The Project Gutenberg eBook, William Jennings Bryan, by Harvey Ellsworth Newbranch

The author of this little volume, in giving it to the reading public, feels called on for a few words by way of explanation and apology.

The book is written because there seems to be a field for it. Within the last few months hundreds of thousands of American citizens have come to see William Jennings Bryan in a new light. As a result, while they no longer believe him a demagogue, some still hesitate to accept him as a statesman. While they have ceased to denounce him as an anarchist, some are slow to realize that he stands with Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln as one of the great conservators of American institutions.

Especially for the benefit of this class of his fellow citizens this little “life” of Mr. Bryan is published. For it is claimed no literary merit other than a conscientious attempt at clearness, and no historical excellence save a strict adherence to the truth in the statement of facts. The work has had to be hurriedly done and at irregular intervals, and the one object aimed at has been to acquaint the reader with Mr. Bryan’s character through a narration of his life work.

It is candidly admitted that the book is written in a friendly and sympathetic vein. To the author’s thinking Mr. Bryan’s personality is one of the most 2beautiful and well-rounded in American history, and his noble characteristics are dwelt on only because they exist and deserve to be understood.

To many of Mr. Bryan’s old-time friends in Lincoln the author is under obligations for valuable assistance. Among these may be especially mentioned Mr. Harry T. Dobbins, Judge J. H. Broady, Mr. T. S. Allen, and Mr. W. F. Schwind. Others have contributed to a greater or less degree, and to all due thanks and acknowledgements are hereby rendered.

About the life and services of William Jennings Bryan will be centered the labors of those who, in future time, shall contribute to the pages of history the story of American states-craft and political tendencies of the dying days of the nineteenth century and the opening decade of the twentieth. The historian who has to do with Bryan and his times will deal not only with one of the most momentous and important periods of American history, but with one of the most remarkable and interesting characters whose name adorns its pages.

It is not generally while the battle of ideas and ideals is on, it is but rarely during the developing period of great political and social movements, that their relative and ultimate importance may be judged; and it is as seldom, during the lifetime of a public man, whose name is identified and whose services are associated with the great issues which constitute the line of demarcation in the field of political thought, that his true character, his strength, and his weaknesses, may be appreciated or understood.

In the study of man and of history a proper sense of perspective is as all-essential as in the limner’s art. The warrior who, with heart aflame, strives on a great battlefield, can know but little of the terrible grandeur of the whole, and still less of the import of 6the movements of battalions, regiments, and corps. It remains for him who, from an eminence of distance or of time, surveys impartially the entire field, to comprehend its sublimities and horrors, and to appreciate the full significance of its waging and its outcome. And even so, of necessity, it is most difficult for us who live in the American republic, at this century’s sunset, to be able or even willing rightly to appreciate the full import of movements in the advancement or retarding of which each bears howsoever humble a part. Too frequently in politics, as in battle, men do fiercely strive with blinded eyes and deafened ears, and they sometimes wildly strike at him who is their friend.

And yet there are many things in the life of a public man which his neighbors and associates can not fail of knowing, and which, when interpreted, permit his contemporaries to estimate the quality of his character, even though they may not know the full value of his public services. In every man, of whatever station, there are elements and traits which prominently stand forth. These, with such things as he has done and the words which he has spoken, constitute the material from which we may form our concepts of his worth.

In William Jennings Bryan are certain traits so prominent and unmistakable that he who runs may read. They have been well revealed, in few words, by Judge Edgar Howard, of Papillion, Neb. In a speech delivered before the Jacksonian Club of Omaha, on July 15, 1900, Judge Howard said:

7“Reverently I say it, that while I do not worship the man, I do worship those traits in him that, as I read the book, stand unparalleled in politics. There is not a man of you here or anywhere to be found who has the nerve to speak a profane or vulgar word in the presence of our candidate for President. Nor does a man dare suggest a move on the political chess-board that honor will not approve. He brightens and betters all those who come in contact with him, no matter who they be. Then why should we not go before the world and preach this man—the personification of purity, clean in all things—as well as his principles?”

In this little volume it will be attempted to tell briefly the story of this American’s life and the movements with which he has been associated. The tale must be hurriedly moulded into form, and we fear its rough lines and its crudities will be all too apparent. And yet, withal, it will be the result of sincere endeavor to aid his fellow-citizens to know William Jennings Bryan even as he is. It is, we believe, a laudable design, however poorly executed. For here, on the farther side of the brown and swift Missouri, there dwells a man of virile and rugged qualities, typically American and truly Western, the story of whose life is a wondrous inspiration to every citizen of the Republic and a monument to the uplifting force of right living and high ideals. For it tells that even in the politics of to-day, honeycombed with cant, hypocrisy, and insincerity, absolute honesty of motive and candor of statement is still no bar to the 8truest leadership and the highest advancement. It tells further of the marvelous opportunities of humble American citizenship, demonstrating once more, as in Abraham Lincoln’s time, that to the man of conscience, brains, and courage, the highest walks of life are open; to which neither poverty nor obscurity is a bar. And finally it tells of the great potential power of the idea, unaided and even bitterly opposed, when forcefully and sincerely stated, to win its way to the hearts of humankind.

