Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention:
I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the
distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere
measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. The
humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous
cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you
in defence of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty - the cause of
humanity.
When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon
the table the resolution offered in commendation of the Administration,
and also the resolution offered in condemnation of the Administration.
We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The
individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles
are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle.
Never before in the history of this country has there been
witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed.
Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been
fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. On
the fourth of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of
Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting
that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring
that a majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the
action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the
request that the believers in the free coinage of silver in the
Democratic party should organize, take charge of, and control the policy
of the Democratic party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization
was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and
courageously proclaiming their belief, and declaring that, if
successful, they would crystallize into a platform the declaration which
they had made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal approaching the zeal
which inspired the Crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit, our silver
Democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they are now
assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment
already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest
brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The
warmest ties of love, acquaintance, and association have been
disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when they have refused to
give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new
leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus
has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding
and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the
people.
We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been
glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we
know that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him
in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I
say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle,
and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought
into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side.
The gentleman who preceded me spoke of the
state of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all
this Convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the
state of Massachusetts, but we stand here representing people who are
the equals, before the law, of the greatest citizens in the state of
Massachusetts. When you [turning to the gold delegates] come before us
and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we
reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course.
We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man
too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as
much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is
as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis;
the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the
merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils
all day, who begins in spring and toils all summer, and who by the
application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country
creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the
Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down
a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the
cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to
be poured into the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few
financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world.
We come to speak of this broader class of business men.
Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon
the Atlantic Coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the
dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the
rose - the pioneers away out there [pointing to the West], who rear
their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their
voices with the voices of the birds - out there where they have erected
schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they
praise their creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead
- these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our
party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We
do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are
fighting in the defence of our homes, our families, and posterity. We
have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated,
and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have
mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we
petition no more. We defy them!
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre.
My friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant
will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson
to stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized
wealth.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply
to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles
upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that
they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have
arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the
income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They
criticise us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United
States. My friends, we have not criticised; we have simply called
attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the
dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They
say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax
law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not
unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first
time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed
his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his
mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the burdens of
government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an
income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of
the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is
unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.
They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true.
If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in
searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson;
that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Catiline and saved
Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us
when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our
platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a
function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of
sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private
individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the
power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once
regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion
from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority.
Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of
paper money is a function of the bank, and that the government ought to
go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with
them, and tell them, as he did that the issue of money is a function of
government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing
business.
They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure
in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not
mean. What we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being
built up in Washington and which excludes from participation in official
benefits the humbler members of society.
Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The
gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the
platform providing that the proposed change in our monetary system shall
not affect contracts already made. Let me remind you that there is no
intention of affecting those contracts which, according to present laws,
are made payable in gold; but if he means to say that we cannot change
our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money
before the change was made, I desire to ask him where, in law or in
morals, he can find justification for not protecting the debtors when
the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we must protect the
creditors.
He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for
the suspension of free coinage if we fail to maintain a parity within a
year. We reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be
successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity
by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply
his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says he wants
this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why does he
not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to secure an
international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than
there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity.
Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international
agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who does not want
it at all.
And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they
ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon
the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its
thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they
ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we
believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the
Constitution all other necessary reforms will be possible; but that
until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.
Why is it that within three months such a change has come over
the country? Three months ago when it was confidently, asserted that
those who believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and
nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not
think that we could elect a President. And they had good reason for
their doubt, because there is scarcely a state here to-day asking for
the gold standard which is not in the absolute control of the Republican
party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon
a platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until
it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr.
McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and three
months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election.
How is it to-day? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he
looked like Napoleon - that man shudders to-day when he remembers that
he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only
that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness
the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St.
Helena.
Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change
evident to any one who will look at the matter? No private character,
however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from
the avenging wrath of an indignant people a man who will declare that he
is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who is
willing to surrender the right of self-government and place the
legislative control of our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates
and powers.
We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the
paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon
which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the
gold standard is a good thing, we shall point to their platform and tell
them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold
standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good
thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your attention to the fact that
some of the very people who are in this Convention to-day and who tell
us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism -
thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle
of bimetallism is better - these very people four months ago were open
and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that
we could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the
world. If the gold standard is a good thing, we ought to declare in
favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the
gold standard is a bad thing why should we wait until other nations are
willing to help us to let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care
not upon which issue they force the fight; we are prepared to meet them
on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is
the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most
enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a
gold standard and that both the great parties this year are declaring
against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why,
my friends, should we not have it? If they come to meet us on that issue
we can present the history of our nation. More than that; we can tell
them that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single
instance where the common people of any land have ever declared
themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find where the
holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but not
where the masses have.
Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the
idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce
the wealth and pay the taxes of the country"; and, my friends, the
question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party
fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the
side of "the struggling masses"? That is the question which the party
must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual
hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the
platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been
the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of
government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate
to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on
those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you
legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its
way up through every class which rests upon them.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of
the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad
and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and
your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms
and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for
its own people on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent
of any other nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry
every state in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the
fair state of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the state of New York
by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will
declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It
is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions
in number had the courage to declare their political independence of
every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to
seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our
forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people.
Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say
bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help
us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England
has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism
because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open
field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them
to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation
and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring
interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a
gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow
of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a
cross of gold.
APStudent.com | www.apstudent.com