Democratic Sentinel, Volume 22, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 October 1898 — HON. S.M. RALSTON'S SPEECH [ARTICLE]

HON. S.M. RALSTON'S SPEECH

Hoosier Democracy's Standard Bearer Reviews the Issues —Party Loyalty Means the Defeat of Landis —Democracy and the War. State and National Questions.

CDelivered it MM Ninth CongreMinnal Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I am glad to greet the Democrats of the Ninth congressional district in convention assembled. While lam not a delegate to this convention I am in sympathy with the object of your meeting and will rejoioe with you should the result of your deliberations prove aooeptabie to the rank and file of our party. When Demoorats meet to take counsel of one another they should never forget that it is the duty of the minority to submit to the will of the majority. I have such faith in the unadulterated Democracy of the Democrats Of this district that I feel th« choice of this convention will receive the vote of every Democrat in the district. If loyalty prevails in our party Mr. Landis will surrender his seat- in congress to your nominee and the citizenship you represent will have a protector and defender against those Influences that make against our national life. The Blue and tlie Gray United. We meet, my friends, under unusual Ciroumstanoes, More than 30 years ago the great civil war ended that threatened the life of our nation, hut unfortunately the bitter animosities kindled by that conflict have manifested themselves in some manner in every campaign sinoo the close of the struggle. Party leaders have not hesitated to seek party advantages by fanning anew the dying embers of sectional strife. To-day, however, publio opinion demand that Mason and Dixon’s line be obliterated, that it may no longer be a flamiug wall —an impassable barrier to a friendly intercourse between the north and south, and that the differences out of which the war came must not be cited as a reason for the ascendenoy of any particular party. The boys who wore the blue have Clasped hands across the bloody chasm with the boys who wore the gray, and shoulder to shoulder they are standing this hour under the fold.-: of one flag in defense of a common country. Fortunatoly for us we are not now engaged in war among ourselves. Within-our own boundaries we are at peace. We are united as one man against Spanish tyranny and Spanish oppression. We have heard the voice of the oppressed in a neighboring island, and, yielding to She dictates of humanity; we have determined, it matters not how great the cost may bo in blood and treasure, to deliver the Cubans from bondage. This is the purpose and mission of the American people regardless of party affiliations, for in this war thero should be no politics and so long as the object and purpose for whioh war was declared are adhered to and good faith prevuils in its prosecution, damned should be the man or party that shall attempt to gain a partisan advantage through it. Democrats First For Caban Independence. It is to be regretted that the suggestion is occasionally made that Indiana should go Republican at the next election because the present administration has the war on its hands. My friends, it is true that the president, who is the command-er-in-chief of our armies and navy, is a Republican, yet the Democratic party stands ready to strengthen the president’s hands in every way possible, and through its representatives in congress it will gladly join in voting every man and every dollar neoessary to aid in prosecuting the war to a speedy and successful conclusion. And I now Wrirnour Republican friends that if they insist that the voters of Indiana should support the Republican ticket next fall because of the war, wc shall not hesitate to remind them that Marcus Hanna and his administration were against the war until the excoriation of public opinion lashed them into it. The' Democratic party was demanding the in-, dependence of Cuba when the Republican party was in a state of lethargy on the subject. Wall street had sat down so heavy on Mr. McKinley and his advisers in opposition to the war and in favor of the holders of Cuban bonds, that the presence of leading Republicans of Indiana was rendered necessary in Washington to point out to the executive the disintegrating influences at work in their party ranks and to impress upon him that all chances of Republican success at the coming election would be lost unless war was declared. Democrats Win the Victories. Weshall not stop here. If it becomes necessary we will not allow the voters to forget that the man who on that memorable morning of May plowed hi 6 way at the hotyl of the American fleet through the engines of death and destruction in Manila harbor, and who, after a battle that amazed and startled the civilized world, planted the stars and stripes on Philippine soil, wss commodore, now Rear Admiral Dewey, who is a Democrat. We will not forget to tell them that Hobson, who destroyed and sunk in the Santiago channel the vessel that bore him above the waves while hell was belching her fury on him from the Spanish forts on all the hills around, and who lingored his time in a Spanish prison, is a Democrat. We will tell them, too, with becoming pride that the man under whose direction tu.d command Cervora’s fleet was swept from the seas and the arm of Spain paralyzed in war was the daring, dashing Schley, a Deznoorat. I cannot tell younf the bravery of these men. My words are too few and too feeble. The poet and the essayigt are yet to be born whose pens can adequately por tray the unselfish patriotism, the love of man for man, and the ®dauntless heroism they have displayed in their effort to free their oppressed fellow man. But while we rejoico in the parts Demoorats are taking in this war, wo do not wish to detract from the honor and glory duo the president and every man under him, down to the humblost in the ranks of the army. To them all we concede a genuine patriotism and cheerfully acknowledge the debt of gratitude we owe them. Democracy’s Record In Indiana. Thero are other things, however, for whioh the Democratic party is to be commended aside from its position on the Spanish war. Whenever an Indiana Dftmporftt consults the record of his party