And so it is that to such as will honestly study William Jennings Bryan’s career, and learn the lesson that it teaches, must come hope and inspiration and promise of the dawn. For whether he ever hold high political office or not; whether or not, in the crucible of time, his political faith prove true or prove fallacious; his life still teaches that courage and plain honesty may win for a public man such following and support, such exalted place in the hearts of his countrymen, as has never yet rewarded the tricks and wiles of even the most brilliant of opportunists.

William Bryan, the great-grandfather of the presidential nominee, the first of the Bryans known to the present generation, lived in Culpepper county, Va. In his family there were three children. One of these, John Bryan, was the grandfather of William Jennings Bryan. In 1807 John married Nancy Lillard. To this couple ten children were born. One of these was Silas L. Bryan, the father of William Jennings Bryan.

He was born in Sperryville, Culpepper county, Va., in 1822. In 1834 he came west, working his way through the public schools, finally entering McKendree College, at Lebanon, Ill., and graduating with honors in 1849. After graduating, he studied law, was admitted to the bar, and began his practice in Salem, Marion county, Ill. In 1852 he was married to Mariah Elizabeth Jennings. In 1860, he was elected to the circuit bench, where he served twelve years. In 1872 he was nominated for Congress on the Democratic ticket, receiving the endorsement of the Greenback party. He died March 30, 1880, and was buried in the cemetery of his much beloved town, Salem.

The union of Silas Bryan and Mariah Jennings was blessed on March 19, 1860, by the birth of William Jennings Bryan, twice the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

10When William Jennings Bryan was six years old, his parents moved to their farm in the vicinity of Salem. Until he was ten years of age his parents taught him at home, hoping thus to mould his young mind to better advantage. At ten years of age William entered the public schools of Salem. There he attended until he was fifteen, when he entered Whipple Academy, Jacksonville, Ill., in the fall of 1875. Two years later he entered Illinois College, and with this step a new life began.

His parents wished him to take a classical course with its Latin, Greek, mathematics, and geometry. This he did. He was, too, an earnest student of political economy. During his first year at the Academy, he delivered Patrick Henry’s masterpiece, and was ranked well down toward the “foot.” Again in the second year, nothing daunted by his failure to be at the “head,” he selected “The Palmetto and the Pine” as his subject. This time he was third, with a large number following. Later in his second year he delivered “Bernado del Carpio” and gained second prize. In his sophomore and junior years, his essays upon “Labor” and “Individual Powers” were each awarded first prize. The winning of the junior prize entitled him to represent Illinois College in the intercollegiate oratorical contest, which was held at Galesburg, Ill., in the fall of 1880. His oration was upon “Justice,” which received the second prize of fifty dollars. At the time of graduation, he was elected class orator, and delivered the valedictory.

It was here, in his junior year that he first met his 11wife, Miss Mary Baird, of Perry, Ill., and she, speaking of her first impression, says, “I saw him first in the parlors of the young ladies’ school which I attended in Jacksonville. He entered the room with several other students, was taller than the rest, and attracted my attention at once. His face was pale and thin; a pair of keen, dark eyes looked out from beneath heavy eyebrows; his nose was prominent—too large to look well, I thought; a broad, thin-lipped mouth and a square chin completed the contour of his face. I noted particularly his hair and smile. The former, black in color, fine in quality, and parted distressingly straight. In later years his smile has been the subject of considerable comment. Upon one occasion a heartless observer was heard to remark, ‘That man can whisper in his own ear,’ but this was cruel exaggeration.”

The graduating exercises of Illinois College were in June, 1881. The valedictory is given below, not because it possesses great merit, but in order to show his style and the turn of his mind at the time.

“Beloved instructors, it is character not less than intellect that you have striven to develop. As we stand at the end of our college course, and turn our eyes toward the scenes forever past, as our memories linger on the words of wisdom which have fallen from your lips, we are more and more deeply impressed with the true conception of duty which you have ever shown. You have sought not to trim the lamp of genius until the light of morality is paled by its dazzling brilliance, but to encourage and strengthen 12both. These days are over. No longer shall we listen to your warning voices, no more meet you in these familiar classrooms, yet on our hearts ‘deeply has sunk the lesson’ you have given, and it shall not soon depart.

“We thank you for your kind and watchful care, and shall ever cherish your teachings with that devotion which sincere gratitude inspires.

“It is fitting that we express to you also, honored trustees, our gratitude for the privileges which you have permitted us to enjoy.

“The name of the institution whose interest you guard will ever be dear to us as the schoolroom, to whose influence we shall trace whatever success coming years may bring.

“Dear classmates, my lips refuse to bid you a last good-bye; we have so long been joined together in a community of aims and interests; so often met and mingled our thoughts in confidential friendship; so often planned and worked together, that it seems like rending asunder the very tissues of a heart to separate us now.

“But this long and happy association is at an end, and now as we go forth in sorrow, as each one must, to begin alone the work which lies before us, let us encourage each other with strengthening words.

“Success is brought by continued labor and continued watchfulness. We must struggle on, not for one moment hesitate, nor take one backward step; for in the language of the poet:

MRS. BRYAN

We launch our vessels upon the uncertain sea of life alone, yet not alone, for around us are friends who anxiously and prayerfully watch our course. They will rejoice if we arrive safely at our respective havens, or weep with bitter tears if, one by one, our weather-beaten barks are lost forever in the surges of the deep.

