gold, you certainly never gave any token that in your opinion a law providing for the free coinage of that metal would involve “financial dishonor.” All through the long session of the Fiftyfirst Congress you distinctly recognized the fact that the demonetization of silver was wrong; that the Bland-Allison law was too narrow In Its scope; and that something further must be done toward sliver restoration. Your utterances at the time plainly showed that you were prepared to go any length in that direction. If the Republicans In Congress would only keep you company. You, of course, remember that there was a very earnest demand throughout the country for silver legislation, and that there wan a strong silver sentiment In the House of Representatives; that the Republican side was Itself deeply tinctured with the “free sliver” Idea, and that nearly every member on that Side conceded that some legislation must be had. You will also recall the circumstance that the Republicans In caucus appointed a committee of fifteen to endeavor to frame a bill upon which Republicans could unite. That committee consisted of the eight Republican members of the Coinage Committee, of whom I was one, and seven leading Republicans of the House not members of the Coinage Committee, of whom you were one; so that you and I were, for the time being, colleagues In committee. You will not hesitate to admit that you were one of the most active members of'the committee, and that none was more earnest than you In the effort to formulate a measure which all Republicans, Including those who were strongly for free silver, nilght support. You may not remember all that you said during the debates in that committee, and neither do 1. But there Is one statement made by you that I have never for a moment forgqtten. In emphasizing the necessity of passing a "silver bill,” In substance you said: “We must pass a silver bill; the country demands It; but we must pass it as a party measure. I am prepared to support any bill that we can unite upon. I can accept free coinage, or the ‘Windom bill, or anything else upon which we can agree, but it Is Imperative that we have a silver bill.” I grant that you showed a preference for some measure other than, free coinage, and that after some vacillation you threw' your votelnfavorof what was called the “Windom bill.” I grant further thkt' you may have expressed your willingness to vote for free coluago merely for effect, knowing that the

condition laid down was an impossible one, and that the Republicans would never agree upon such a measure. Still, the fact Is that you said it, and there was no inconsistency between that language and your previous record. If a majority of the Republicans had declared In favor of a free coinage bill I have no doubt that you would have kept your word and voted for It. Therefore I ask you the further question: Did you In 1890 regard the free coinage of silver as meaning “financial dishonor,” and consequently dishonesty In those who advocated that policy? If not, the country will no doubt be greatly Interested In reading your elucidation of the ethical difference between free coinage In 1890 and free coinage In 1896. Finally I deem It proper to remind you that up to the very day of your nomination you were not the choice of the extreme gold standard men. They looked upon your past financial record with unqualified disfavor, and the somewhat uncertain language of the Ohio platform, which was supposed to reflect your position, filled them with distrust. In the end, however, you were nominated upon a gold standard platform, and these same men are now your enthusiastic supporters. You have suddenly become as enthusiastic as they iu your devotion to the “gold standard,” which you never failed to attack in Congress when the opportunity presented Itself; for even the "Windom bill h and the “Sherman law," both of which received your vote,, recognized the faet that the gold standard was wrong. Not only this, but you seem to have also apparently abandoned the opinions at a life time on a question of morals and reached the conclusion that the free coinage of silver would be both unwise and dishonest. This change In your attitude Is so extraordinary and so sudden that, feeling as 1 do, the deepest Interest In every phase of the silver question, I address you In this public manner, hoping that you may find It not Incompatible with the dignity of your present position to furnish In the same public manner an explanation that will be satisfactory to both your friends and your opponents. Very respectfully yours, H. F. BARTINE. Chicago. Silver Men Notify Bryan. The continuous welcome which the people of Lincoln and large contingents from other parts of Nebraska gave William J. Bryan on his home coming culminated in a grand demonstration in honor of his formal notification of his nomination for the presidency by the national silver party. Mr. and Mrs. Bryan, George A. Groot, chairman of the notification committee, and Norris Humphrey, of Lincoln, rode together in the midst of the night parade. Men in white duck uniforms, carrying flambeaux, formed a picturesque part of the parade. Nearly, if not quite, 1,000 mounted men were in line, and these, with the sliver-capped organization devoted to the free coinage cause, fired off skyrockets and roman candles as they proceeded. With the arrival of the torchlight procession the crowd gathered about the capitol was Increased tenfold. Norris Humphrey presided at the meeting and introduced George A. Groot, of Ohio, chairman of the notification committee, who spoke. Mr. Bryan was then presented and made a short speech. He said In part: I beg to reply at this time without the formality of a letter. The platform adopter! by the silver party contains but one plank, and that plank—the plank upon the silver question—is identical in substance with the silver plank of the Chicago platform. As I have already discussed that plank at length, it will not be necessary to enter into any extended discussion at this time. I beg to answer the committee that I accept the nomination tendered by them on behalf of the silver party in the spirit in which that nomination was presented. I can appreciate the feeling which animated those who assembled in that convention. I can appreciate the hesitation with which those assembled there turned their backs upon the party with which they had been associated. I know something of the strength of party ties, and because I was in a position where I look-

ed forward to a possibility of like action on my part I can appreciate the depths of a conviction that led them to place the interests of their country above the welfare of their party. My convictions upon this subject are not shallow convictions. I may be in error—none of us can claim infallibility—but I believe that the gold standard is a conspiracy against the human race. I would no sooner join the ranks of those whose purpose it is to fasten that upon the American people than to enlist in an army that was marching to attack my home and destroy my family. I say, therefore, that I can appreciate the spirit which animated those who have just tendered me this second nomination. I pledge them that if elected they shall never have cause to accuse me of being false to that platform. Letting Out the Truth. The McKinley managers show that they are badly rattled. Mark Hanna's imperative commamT to McKinley to remain off the stump reveals that he recognizes that the Canton man is not capable of discussing the financial question, and that the arguments he would be forced to advance for gold would be likely to make votes for silver. Within the hist few days with one accord the Republican papers have been claiming that the silver sentiment was on the wane. And yet here comes an Interview with Senator Allison, in which he Is made to say that he believes lowa will declare for McKinley in November. As lowa In 1802 gave Harrison a plurality of 22,1X10, even Senator Allison seems to recognize that the free silver sentiment hoe swept away the Republican majority In that State. If he cannot with any enthusiasm figure out a certain victory, It shows that he regards the situation as hopeless. From the Minnesota Republicans also comes a wild appeal for help— meaning cash. Lt Is freely admitted that with the Democrats and Populists united, and with thousands of silver Republicans supporting Bryan, the Republican ticket is doomed to defeat in that State. The Hanna syndicate finds Itself in a desperate fix, and at its w W end. Harrison’s “Dirty Dollars.” Ex-President Harrison, addressing In his speech the “better element,'' which wants to have money scarce and dear, talks contemptuously of more money as "dirty dollars.” It is not so long ago that the same speaker called poor men and poorly dressed men, "cheap men.” He then had no direct purpose to serve In deceiving wage earners, and could afford to sneer at them. But now his mission is to delude and cajole them, and to mislead them,. If iK>ssfble, upon the question of additional coinage. He wants to maku his “cheap man", distrust the “dirty dollar.” He has’ no condemnation for the crooked policy which has made the dollars so dear and scarce, and so hard for the laboring man to get at But the people comprehend this hypocritical and misplaced sympathy. As Mr. Bryan aptly remarked his speech to the railroad employes at Tonawanda, “The great common people do not need any particular class to telt them what they shall do.” Glucose Is the sugar produced from grape juice.

BUT IT IS SO THIN THAT THE FIGURE BEHIND IT CAN READILY BE SEEN.