Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 October 1900 — "BRYANISM IN WEST, CROKERISM IN EAST.” [ARTICLE]

"BRYANISM IN WEST, CROKERISM IN EAST.”

Reasons Why James H. Eckels Will Vote lor McKinley.

Cleveland’s Comptroller of tbe Currency Urges All to Unite and Give Bryan* ism Its Deathblow as a Disturbing Factor.

The political outlook in the West is,- I believe, generally satisfactory to those who are opposed to Mr. Bryan and the things for which be stands is public life. In the extreme West his most ardent friends are ready to concede that he has lost much ground since the campaign of 1896, and unless he can recoup himself in tbe Middle West and East, his defeat will become a matter of certainty. The Pacific Btates, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Kansas will all be found to be against him,

with a strong probability of Nebraska — unless State pride is extremely strong—joining them. It is hoped to make up this loss by carrying Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Any one who knows Illinois politics realizes that it is naturally a Republican State, and has gone Democratic only once in forty years, and that when the business elements were favorable to the Democratic candidates. ,

The same is to be suid of Ohio, with the added statement that it has never given its electoral vote to a Democratic candidate for the Presidency since the war. Indiana is the only close State, and those who know it best believe that the Democrats will not win there. In both Illinois and Indiana, exceptionally strong men have been named as Democratic candidates for Governor, and to an extent they will aid Mr. Bryan, but not enough to overcome the sentiment held everywhere against him by conservative and thoughtful people. All this apparent prospect of success over Mr. Bryan ought not to cause a lessening of the struggle against him. It will not do in this contest to simply prevent his having a majority in the Electoral College by giving President McKinley barely enough to win. DECISIVE DEFEAT FOR BRYAN. What ought to be accomplished is the decisive defeat of Br.vunism as a disturbing factor in the politics of this country. The country cannot afford with each recurring four years to l»e upset from one end to the other by the danger of a man of such vagaries as be entertains obtaining control of the nation's affairs. The plea that is put forth by some men of ability that he can be rendered harmless before election by the enactment of new laws is hardly statesmanship. Why place a man in the Presidency whom you must virtually put under bonds to keep the peace?

Mr. Bryan has mo grievously wronged the Democratic party that no Democrat who really wishes to, see the party get back into public confidence ought to aid mid als*t him at this time. He would destroy the country's currency system if he could by substituting the silver standard. Why five bitn indorsement in that determination? He would abrogate the right of private contract, overturn the traditions. practices. aD<l high position of the Supreme Court, and make impossible the quick and effective maintenance of public order in times of excitement and stress. Why make it possible for him to even undertake so much that is revolutionary, even though he fail in it all? No Time for Experiments.

I hardly think the thoughtful judgment of any citizen will say thut the possibility that Mr. Bryan tuny do better in the Philippines thun President McKinley is doing justifies an experiment fraught with so much danger to the stability of things at home. The question may he very properly raised whether a man who is wrong on every important problem which affects the • itizens of the United States at home can adjust and administer

the affairs of tbe Philippine people prop"erly. I do not myself believe he can. Mr. Bryan’s plea for the salvation this country by the destruction of what heterms “imperialism,” a* exemplified in tbe administration of our affair* in tho Philippines, loses its force when it is remembered what be pledges himself to carry out at home, in matters which go to the personal and property interests of every citizen of the republic, no matter*. __! how small such interests may be. If would be the height of folly in this campaign to forget the very important effect which Mr. Bryan’s election would have upon the business interests of the country. In the minds of those who carry on the affairs which make up our business world he is associated with uncertainty and doubt. It will not do to say that these interests are selfish and ought to receive a lesson, for the greates sufferer* will be those who are most dependent upon the largest daily activity in business. No one wonld suffer so much as thelaborer, for he must have steady work, day in and day out. He has no reservo capital from which to draw, and the curtailment of business operations mean* the curtailment of employment of labor, with attendant distress and idleness. Dangerous to Labor Interests.

I look upon Mr. Bryan as the most dangerous man to tbe labor interests today in public life. In the first instance he is a demagogue, possessed of a certain quality of oratory which appeals always to prejudice. Tn the second, he is well grounded in no branch of political economy and unsound in all. He would be more unpopular with laboring men, if elected, than, it » claimed, he is popular with them now, because his success would paralyze business for a long time at least, during which time the laborer of neces-. sity would be without employment. Then, too, the laborer would soon discover how utterly futile Mr. Bryan’s efforts would be to make better his condition by making war upon his employers.. The laborer certainly cannot be benefited by a policy which is directed wholly toward the unsettling of values, the reduction of the purchasing power of bis wage and the enactment into law of views which, tested by experience and history, are wholly unsound. I believe President McKinley ought tobe re-elected as largely as possible by Democratic votes. Under the present domination of Mr. Bryan a ConservativeDemocrat can find no place of influencein the party. Those who now return to it after rejecting Bryanism four years ago will find themselves without voice in the administration. Theey go back to accept Mr. Bryan’s views. He does not accept theirs. They indorse him —he does not indorse them; and, once elected, they are not in a position, after changing front, to protest against his radicalism. By voting for him they do, in fact, indorse him, despite a mental reservation that they do not approve of his public utterances and Populistic views. They disarm themselves of a right to criticise and drawdown upon their heads more blame for Mr. Bryan’s unsound views as a disturbing factor than does Mr. Bryan himself. For by their act in voting for Mr. Bryan they have made it possible for him to do the harm which they must know would follow the carrying out of the principle* for which he stands.

Bryan’s Partjr Populistic. The Democratic party cannot be botlk Democratic and Populistic. Under Mr. Bryan it is Populistic. It is so ont of power. It would be more so in power. The best example of what he would dowith the party if in power is shown ilk his own State, where even the kind of Democrats they have in Nebraska areonly allotted one or two minor offices, while the Populists are given all of importance. When Mr. Bryan is eliminated Democrats can readily assume a position of respect and influence in the Democratic: party, and until he is they ought to fight against him. They can aid the party best i by rescuing it from Populism by defeating Populistic candidates at the poll*, not by electing their candidates with the vain hope that they can either reform them, render them harmless, or prove them to be pretentious boasters, publicly standing for things which they never intended to carry out. As far as I am concerned, I am going; to maintain my Democracy by voting and speaking against Mr. Bryan and those who have debauched the party and placed it in the attitude of a defender of alt the isms that disturb the country. I do not believe in Bryanism in the West or Crokerism in the East. If a continuation of Bryanism and Crokerism constitute Democracy, sound political wisdom and honest administrative ability, I do not wish to be of it. But Ido not believe it does, and, therefore, I have faith in there beta* enoqgb Democrats who are Democrat* from principle to defeat Mr. Bryan so emphatically as to make impossible the things we have witnessed during the past years in allege:] Democratic conventions. I really would like to know what a thoughtful Democrat thinks of reforms wrought in domestic ami foreign affairs j through the combined wisdom and expo- V| rience of William J. Bryan and Richard f Croker. JAMES H. ECKELS. Comptroller of the Currency under Cleveland.