“We have esteemed each other, loved each other, and now must with each other part. God grant that we may all so live as to meet in the better world, where parting is unknown.

“Halls of learning, fond Alma Mater, farewell. We turn to take our ‘last, long, lingering look’ at the receding walls. We leave thee now to be ushered out into the varied duties of an active life.

“However high our names may be inscribed upon the gilded scroll of fame, to thee we all the honor give, to thee all the praises bring. And when, in after years, we’re wearied by the bustle of the busy world, our hearts will often long to turn and seek repose beneath thy sheltering shade.”

In September, 1881, William Jennings Bryan entered the Union College of Law at Chicago. Out of school hours his time was spent in the office of ex-Senator Lyman Trumbull, who had been a great friend of young Bryan’s father. His vacation and summer months were spent on the farm, and it was 14these years of rugged, outdoor life which gave to his manhood that vigor, stability, and splendid physique so helpful to him in his life as a student and in his work since he has left college.

Mr. Bryan stood well in the law school, taking an especial interest in constitutional law. He was also connected with the debating society of the college and took an active part in its meetings.

At the age of twenty-three Mr. Bryan finished a collegiate course and started in life for himself, leaving the farm, robust and ambitious, to grow in the knowledge of his profession. His parents were devout Christians and members of the Baptist Church. So Mr. Bryan was early taught those principles of right and wrong, justice, equality, and the advantages of a pure life. His father’s example convinced him that the old saying that “no honest man can become a lawyer” was a myth and a mistake. And on July 4, 1883, William Jennings Bryan began the practice of his profession in Jacksonville, Ill.

Stocked with a liberal education, a conscience void of offense, a character unsullied, and an ambition to know the law, and to apply this knowledge for the benefit of the people, he began at the very bottom of the ladder. The drudgery and disappointments, the hardships and jokes common to a beginner without means and alone, in competition with men of gray hairs and wisdom that come from years of toil and practice, was the portion of Mr. Bryan. But he was a courageous man; Napoleon-like he knew no such word as fail, and with that force and enthusiasm so 15characteristic of the man, he labored on, believing that each disappointment contained its lesson, and that every hardship endured had its counterpart in a triumph. His early practice was not unlike that of other beginners, taking such cases as usually come to the young lawyer.

At the close of the first year, and during the fall of 1884, his income was such that he could support a wife; a modest home was planned and built, and in October, 1884, he was married. During the next three years he lived comfortably, though economically, and laid by a small amount. Politics lost none of its charms, and each campaign found Mr. Bryan speaking, usually in his own county.

Three years after graduation he attended the commencement at Illinois College, delivered the Master’s oration, and received the degree, his subject being “American Citizenship.” From that time until he entered Congress in 1891, his only support for himself and his wife was from his profession. Mr. Bryan continued in a growing practice of law in Jacksonville until October, 1887. In July of that year, while on a western trip, he passed through Lincoln, Neb., to visit friends, and in two days was so impressed with the city and its possibilities that he disposed of his business in Jacksonville, and located in Lincoln. Political ambitions did not enter into this change, as the city, county, and state were strongly Republican. Mr. Bryan began his lot as a lawyer in Lincoln by forming a partnership, the style of the firm being “Talbot & Bryan.” He at once applied himself vigorously 16to the details of the practice in his new field, and was soon recognized as a lawyer of unusual strength.

In the few years of practice at the bar of Lincoln before he was elected to Congress, Mr. Bryan became somewhat celebrated as the champion of the anti-sugar-bounty doctrine, and as the pleader for equal rights, under the law, for all classes of men. In the spring of 1896, the city proposed to issue $500,000 of its refunding bonds in gold. A number of citizens believing such a contract unjust to the tax-payers, consulted Mr. Bryan and secured his services in their behalf. Without compensation, he at once devoted his energies to restrain the city of Lincoln from issuing and selling such bonds. A temporary restraining order was issued by the court, and after a vigorous contest an injunction against the city, preventing such contract, was granted. In these cases was shown Mr. Bryan’s genuine interest in public matters, and in the general welfare of the people. Aside from many of these cases involving public interest, his work as a lawyer was the usual practice of the profession.

Mr. Bryan is a man of great physical endurance. As a lawyer as well as a legislator, he is a man of great deliberation. Before acting, he believes in being fully advised as to the subject upon which he is to act. He was never known to champion a cause, accept a case, or make a statement to a jury or elsewhere that did not present the honest conviction of his mind, always having a sincere belief in the correctness of 17the position assumed. In explaining a proposition of law, he seeks the reason for the law, which he is always able to present with peculiar clearness.

In his method of argument he is never emotional, but makes strong applications of law and fact by the statement of his case and proof, without any effort at embellishment or oratory. His ability to crowd a great deal in a few words and sentences is very marked. The weakness of his opponents he easily detects, and readily points out the fallacy. Mr. Bryan is an ardent believer in the American jury system. When in Congress, he introduced a bill providing that a verdict agreed to by three-fourths of the members of a jury should be a verdict of the jury in civil cases, and he made an argument before the Congressional Judiciary Committee in its support.

