Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 21, Number 104, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 September 1900 — OPPOSING BRYANISM [ARTICLE]

OPPOSING BRYANISM

Outspoken Opinions by Former Prominent Democrats. GO FORWARD OR TURN BACK? George Tannejof Indianapolis Recognizes the Firm Foundation. / Important Question Propounded by M. E. Ingalls, President of the Big Four Railroad— Hon. W. C. Duncan’s Reasons For Following the Example of Captain English—Herman Hulman, Jr., a Terre Haute Wholesale Merchant, Puts His Faith In McKinley. Melville E. Engalls, president of the Big Four railroad system, a lifelong Democrat and onp of the most conspicuous of America’s successful rail road men, has turned a deaf ear to William J. Bryan’s earnest solicitations that he support the national Democratic ticket this fall. Iu the September, number of the North American Review Mr. Ingalls gives his reasons for supporting the national Republican ticket 1 , and his views are likely to be read with interest by thousands of employes of the Big Four system and of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway system, ot which he was until recently president. Some months ago Mr. Ingalls was approached by a prominent American capitalist, and was asked to put himself in communication with William. J. Bryan, the statement being made that his intermediary was not aware of the particular nature of the business in baud. The result of this communication was that Mr. Ingalls was asked to state the conditions upon which he would feel disposed to support the national Democracy in this campaign. Mr. iDgalls’ answer to that question is embodied in his article in the magazine. In the campaign of 1896 Mr. Ingalls, by special request, made one or two speeches in each of the doubtful states along the Ohio river; and it is likely that tne Workingmen of West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois attach more importance to his utterances upon questions affecting their interests than to those of any other conspicuous capitalist. Mr. Ingalls says in part: “The feeling of unrest in the bdsom of the laborer, if it exists, is a protest against conditions which, while securing him good wages, seem, nevertheless, to rob him of his fair share In the general prosperity. In many ways my sympathies are with him. Now. can any sane man tell me how the laborer will help his condition, or the solution of the problem so vital to him, by voting to debase our standard of value and thereby reducing his own wages? The safety of the American republic is not menaced by a bogey crowned with an imperial diadem of straw. The cry of imperialism is simply a pretext of the Democratic leaders. Now, as in 1896, the real issue is the silver danger. The only peril threatening the United States is ruin and retrogression under silver, the turning back of the wheels of progress and .prosperity to the standards of China and i Mexico, and the abandonment of our position as the greatest country in the civilized world. Shall we go forward, or shall we turn back? That is the question for the voters in November. Under McKinley we go forward; under Bryan we turn back. A reversal of the popular verdict of 1896 would mean a reversal of all the achievements that make up our national prosperity.”