Jasper County Democrat, Volume 2, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 April 1899 — BRYAN AT NEW YORK. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

BRYAN AT NEW YORK.

That was a significant feature of the great Democratic New York dollar dinner ia which the enthusiastic! auditors insisted that a greater than Jefferson was there. The audience, composed not of leaders or o£ttatemakers, but of the kind of men who cast the rotes—as virile in New York City as throughout the coun-try-recognized the fact that an American from their own ranks was addressing them. For a century the dominant parties of the country bare been sinking under the obligations and entanglements of officialdom. Whenever the common people cried out for relief, on no matter what issue, it was only to find that the hands of the leaders Were tied by the traditions of statecraft. Desperate, they scattered into confusion, to come together again in a final effort at Chicago. There the leader appeared—one of the young men in the background with no ambition or hope for high place, but full of the fire of men who are in earnest. His burning words electrified the assemhly, which went wild over the fact that there were left men who spoke from American hearts to Americans on American issues—one who believed in imperialism—the imperialism of American might and American initiative ; nnd American leadership, as agaifist these who looked upon our country as a mere playground for Lombard street. Without • seeking it, William J. Bryan became the man of the . hour. He was young, as Pitt had been before him; be. was revolutionary, ns ail men-who Jove their country are; he was opposed by iaernsted officialdom, as is always the case whin the tftopie’s tribute knocks at the door. Notwithstanding the treason of men in office through Democratic trust, the opposition of all timid interests which run to cover in a political thunderstorm, and the lukewarmness of those upon whom the people .had inflicted ' censure, this young man caine within a fraction of the popular majority! , But the people had gained the victory! They had cast asMe the barnacles; they had biased the pathway to reform; they had placed the laurel upon the brow of the man who waa to wear it until the battle was over. Go where he will, enthusiasm greets him, as great in New York, where a conspiracy of suppression was organised against him, as in Wisconsin, where the week previous his eloquent words thrilled the nation! Mr. Bryan’s New York speech was ringing, effective, popular. He stirred the heart, appealed to the conscience and revivified patriotism. Issues championed by such a leader cannot be ignored; people who can be so stirred up are not to be satisfied with official platitudes. The cause of the people livbs, and the people are alive to the fact. The slogan has been sounded for 1900. In introducing Mr. Bryan, Chairman Brown said that Abraham Lincoln , had come out of tkfe West to save the nation and another man had come out of the West to save the nation. A perfect tempest of applause from the men and women broke oat.- The band struck up, bnt could scarcely be heard while It played "The .Stars and Stripes Forever.” Hats were thrown up into the air; women waved their cloaks and handkerchiefs. Mr. Bryan raised his hand deprecatlngly, but the more he aid this the more the crowd cheered. Mr. Bryan began in a clear voice. He was frequently interrupted by applause. v . ‘ Mr. Chairman, Democrats, Ladles and Gentlemen: I esteem It a great privilege to be permitted to attend this, probably the largest banquet given in the United States. (Interruption of cheers for Bryan.) I appreciate the kindness which has been manifested by your action and by'the words of those who have preceded me. I shall carry back to my Western home new. courage from yonr meeting, and sball be glad to* tell to the people in other States that tn New York there be those who are true to the principles of Democracy ad written In Democracy’s latest-creed. The object of this banquet waa to give ("Cries of "That’s It.”) There was a banquet given In honor of Thomas Jefferson two nights ago, and the discussion of the Price per plate obscured to some exteht the difference between that bsnquet and this. A Democrat has a right Id pay whatever be pleases for a dinner “f he has the money. The character of a political banquet is determined not by the cost of it, but by the sentiments which are woven Into the post prandial oratory. We have not one word of hostility to utter toward those Democrats who left the Democratic party in 1898. Far be it from us to criticise ahy man whose Judgment or conscience lead, him out of the Democratic party. , :j: - . Political Bigamists. aoutoHKepublica ns toft* theßepublican rather than adapt themselves to the platform written out at St. Louis. They organ•at flghtf and Hepubliosj^who'leftVhe party ia 1696 have nfither gone back nor, Hi rar.v \ W:* 1