“Mr. Bryan did not distinguish himself as a lawyer.” Those who thus complain should consider that he entered the practice at the age of twenty-three, and left it at thirty, and in that period began twice, and twice became more than self-supporting. He has not had the time and opportunity in which to establish the reputation at the bar which gives to many American jurists the illustrious positions which they occupy. However, at the time of his election to Congress, his practice was in a thriving condition and fully equal to that of any man of his age in the city.

Whatever may be said of Mr. Bryan by friend or foe, it must be conceded that his convictions control his actions on all questions, either as a lawyer or as 18a public man, and when employed in a case involving great interests, he would, without question, acquit himself with that distinction which has characterized him as a leader in public affairs.

Mr. Bryan’s first political speech of importance was made at Seward in the spring of 1888. At that time Lincoln was known to be as strong as the rock of Gibraltar in the Republican faith. On this occasion of his first public appearance as a political orator in Nebraska, he drew men to him by the power of the orator, and held them there in subsequent years by the virtue of the man. His extraordinary popularity with the masses of his followers was universally acknowledged. After his first few speeches, it did not take long for his reputation to spread over the state, and when he was elected as a delegate from Lancaster county to the Democratic State convention in 1888 he was in great demand. The sources of this popularity, though less clear, were of profound significance, being only in part personal. In fact, it seemed to be this man’s fortune to embody a fresh democratic impulse, which in time would make him the leader of a new democratic movement.

The reports as to Mr. Bryan’s first speech in the convention, say in part: “Mr. Bryan, of Lancaster county, was then called. He came forward and delivered a spirited address, in the course of which he said that if the platform laid down by the President in his message upon the tariff question were carried out and vigorously fought upon in the state, it would, 20in the course of a short time, give Nebraska to the Democracy. He thought if the Democrats went out to the farmers and people who lived in Nebraska and showed them the iniquity of the tariff system, they would rally round the cause which their noble leader, Grover Cleveland, had championed.” This short, but pointed speech created the greatest amount of enthusiasm, and the young orator impressed his personality upon the public mind of his adopted state.

In the fall of 1888, Mr. Bryan made a canvass of the First Congressional District, in behalf of Hon. J. Sterling Morton, and also visited some thirty counties throughout the state. Mr. Morton was defeated by three thousand four hundred, the district being normally Republican.

When the campaign of 1890 opened, a few Democrats who came to appreciate Mr. Bryan’s real ability believed that with him as the nominee the Republicans could be defeated. So when the Democratic convention met at Lincoln, July 31, 1890, Mr. Bryan was selected without opposition, and at once began a vigorous campaign. He began a thorough canvass, speaking about eighty times, and visiting every city and village in the district. At the close of the last debate, he presented to Mr. Connell (his opponent) a copy of Gray’s Elegy, with the following remarks: “Mr. Connell: We now bring to a close the series of debates which was arranged by our committees. I am glad we have been able to conduct these discussions in a courteous and friendly manner. If I have in any way offended you in word or deed, I offer apology and 21regret; and as freely forgive. I desire to present to you, in remembrance of these pleasant meetings, this little volume, because it contains ‘Gray’s Elegy,’ in perusing which I trust you will find as much pleasure and profit as I have found. It is one of the most beautiful and touching tributes to human life that literature contains. Grand in its sentiments and sublime in its simplicity, we may both find in it a solace in victory or defeat. If success crowns your efforts in this campaign, and it should be your lot

and I am left

forget not us who in the common walks of life perform our part, but in the hour of your triumph recall the verse:

“If on the other hand, by the verdict of my countrymen, I should be made your successor, let it not be said of you

but find sweet consolation in the thought:

“But when the palm of victory is given to you or to me, let us remember those of whom the poet says:

“These are the ones most likely to be forgotten by the Government. When the poor and weak cry out for relief, they too often hear no answer but ‘the echo of their cry,’ while the rich, the strong, the powerful are given an attentive ear. For this reason is class legislation dangerous and deadly; it takes from those least able to lose, and gives to those who are least in need. The safety of our farmers and our laborers is not in special legislation, but in equal and just laws that bear alike on every man. The great masses of our people are interested, not in getting their hands into other people’s pockets, but in keeping the hands of other people out of their pockets. Let me, in parting, express the hope that you and I may be instrumental in bringing our Government back to better laws which will give equal treatment without regard to creed or condition. I bid you a friendly farewell.”

Mr. Bryan closed his campaign at the city of Lincoln, and was elected by a plurality of six thousand seven hundred in the same district which two years before had defeated Mr. Morton by a plurality of three thousand four hundred. He was elected in one of the fairest and most brilliant campaigns ever fought; and became one of the most prominent members of the lower House from the West.

The explanation of Mr. Bryan’s popularity must be 23sought in a cause which lies deeper than a political issue.

When he entered Congress he gave his support in caucus to Mr. Springer, for Speaker of the House, in whose district he had lived when at Jacksonville. In the House, he voted for Mr. Crisp, the caucus nominee. Mr. Springer was made chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and although it was unprecedented to give to a first term member a position on the all-important Ways and Means Committee, Speaker Crisp conferred that unprecedented honor upon Bryan of Nebraska. One of the first bills introduced by Mr. Bryan was that providing for the election of senators by the people, at the option of each state.