District Convent ton, July 20, UMLj in this state or in the nation he finds cause for congratulation. With pride he points to the-, common school system of Indiana and her magnificent benevolent institutions as an evidence of Democratic philauthrophy and statesmanship. The law that overthrew the notorious schoolbook trust and reduced fully one-half the cost of a child’s education, was passed by a Democratic legislature. Pinkortonism was driven from the state and the power to rob the wage-earner was denied the proprietors of the “pluck-me” stores by the Demooratio party. The tax law that incurred the special enmity of Republican leaders, while it was in process of enactment, and that since has been condemned by the Republican press and Republican speakers, wae also passed by a Democratic legislature and upheld by Democratic officials until the courts sustained it. Un der this law the corporate wealth of the state has beon forced to bear its fair share of the expenses of our state government and the state debt has been set in process of liquidation. And in this connection it is especially pleasing to a Democrat, who is always a stronger patriot than a partisan, to be able to recall that his party gave this state the law having for its object the preservation and perpetuity of our free institutions through the purity of the ballot. The suppression of corruption at the polls, however, has never met the approval of the Republican party, and consequently it has never lost an opportunity to decry the eleotion law and to change and weaken its most salutary provisions. Unlimited and Independent Bimetallism, But, gentlemen, while in the campaign we are preparing to enter, we shall consider state issues, and the records the two great parties have made touohing state affairs, we propose to go further and reeubmlt to the voters of Indiana the financial question. lam not indifferent s o the charge frequently heard that the silver question is dead, but I remind those who talk thut that no question i.s ever settled in this countrv until it has been settled right. Gold triumphed in 1896, but a victory achieved through slander, villiflcatlon, ooercion and wholesale corruption, can never be permanent. The methods es Colonel W. W. Dudley, the notorious refugee from justice, in his blocks-of-fire scoundrelism in 1888, were the methods of the Sunday school teaoher when compared with the mekns resorted to in 1890 to pinion this nltlon to the accursed gold standard. * We will enter the contest then in support of the doctrine of free, unlimited and independent bimetallism. In demanding the unlimited coinage of both gold and silver into standard money at a fixed ratio by law, v e are not departing from the traditions of our party, nor are we seeking to engraft a new or novel scheme of financo upon the country. We are but pleading for the restoration of the monetary system of our fathers, whose virtuous operation can be cited by its supporters in the absence of famine, starvation and the application of the gambler’s art on the board of trade. Our position, wo know, is impregnable. We insist that gold and silver at rates fixed by oongre9s constitute the only standard of value allowable under our constitution, and that the people have the right to the use of both metals in the monetary form, in the discharge of all debts, both private and public. We submit that, if the constitution has made the standard of value to consist of the two metals, congress has no authority to increase the value of the measuring standard in the interest of the money-changer and against the wealth-producer by demonetizing silver, and thereby shifting the monetary demand responded to by the two metals onto gold alone. Statesmanship and the Supreme Conrt on the Side of Silver. We are not without authority, high a#d respectable, in support of our theory. The ripest scholarship, the ablest statesmanship and the evenly poisod judicial mind have indorsed it. It has been taught in the foremost colleges and universities in the world. It has been expounded in the forum of statesmanship and approved judicially from the bench. Daniel Webster, perhaps the greatest constitutional lawyer the world ever knew, said in a speech in 1836 from his seat in the United States senate that “The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is established and can not be overt&rown. lam certainly of the opinion that gold and silver, at rates fixed by oongrees, constitute the legal standard of value hi this country, and that neither congress nor any state has authority to establish any other standard or to displace this. James G. Blaine, onoe the idol of Republicans, took strong ground against the authority of congress to demonetize either gold or silver. The distinguished jurist, Justice Clifford, in his ablo dissenting opinion in the celebrated “legal tender cases,” says: “Argument to show that the national treasury was organized