tional organisation. But instead of calling themselves Gold Democrats, so that they could not be mistaken for the regular Democrats, they called themselves National Democrats, although they did not expect to carry a precinct.ln the United States. A party’ls an. association of people for the purpose of giving foree and effect to political opinions held In common. They talked to ns about harmony, the only kind of harmony that ia poss ble; harmony between those who think and act together to give force to their common opinions. There can be no harmony between those whose principles are as antagonistic as the opinions set forth in the Chicago platform and the Indianapolis platform. All that we ask is that those who come into the Democratic party shall be a part of the Democratic party. We simply Insist th.at a man cannot be a political bigamist. He cannot be wedded to the name of our party and to the principles of some other party. We s!mp!y ask that he shall get a formal divorce, either from our name or from their principles. The Democratic par(& has a platform. It does not dismay those who stand upon it to hear It denounced this year by those who denounced it two years ago. We got accustomed-to It In 1896, and it is not strange now', but It would be a surprising thing Indeed to hear that party denounced by those who left It two years ago. But this we do not hear. The Democratic platform la satisfactory to those who supported It in 1896. That platform was written by -the representatives of the Democratic party In the most democratic convention that'has been held In a quarter of a century.

It is «t compliment to receive a presidential nomination from any national convention, ©fit I am'proud that my nomination came from a convention, not of bosses, but of Democratic citizens. * (Loud applause.) It has vindicated that platform, and every plank of It ia stronger to-day than It was when the platform was written. Nek Mw * Single Plnnk. Those who believe that We should invite into the Democnftie party all those who cannot: share in/the purpose and the aspirations of that party—l cannot speak for others, I apeak for myself—are wrong, and I say that I would not abstract from It a single plank to get lack every man who left tt» Nor do I believe that we could draw people to us by cowardice. The day for ambiguity hah-passed. That platform means something, and if you nsk me why It waa that in the campaign tff4S9B the hearts of the people' were stirred as they have not been lately stirred. I will tell you that It was because the struggling masses found In that platform an inspiration, and aggregated wealth found In It a menace to every man who robs his neighbor for his own benefit. It was those who have entrenched themselves behind abuses of government who objected to that platform, and well they might object. because that platform was aimed at every abuse of government, and I was glad that I was supported by those who would have only asked me for just laws. lam glad that the six million and a half who voted for me simply wanted me to get other people's hands out of their pockets (applause), and not to get their hands into other people’s pocketst Let me recall some of those planks: We advocated the arbitration of differences between corporations engaged In interstate eommerce and their employes. The doctrine of arbitration is stronger now than it was In 1896. Every great strike which brings lose to the employer destroys the laborer and Inconveniences business and brings us one step nearer to arbitration as a means of settling these differences. The Chicago platform favored arbitration. Democrats that stood upon it then favor it now. The platform declared against government by injunction, and since the election we have bad lessons which we did not have before. Thomas Jefferson believed in trial by jury, and government by injunction la merely a disguised method by which a mau charged with crime Shall be denied the right of trial by jury. <Loud cheers, and applause.) That plank to stronger than it was before. The Income Tax. The Chicago platform declared in favor of the income tax, and. an Income tax is stronger now than It was before. When I discuss the Income tax decision I always resort to quotation, because 1 have a reputation for conservatism which I must protect. (Laughter.) When I want to be severe I quote and when I want to criticise the Supreme Court I quote from a member of the court, and I am so cautious that I even prefer to quote from a Republican member who cannot possibly be an anarchist, because he Is a Republican. Justice