In supporting this bill Mr. Bryan said: “Mr. Speaker—I desire to call the attention of the House to what I consider a very important question involved in this joint resolution. I shall not consume time in discussing the general principle of electing senators by the people. If the people of a state have enough intelligence to choose their representatives in the state legislature, their executive officers, judges, and their officials in all the departments of the state and country, they have enough intelligence to choose the men who shall represent them in the United States Senate.

“And now, sirs, if we want to secure the election of senators by the people, we must submit a proposition free from the Republican idea of Federal interference, and free from the Democratic idea of non-interference. 24We may just as well cease the attempt to secure this reform if we are going to tie it to Federal election laws. I appeal to members of both sides of the House, members who in their hearts desire this reform, members who in their own judgment believe that the time has come to give the people a chance to vote for the senators, Democrats, Republicans, and Populists alike, to join in a proposition which will eliminate the political question and leave us simply the question of election by the people or not.”

The bill attracted much attention through the country, although it failed of final passage.

On March 16, 1892, Mr. Bryan made his great tariff speech in the House, which is considered in another chapter of this work. In the spring of 1892, the silver sentiment began to show itself among the leaders of the Nebraska Democracy. The state convention to elect delegates to the National Democratic convention was called for April 15, 1892, and found Mr. Bryan back in Lincoln, by the consent of the House, making a determined effort for the adoption of a plank favoring the free coinage of silver. The fight was a hard and bitter one. In supporting this part of the platform Mr. Bryan said in part:

“Gentlemen—I do not believe it is noble to dodge any issue. If, as has been indicated, this may have an effect on my campaign, then no bridegroom went with gladder heart to greet his bride that I shall welcome defeat. Vote this down if you will, but do not dodge it; for that is not democratic.” The convention went wild in a body, a vote was called, which brought 25defeat to the Bryan silver plank. By this act Mr. Bryan incurred the hatred of the Cleveland administration.

Upon the return of Mr. Bryan to Nebraska at the close of the 52d Congress, a series of debates had been arranged with the Republican party nominee, Allen W. Field, then judge of the district court. This was even a more bitter contest than the first. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Foraker, and others were called to Nebraska to aid the Republican cause. They made desperate efforts to “down” Bryan, but in spite of all he was reelected by a majority of one hundred fifty-two.

As a congressman William Jennings Bryan was a success. From the moment he entered Congress, he was a leader. To those who knew him intimately, it was no surprise that during the first term he sprang suddenly into prominence. His speech on the tariff question stamped him not only as an orator, but a man who had made a deep political study of economic questions.

It was not until his second term that he really focussed public attention upon himself. When Congress was convened in extraordinary session, he went to Washington prepared to resist the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman act. He knew the feeling of his constituents, and being thoroughly familiar with every phase of the question, he entered upon the fight like a gladiator. His conspicuous record as an orator in the previous session was sufficient to get him a place in the great debate, and, when the opportunity came, Bryan was prepared for it. 26For several days it was known that he was to speak, and the galleries of the House were crowded at each session. Finally he was recognized by the Speaker, and he began the most effective speech that had been heard in Congress in years. Everybody was quiet and listened. The oldest member could not remember when a man had received such marked attention and such spontaneous applause as Bryan got that day. As he stood there, the picture of health, a physical giant, his voice falling in easy cadence, he impressed upon his hearers the thought that he meant every word he was saying. He had every one in his grasp. As he continued, the audience became worked up to a high pitch, and when he concluded with a magnificent peroration, quiet reigned for a moment, then suddenly every one joined in tumultuous applause. Bryan had finished; he had made a speech that for thought, logic, and sentiment, to say nothing of its matchless delivery, had few equals in the records of Congress. For two hours and fifty minutes the young Nebraska orator held the close attention of a full house and crowded galleries. Instead of members leaving the hall as usual, they crowded in, and every man was in his seat. This speech made him famous. Occasionally a single standard man would interrupt, but none did it without subsequent regret. He knew his case too well.

From that day to this, Bryan has been in the public eye everywhere. Many who heard his tariff speech predicted that it was a flash light, and would soon grow dim, and its author be forgotten; but after he 27made his silver speech those who thought his first an accident were compelled to admit that he possessed all the qualifications of a statesman and that he was bound to be a leader in his party.

Besides his silver and tariff speeches, Mr. Bryan spoke briefly upon several other questions, namely, in favor of foreclosure of Government liens on all Pacific railways, and in favor of the anti-option bill. He favored the application of the principle of arbitration as far as Federal authority extends. On January 30, 1894, Mr. Bryan, in a speech in favor of the income tax, brilliantly and successfully replied to the speech of Bourke Cockran delivered in opposition to that measure.

His record in Congress did not consist entirely of speech-making. He was a tireless worker for his constituents, and he secured more pensions for old soldiers living in his district than all the Republican congressmen who had preceded him. He personally attended to the wants of every constituent, and no man ever wrote a letter asking his assistance that he did not at once enlist Bryan’s active support. He was vigilant and watchful, and never missed an opportunity to do a favor.