on the basis that the gold and silver coins of the United States were to be the standard of value, is unnecessary, as it is a historical fact which no man or body of men can ever successfully contradiot. * * * Very 6trong doubts are entertained whother an act of congress is absolutely necessary to constitute gold and silver coins of the United Statet, fabricated and stamped as such by the proper executive officers, of the mint, a legal tender in payment of debts. Constituted as such coins are by the constitution, the standard, of value, the better opinion would seem to be that they become legal tender for that purpose if minted of the required weight and fineness, as soon as they are coined and put into circulation by lawful authority. * * * Currency is a word much more comprehensive than the word ‘money,’ as it may include bank bills and even bills of exchange, as well as ooins of gold and silver, but the ward ‘money,’ as employed in the grant of power under consideration, means the coins of gold and silver fabricated and stamped as required by law, which, by virtue of their intrinsic value as universally acknowledged and their official origin, become the medium of exchange and the standard by which all other values are expressed and discharged. ’ ’ In the same cases Justice Field, whose

Services on the supreme bench of the United BtaKM qpver a period exceeding that of any other man in the history of the court, supplements the opinion of Justice Clifford thus: “The inhibition upon the states to coin money and yet to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts must be read in connection with the grant of thfe coinage power to congress. The two provisioas taken -together indicate beyond question that the coins which the national government was to fabricate, and the foreign coins; the valuation or which it was to regulate, were to consist principally, if not entirely.” of the one only, but both, ‘of gold and silver.’ "Money being a standard, its coin or pieces are necessarily a legal tender. The provisions in the different coinage acts that the coins to be struck shall Be such legal tender are merely declaratory of their effect, when offered in payment, and are not essential to give them their character.” Thus it is seen that the views of the bimetallist today are in harmony with the opinion of these eminent statesmen and jurists, and when he insists upon the right of the people to the use of both gold and silver, not as currency, but as money, he demands for them only their constitutional right. So my friends, if the opinion a man entertains on the financial question may him a dangerous member of society, as we were told in 1896, it would not be difficult, taking as a criterion the utterances of the gentlemen I have quoted, to point out and designate the real anarchists of this Country. It is not enough for the single standard advooate to say he is opposed to bimetallism because of the ratio proposed. If Webster and Blaine, Clifford and Fields have correctly interpreted the constitution, and the present ratio is an erroneous ono, whioh we deny, bimetallism should be supported at a correct ratio, and he who is not willing to do this, but on the contrary favors the de.- u-uction of one of the metals as money, brands himself as an infraotor of the organic law of the nation. We hear it frequently oivit rved that the Democratic par*’’ ife guide on the money qi am practically withi i I remind you that the monetary. o..v.ueiu -prevailing in t his country from Its organization until 1873, and under which this nation fought its wars, contributed its share to the swelling tide of civilization and made its most giant-llko stride in material progress was the out-growth of Democratic statesmanship. Republican Party Mot Entitled to Leadership On Financial Questions. When was it the Republican party became the embodiment of the financial wisdom of this country? It was not born until 1860 and its platform of that year contained, no reference to money. In 1860 it conducted a national campaign without saying in its platform what it thought about the question. In 1804 it favored “promoting the use of national currency,” but‘by the time 1808 came around it had forgotten what it had thought on the subject four years prior thereto, and so It ojni*ted to incorporate a money plank in its platform. Its memory was still no better in 1878, nor had its stock of information been added to, and the result was it adopted another platform without a money plank. In 1870, however, 20 years after it was born, it gave its first but very slight premonition of having a financial idea, as was evidenced by its platform declaration in favor of “a steady progress to specie payment.” It would not be expected, of course, of a party to make very rapid progress in the development of a subject about whioh it required 30 years to get an Idea, and so no particular surprise was manifested when this selfconstituted guardian of national honor went before the oountry in 1880 on a platform containing no money plank. In 1884 it was in favor of an international agreement for the use of both gold and silver as standard money. In 1888 It loved s'lvor and denounced the Democratic party for its unpatrtotto attempt to demonetize it. In 1802 it still loved silver and here in Indiana it was very vociferous in its congratulations of the country that a long stride had been taken toward the free coinage of the white metal. But, my friends, in 1896, to believe its story now, it began to see the error of its way in forming an attachment for silver, and consequently in its 6t. Louis