Brown In hts dlsseuting opinion used these words: "I fear that in some hoars of national peril this decision will rise up to paralyse the arm of.the government." We saw in 1896, but many people were so blind that they could not see, the danger, but the hour of peril came. The war came On. We.needed more money. We could not tax incomes, because the decision rose up to paralyse the arm of the government. We had to resort to stamp taxes. We had to hunt up any old iking to put a stamp on. One of the things stamped ia a telegram. Whenever you want to send a telegram yon go to the telegraph office and you find that the Republican party has ao made the .law that the telegraph company can transfer the burdens from lta shoulders to years. The Republican party In all of its policies to putting the dollar above the matr,. aad in that la departing from the doctrine of Lincoln, its founder, for, In 1839, he said the Republican party believes in Both the man and the dollar, but In cases of conflict the man before the dollar. \ - * . The Republican party to putting the dollar above the man in ail Us. legislation, and nowbw.l, of I thorn nn in front of &d supdiv'b yqq bnt it

Ing to bear their share of the burdens of government? If in time of war your country needs you, you are willing to give your life’s blood, why deny the nation Its just doe In time of peace? It has been the history of the world that those who can make much have been unwilling to bear their share of the burdens, of government and have sought to use the Instruments of government for private gain, to take from those who ean make less than they can. The Democratic party la a protector of the rleh and the poor, and that party which makes the rleh bear their share of the burden la a better friend of the rich man than the party that takes his money and sells exemption. The Dead lasne. There Is another plank in this platform which I desire to make mention of. The Republlcah party and the gold Democrats have been burying the money question so often that I almost feel I ought to apologise for speaking of the dead before go large an audience. The Democratic platform denounced the gold standard, called It un-American and anti-American and pledged the party to destroy it at once and substitute in lta place independent bimetallism at the ratio of 16 to 1. If the gold standard was un-American in 1898 it Is un-American now. If it waa anti-American two years ago. It la antiAmericsn now, and if the gold standard was bad In 1896. yon were convinced that it was bad in 1897, because Mr. McKinley sent three distinguished commissioners to Europe to get rid of the gold standard. And why did they not succeed. It was bemuse they asked of the financiers of the Old World a favor that they ought to have known the financiers would not grunt. Why did we oppose the gold standard? -Because It has raised the purchasing power of the dollar and lowered the price of the products of labor. Wimp our commissioners went abroad they went to supplicate from persons who had profited, and how absurd to expect them to. join In doing away with a thing out of which they had made money! Then, my friends, I want to suggest to you that the Republican promise of international bimetallism, coupled with the pledge that the gold standard would be maintained until other nations came to our relief, was the most absurd plank that any party ever pat into A platform. Think of it. Let me make a speech such as n man would have to make to carry out that program. If the Republican party had delegated its representatives to present this subject to the financiers of. Europe along the line of that senseless platform. the spokesman of the commission would have had to make a speech about like this: "Gentlemen, we have had the gold standard for twenty-three years, and do not like It. The American people ha-, e tried it and suffered from It, and they have sent us over here to ask you to help us to get rid of It; they recognize that you have made money, while they have lost, and. therefore, we ask you to Join ua in restoring the status by which we won’t lose so much, and by which yon won’t make so much." (Laughter and loud applause.) But then Candor would have compelled the spokesman to have added another sentence. He would have said, "But while we-suffered a good deal, we can suffer more If necessary. While we have had a hard time, we have not reached the limit of endurance; and if you people would rather go on plundering us Indefinitely we will stand by you while the world lastk.” That is the Republican platform. That Is what It says—that while still trying to get along on national bimetallism, yet If we get leading commercial nations of Europe to join with us we will maintain this thing which they want.