He was exceedingly active in Congress, dodging nothing, and often speaking on the current questions. Yet nothing that he did or said in Congress comes back to plague him. It was then thought, and it has since been hoped, that in the fulness of his record something would come back to trip him. But what he said then only makes him stronger now.

28It may not be amiss at this point to quote from Mrs. Bryan, who said: “Quoting from a eulogy which Mr. Bryan delivered upon a colleague in the 53d Congress, this extract will serve a double purpose, in that it gives his views upon immortality, and, at the same time, presents a passage which I think may, without impropriety, be called a finished bit of English. Mr. Bryan said ‘I shall not believe that even now his light is extinguished. If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried acorn, and make it burst forth from its buried walls, will He leave neglected in the earth, the soul of man, who was made in the image of his Creator? If he stoops to give to the rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will he withhold the words of hope from the sons of man when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, though changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms, can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation after it has paid a brief visit, like a royal guest, to this tenement of clay? Rather let us believe that He, who, in His apparent prodigality, makes the blade of grass or the evening’s sighing zephyr, but makes them to carry out His eternal plan, has given immortality to the mortal, and gathered to Himself the generous spirit of our friend. Instead of mourning, let us look up and address him in the words of the poet:

Mr. Bryan was singularly free from egotism, affectation, or envy of the fame of others. That he was brilliant goes without saying, but his brilliancy was as natural and easy as to be like Shakespeare’s description of mercy:

For twenty years prior to 1896 the chief tangible point of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties was the tariff question. It was, in truth, a question on which the two great parties had always differed since the days when they were known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Democratic party, in true accord with the principles of Thomas Jefferson, has always held that government to be best which interferes least with the liberty of the individual. The purpose of government, it has held, is to protect man in his personal rights against the unjust encroachments of his neighbors. But, according to the Democratic idea, government should not interfere to arbitrarily promote the interests of any class of its citizens at the expense of any other class. All should be left, protected against illegal encroachment, but otherwise unmolested, to work out their own salvation. In other words, Democracy believes that government to be best which governs least.

The Republican theory, on the other hand, has inclined toward the exactly opposite point of view; that that government is best which governs most. It has acted consistently on the principle that it is not only permissible but advisable for government to be made an instrument for advancing the pecuniary or business 31interests of such of its citizens as seem most deserving or are most fortunate in winning its ear. It was this radical difference between the two parties, involving, as it did, a basic and fundamental principle, that lay at the root of the controversy regarding tariff duties.

The Democratic party, adhering to the strict letter of the Constitution, held that the tariff should be levied for one simple purpose, and that the purpose contemplated by the Constitution—to raise revenue. With this end in view, the party contended, tariff duties should be levied mostly on such articles as are not produced in this country, and, in order to equalize the burden of taxation, be imposed rather on luxuries than the strict necessities of life.

The Republican party took a more radical position. It advocated the levying of tariff duties, not primarily for the purpose of raising revenue,—that was made a secondary consideration,—but to protect from foreign competition the manufacturing and industrial enterprises of the United States. Then, it argued, these establishments, protected by the fostering arm of government, would grow great and strong, furnishing at once employment for labor at high wages, and a “home market” for the products of the American farm and mine.

Controverting this alluring argument, the Democratic party held that government had no right to compel citizens of one class or section to contribute involuntarily to the support of citizens of some other class or section of the country. The only manner in 32which a protective tariff could protect, it pointed out, was by enabling the home manufacturer to charge a higher price because of the duty on foreign goods. This added price, it showed, must be paid into the pocket of the American manufacturer by the American consumer. Moreover, it declared, the farmer could only share the burden without receiving any of the benefits of a high protective tariff, the price of his products being fixed in the world’s markets at Liverpool and London. And the same thing, it held, was true of the laboring man, as the rate of his remuneration was fixed mainly by “the iron law of wages.”

When Mr. Bryan was elected to Congress for his first term this question of tariff was the all-absorbing one before the people. The Republican party, in the zenith of its power, had enacted the McKinley tariff law, the embodiment of its views on this question, levying tariff duties so high as almost to exclude foreign competition. It was in this law, undoubtedly, that most of the great trusts and monopolies since formed read their birthright.

Mr. Bryan, naturally, as a Democrat and a firm believer in the principles of government laid down by Thomas Jefferson, was vigorously opposed to the theory of a high protective tariff. The Congress in which he served his first term was Democratic, the result of the enactment of the trust-breeding McKinley tariff law. The Ways and Means Committee, of which Mr. Springer of Illinois was chairman, decided that relief might best be effected by the introduction 33of a series of bills, transferring certain commodities to the free list.

It was in support of one of these—a bill placing wool on the free list and reducing the duties on woolen goods—that Mr. Bryan delivered his maiden speech in the House. This was on Wednesday, March 16, 1892. Like Byron, he awoke the next morning and found himself famous. The speech had attracted the admiring attention of the whole country. The young orator’s logic, acute reasoning, powers of broad generalization, and apt and homely illustration, not less than his genuine eloquence, incisive wit, and brilliant repartee, had, in one speech, won him a place at the head of the list of American parliamentary orators.