platform it made, over the the protest of Hon. Richard W. Thompson, Henry M. Teller and 100 other leading Republicans, a half-way confession of its sins. And now, in this good year of 1898, this party' of progressive ideas, of superior wisdom, of immaoulate purity, is confessing by its course that in reality it never knew anything about the money question until recently, and since it has been placed under the command of its new leader, that distinguished statesman of finance, Hon. H. H. Hanna, doubtless a direct descendant of Marcus Aurelius I. I wish I hail time to take up and discuss the financial measure recently introduced in congress, back of which this gentleman and Wall street’s monetary commission are standing. But I can give you briefly an idea of this bill, as I get it from Mr. Hanna himself. A friend to whom he addressed a letter in, support of his measure was kind enough to hajid tke same to me. Ho says: "The bill is politically the best measure that has been prepared.” The word politically he has underscored, and I suppose he means thereby to suggest that it will oall forth the sinews of corruption when the light is on. Then he continues; “It meets the expectations of those who believe there can be no permanent business prosperity until the greenbacks are retired, and it does not oppose the prejudices of those who favor the greenbacks.” Now, if you can conceive a measure embodying two theories of finance diametrically opposed and yet every part working harmoniously with the whole you will at least have a faint conception of what Mr. Hanna imagines he has in his bill. He is beyond question the right man to be at the head of the visionary commission which is pretending to believe it should supercede congress in determining the" monetary policy of this government. A candid investigation will fail to establish the right of the Republican party to leadership on financial questions. It has rendered complex and tljxown into confusion our mouetary syiffcm. Its statesmen have labored to unravel the web of idiocy running through its financial legislation, but to no purpose. In making this charge I do not overlook its finanoial policy during the rebellion, but the policy it then adopted for the salvation of the nation it now condemns. It asseverates with great pretensions to wisdom in favor of the single gold standard, and yet you may take any two Republicans of your own selection and have them each evolve a theory of finance bottomed on the single standard idea and you will find their conclusions to be as wide apart as the poles. An Appeal For a Union of Forces. I appeal, then, to those Democrats who do not fully the finaaoial theory

tar which their party Is standing, to give it their counsel and support. I beg them to remember that the party with which they have affiliated In the past the party of their ohoice and the party of their love, is greater by far than any one idea. \ point them to its glorious past, and to them I predict for it a still more brilliant future. It has been fighting for a century the tyrannical and centralizing influences in our national life. Wherever the brazened features of monopoly have shown themselves the Democratic party has challenged their right to extort and fatten off the product of honest labor. And, to its credit, the party of the sage of Montioello and of the hero of New Orleans has never in its great career joined hands with organized greed to assault the best interests of our country to pauperize the bone and sinow of our land and fasten about the throats of Americans the vicelike grip of plutocracy. On the other hand, however, it has always stood for that form of government and for those measures and laws that take Into account the citizenship of the man at the forge, in the factory and in the shop; of the boy in the ditch and in the mine; of the woman at the spindle, by the loom and over tile tub, and guarantees to each and all of them their fair share in life’s achievements. A party with such'a past can be trusted in the future. Aft for the future of our country we have much concern. The four quarters of the earth are at this time anxiously watching American statesmanship, and on every hand the concession is made that the destiny of this republic is largely dependent upon the question of annexation. It is well for us, therefore, to reflect in this hour of feverish excitement that territorial aggrandizement may lead to a national weakness and degradation. It is at least suggestive that the late secretary of state, Senator John Sherman, who was a fair representative of the ripest statesmanship of the Republican party, reserved the last paragraph of his “Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet” in which to sound a note of warning to his countrymen on this question. In oonolusion I quote his words: 1 ‘The events ot the future are beyond the vision of mankind, but I hope that our people will be content with kite real f;rowtli and avoid the complications of orelgn acquisition. Our family of states is already large enough to create embarrassment in the senate, and a republic should not hold dependent provinces or possessions. Every new acquisition will create embarrassment. Canada and Mexico, as independent republics, will be more valuable to the United Stauos than if carved into additional states. The union already embraces discordant elements eui ugh without adding others. If my life is prolonged I will do all I oan to add to the strength and prosperity of the United States, but nothing to extend its limits or to add new dangers by acquisitions of foreign territory.” .