The Democratic Plan. My friends, our plan was different. We would not have sent a man over to beg. because we read In history when We were children that more than 100 years ago our people by their blood bought the right of the people to legislate for themselves. According to our plan, when we send a man over It will not be to ask a man to help us, but to announce to them wfiat we are going to do. (Laughter and applause.) It will be to say to them that 70,099,000 people have as much tight to protect their property from depreciation as a handful of foreign financiers hare to legislate values Into their hands. And our American ambassador would have said to them: "The people of the United States have decided to restore independent bimetallism at the ratio of 16 to 1. ' We believe vre can maintain the parity, but you have a good many investments over there, and if you have any doubt about our doing it you had better Join us, because if anybody suffers R will be you—not us.” (Long laughter and applause.) Now, my friends, an argument like that would have some effect: yes,, and, as an argument that It would have ettect, I recall to your minds an item that crossed the ocean while our commission was over there. It ran Uke this: "That, while there was a good deal of sentiment over there, yet the financial Interests were solidly opposed to making any concession toSblnietallism, and that there was only one argument we had that bad any weight with them, and that waa, if they did not do something to help restore international bimetallism, free sliver would win In the United States, and restore bimetallism by Independent action, and that British investments would suffer.” And it was said in this dispatch that that argument was being made by one of the commissioners. I could not but applaud the common sense of the commissioner who abandoned the Republican platform, and got on to a common sense platform, and appealed to them by an argument they would understand. English Bankers’ Influence. But, my friends, why haven’t we International bimetallism? Is It because there is no sentiment In Europe? On the contrary, there to sentknent there, and the sentiment is so strong that the French government joined with ns In sending an ambassador to England. And in England the sentiment was so strong that a petition was sent to the English government, signed by the leading labor organizations of England, asking for international bimetallism—so strong that a report was presented while, our commission Whs there, a report signed by ten out of fourteen members of a commission appointed to investigate the condition of agriculture, and the ten out of the fourteen declared that the gold standard was destructive to English agriculture, and pointed to bimetallism as the only relief for the English farmer. (Applanse.) But why, my friends, did the English government refuse to listen to the laborers and the farmers?; Because on the 22d day of September. 1897, the bankers of London met at the clearing house, behind closed doors, and, pledged to secrecy, declared that the gold standard was all right. The English bankers, so few in number that they can, meet In the clearing house, determine the policy of England and England determined the policy of. Europe, and determine the policy of the Unlfed Btales'as long as the Republican party is In power. I have been asked why I am not willing to drop the money question. 1 replied: "Because the money question won’t drop us." I know not what others may desire or what they may be willing to do, but I am not wilting that our declaration against the gold standard eh* 11 be droppefiwa long aa a handful of English financiers.can determine the financial policy of 70,000,000 American people. And some say that if we will not drop the money question we ought to drop the ratio of 16 to 1. When yon fiud a man opposed to 16 to 1, Inquire and yon will fiud that he was never In favor of It, and then Inquire again and you will find that there to no ot.ier ratio that he to In favor of. We denonneed International bimetallism as a delusion and a snare In 1896. It has been proved to be so since 1896. W# declared for the ratio of 16 to 1 In 1896, and no party haa risen to advocate any other ratio but'lß to 1. Until some other party proposes some other ratio and tries to secure bimetallism at setae other ratio, there to no reason why we should discuss ratio With them. The ratio of 16 to 1 was decided upon, not'at the Chicago convention, but at the primaries which aaawifeg staters* st mltted'to the people, and those who wanted sprite issz I)y i&fY' They struck silver down by Isw -..- ** Tt fi ffirniiotj » natvi;,