In his speech Mr. Bryan thus effectually punctured with his ridicule the Republican argument generally advanced that a high tariff makes low prices:

“Now, there are two arguments which I have never heard advanced in favor of protection; but they are the best arguments. They admit a fact and justify it, and I think that is the best way to argue, if you have a fact to meet. Why not say to the farmer, ‘Yes, of course you lose; but does not the Bible say, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”—[laughter]—and if you suffer some inconvenience, just look back over your life and you will find that your happiest moments were enjoyed when you were giving something to somebody, and the most unpleasant moments were when you were receiving.’ These manufacturers are self-sacrificing. They are willing to take the lesser part, and the more unpleasant business of receiving, 34and leave to you the greater joy of giving. [Loud laughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

“Why do they not take the other theory, which is borne out by history—that all nations which have grown strong, powerful, and influential, just as individuals, have done it through hardship, toil, and sacrifice, and that after they have become wealthy they have been enervated, they have gone to decay through the enjoyment of luxury, and that the great advantage of the protective system is that it goes around among the people and gathers up their surplus earnings so that they will not be enervated or weakened, so that no legacy of evil will be left to their children. Their surplus earnings are collected up, and the great mass of our people are left strong, robust, and hearty. These earnings are garnered and put into the hands of just as few people as possible, so that the injury will be limited in extent. [Great laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] And they say, ‘Yes, of course, of course; it makes dudes of our sons, and it does, perhaps, compel us to buy foreign titles for our daughters [laughter], but of course if the great body of the people are benefited, as good, patriotic citizens we ought not to refuse to bear the burden.’ [Laughter.]

“Why do they not do that? They simply come to you and tell you that they want a high tariff to make low prices, so that the manufacturer will be able to pay large wages to his employees. [Laughter.] And then, they want a high tariff on agricultural products so that they will have to buy what they buy at the 35highest possible price. They tell you that a tariff on wool is for the benefit of the farmer, and goes into his pocket, but that the tariff on manufactured products goes into the farmer’s pocket, too, ‘and really hurts us, but we will stand it if we must.’ They are much like a certain maiden lady of uncertain age, who said, ‘This being the third time that my beau has called, he might make some affectionate demonstration’; and, summing up all her courage, she added, ‘I have made up my mind that if he does I will bear it with fortitude.’” [Great laughter and applause.]

He thus pleaded for the protection of the greatest of “home industries,”—the home-building of the common people:

“I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that this Republican party, which is responsible for the present system, has stolen from the vocabulary one of its dearest words and debased its use. Its orators have prated about home industries while they have neglected the most important of home industries—the home of the citizen. The Democratic party, so far from being hostile to the home industries, is the only champion, unless our friends here, the Independents, will join with us, of the real home industry of this country.

“When some young man selects a young woman who is willing to trust her future to his strong right arm, and they start to build a little home, that home which is the unit of society and upon which our Government and our prosperity must rest—when they start to build this little home, and the man who sells the lumber reaches out his hand to collect a tariff upon that; 36the man who sells paints and oils wants a tariff upon them; the man who furnishes the carpets, tablecloths, knives, forks, dishes, furniture, spoons, everything that enters into the construction and operation of that home—when all these hands, I say, are stretched out from every direction to lay their blighting weight upon that cottage, and the Democratic party says, ‘Hands off, and let that home industry live,’ it is protecting the grandest home industry that this or any other nation ever had. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.]

“And I am willing that you, our friends on the other side, shall have what consolation you may gain from the protection of those ‘home industries’ which have crowned with palatial residences the hills of New England, if you will simply give us the credit of being the champions of the homes of this land. [Applause on the Democratic side.] It would seem that if any appeal could find a listening ear in this legislative hall it ought to be the appeal that comes up from those co-tenants of earth’s only paradise; but your party has neglected them; more, it has spurned and spit upon them. When they asked for bread you gave them a stone, and when they asked for a fish you gave them a serpent. You have laid upon them burdens grievous to be borne. You have filled their days with toil and their nights with anxious care, and when they cried aloud for relief you were deaf to their entreaties.”

The conclusion of Mr. Bryan’s speech is here reproduced. It is of greater length than would ordinarily 37justify its incorporation in a volume of this size, but the objection is outweighed by the fact, that, in most beautiful English, it outlines the idea of government which has since been the beacon light that has guided Mr. Bryan’s career:

“We can not afford to destroy the peasantry of this country. We can not afford to degrade the common people of this land, for they are the people who in time of prosperity and peace produce the wealth of the country, and they are also the people who in time of war bare their breasts to a hostile fire in defense of the flag. Go to Arlington or to any of the national cemeteries, see there the plain white monuments which mark the place ‘where rest the ashes of the nation’s countless dead,’ those of whom the poet has so beautifully written:

Who were they? Were they the beneficiaries of special legislation? Were they the people who are ever clamoring for privileges? No, my friends; those who come here and obtain from Government its aid and help find in time of war too great a chance to increase their wealth to give much attention to military duties. A nation’s extremity is their opportunity. They are the ones who make contracts, carefully drawn, providing for the payment of their money in coin, while the government goes out, if necessary, and drafts the people and makes them lay down upon the altar of their country all they have. No; the people who fight the battles are largely the 38poor, the common people of the country; those who have little to save but their honor, and little to lose but their lives. These are the ones, and I say to you, sir, that the country can not afford to lose them. I quote the language of Pericles in his great funeral oration. He says:

‘It was for such a country, then, that these men, nobly resolving not to have it taken from them, fell fighting; and every one of their survivors may well be willing to suffer in its behalf.’