leges by law; we expect to given competitor by law, the old competitor we had. My friends, you will bear people say that they don’t object to silver If we will only open the mints at the bullion ratio or the commercial ratio. It la only when a gold man commences to talk money that he forgets all that he knows of other subjects. When people ask us to drop onr fight on the money question, and fight the trusts, I remember that the Republican party la to-day preparing to organize a trust more potent for evil than all the Industrial trusts combined. There is a bill now before Congress, reported by the Republican committee, that turns over to the national banks the absolute control of the paper money of this country. It provides for the retirement of the greenbacks by an issue of bonds drawing 2)4 per cent.; It provides that banks shall be per-, mltted to Issue up to the par value of the bonds, and that the 1 per cent, tax on circulation shall be reduced to a small fraction of[ 1 per cent. Here Is your evidence of good Republican policy. They want Jo Isane bonds In place of greenbacks, and tax the people to( pay the Interest on the bonds, and then they reduce the tax that the-hanks now pay oh the circulation that they have. Why pile np the taxes on the people, and lower the taxes, on the banks? What doe*lt mean? Why, if that law goes Into effect, and 2% per cent bonds are at par, then a national bank with a capital of SIOO,OOO can Invest it in bonds, deposit the bonds with the treasury, and draw upon the bonds SIOO,OOO In bank notes; so that the amount the bank gets back la just equal to the amount the bank paid foe the bonds. So that it has not a single dollar; invested, and yet it goes on) drawing 2)4 per cent. Interest a year on nothing. It is at small proposition in mathematics, and yeti the banks will tell you they want this done for the public good. Imperialism. There Is another object that is not included In the Chicago platform, and is yet Included in the principle It seta forth. The -President In his message of 1898 asked for a standing array of 100,000 men. We have had no national convention since that time. But Democrats do not have to have a national convention to learn that the Democratic party is opposed to militarism in the United States. Seventy thousand more soldiers needed than in 1886. Why? For international protection? Why? What has happened since 1896? Except the Republican administration? Does a Republican administration make more soldiers necessary? When prosperity comes and confidence Is restored, is It necessary to have soldiers to point It out with bayonets? But they tell us that we need them for outside service. Wherel In Cuba? Oh, no, not permanently, because the President has promised the Cubans that our occupation to only temporary, therefore, he would not need soldiers permanently in Cuba. Nor are they needed In Porto Rico. My own opinion has been that the people of Porto Rico should be permitted to choose for themselves between annexation and a republic of their own. But so far they have expressed no desire for a republic and seem to desire annexation. So that there does not seem to be any necessity for a large army there. Where do we need a large Increase in the army? In the Philippines? Why. my friends, the President-in his Boston speech said that the question was to be settled by the American people, and until the American people settled it how do you know It will need 70,000 soldiers there permanently? Bnt If we do, according to their argument, need 70,000 soldiers there permanently, then I ask you, my friends, what Is the expense going to be. It Is estimated that It costs SI,OOO a soldier to keep the army In the United States and $1,500 a soldier to keep the army outside the United States. Seventy thousand soldiers would mean over a hundred millions a year. Who pays the money? The Filipinos? Why, my friends, if we make the Filipinos pay the expense of our army, we will have to tax them several times as much as Spalit overtaxed them.

* Called H'a Country a Bully. Mr. Bryan’s reference to the United States as a bully for striking down the Filipino natives created the greatest enthusiasm of the night. There was a demonstration when he said that it was this country that had inspired the Filipino with love of liberty. The American government of the Filipinos is a despotism, he declared, and this was applauded."‘lt was not surprising, he said, that a country that should send to England for a financial policy, as it had two years ago, should now send there for a colonial policy. This was receivefPwith wild applause. When he intimated that he wanted to atop he was told to go on. And many requested him to talk more on imperialism. When he said, "We may fail in 1900,” there were tumultuous cries, “No, never.” When he concluded another hurricane of applause broke forth. Men and women acted wfldly. Men again threw up their hands and women waved their cloaks and handkerchiefs and shouted and jumped up and down. Bryan spoke one hoar and nine minutes. When he finished there was a great rush to him on the platform. He was almost suffocated in the crush. It required five policemen to force a way through the croud for him. He shook hands on ail Bides. He had a few minutes’ recepthm in the inside room, where he shook hands with a number of persons and then with great' difficulty he went downstairs. There was a very large crowd here, and Col. Bryan had to make a short speech to the gathering. He was enthusiastically rfiieered as he got into p carriage, which started for the Hotel Bartholdi. Of the dinner Mr. Bryan said: "This is the greatest dinner I ever attended. I think it is the greatest ever held in the United States. The hearts of the people are all right.”