That, Mr. Chairman, is a noble sentiment and points the direction to the true policy for a free people. It must be by beneficent laws; it must be by a just government which a free people can love and upon which they can rely that the nation is to be preserved. We can not put our safety in a great navy; we can not put our safety in expensive fortifications along a seacoast thousands of miles in extent, nor can we put our safety in a great standing army that would absorb in idleness the toil of the men it protects. A free government must find its safety in happy and contented citizens, who, protected in their rights and free from unnecessary burdens, will be willing to die that the blessings which they enjoy may be transmitted to their posterity.

“Thomas Jefferson, that greatest of statesmen and most successful of politicians, tersely expressed the true purpose of government when he said:

“’With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens: a wise and frugal government, 39which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.’

“That is the inspiration of the Democratic party; that is its aim and object. If it comes, Mr. Chairman, into power in all of the departments of this government it will not destroy industry; it will not injure labor; but it will save to the men who produce the wealth of the country a larger portion of that wealth. It will bring prosperity and joy and happiness, not to a few, but to every one without regard to station or condition. The day will come, Mr. Chairman—the day will come when those who annually gather about this Congress seeking to use the taxing power for private purposes will find their occupation gone, and the members of Congress will meet here to pass laws for the benefit of all the people. That day will come, and in that day, to use the language of another, ‘Democracy will be king! Long live the king!’” [Prolonged applause on the Democratic side.]

In every national campaign since the time silver was demonetized in 1873 the demand for bimetallism has been a platform plank always of one and frequently of both of the two great political parties. The first unequivocal renunciation of the policy and theory of bimetallism on the part of any important national convention occurred in June, 1900, at Philadelphia. In 1896 the Republican party, in its platform adopted at St. Louis, pledged itself to the promotion of bimetallism by international agreement. The Democratic party, both in 1896 and 1900, expressed its conviction that bimetallism could be secured by the independent action of the United States, and to that end demanded “the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver, at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation.”

Previous to 1896 each of the great political parties made quadrennial expressions of faith in the bimetallic theory, frequently demanded its enactment into law, and generally condemned the opposing party for “hostility to silver.” And yet, despite the universal belief in bimetallism on the part of the American people; despite the general demands for bimetallism made by both political parties; despite the many and eloquent speeches for bimetallism delivered in Congress and out of it by party leaders of all complexions, 41the hope of its becoming an actuality seemed to wither and wane in inverse ratio to the fervency of the expressions of friendship on the part of the politicians. Sometimes those who were most vehement in their demands were most instrumental in the passage of that series of legislative enactments that inevitably broadened and deepened the gulf between gold and silver.

In explanation of this phenomenon it may be said that of all the functions of government none is more important than the power to regulate the quality and quantity of its circulating medium; none more freighted either with prosperity or disaster to its people; and none more liable to make demagogues of statesmen and knaves and hypocrites of those in authority.

The first overt act in the fight against bimetallism, which theretofore had been insidious, was the demand of the Cleveland administration and the powers that were behind it for the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Act. The clause which was aimed at provided for the purchase by the government of bar silver sufficient for the annual coinage of $54,000,000. With its repeal would disappear from the Federal statute books the last vestige of authority for the coinage of silver money other than subsidiary coins.

In the fight against the administration over this measure Mr. Bryan took a leading part. He was one of the public men whose professions and practices in the matter of financial legislation were not at variance. 42In his first campaign for Congress, in 1890, he had inserted in his platform this plank, written by himself:

“We demand the free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold and denounce the efforts of the Republican party to serve the interest of Wall Street as against the rights of the people.”

In 1891 he had secured the adoption of a free silver plank in the Nebraska Democratic platform. In 1892 he made a hard fight for a similar plank in the state platform, but lost by a very close vote. On the day before the national convention which nominated Mr. Cleveland for president, Mr. Bryan was renominated for Congress on a platform in which free coinage was made the paramount issue, and throughout the campaign he devoted to it the major portion of his time. In this way, from free choice and impelling conviction, Mr. Bryan had committed himself to the doctrine of bimetallism and had declared his plan for putting it into practice.

Mr. Bryan made his first speech in Congress against unconstitutional repeal on February 9, 1893. In it he said:

“I call attention to the fact that there is not in this bill a single line or sentence which is not opposed to the whole history of the Democratic party. We have opposed the principle of the national bank on all occasions, and yet you give them by this bill an increased currency of $15,000,000. You have pledged the party to reduce the taxation upon the people, and yet, before you attempt to lighten this burden, you 43take off one-half million of dollars annually from the national banks of the country; and even after declaring in your national platform that the Sherman act was a ‘cowardly makeshift’ you attempt to take away the ‘makeshift’ before you give us the real thing for which the makeshift was substituted.... Mr. Speaker, consider the effect of this bill. It means that by suspending the purchase of silver we will throw fifty-four million ounces on the market annually and reduce the price of silver bullion. It means that we will widen the difference between the coinage and bullion value of silver and raise a greater obstacle in the way of bimetallism. It means to increase by billions of dollars the debts of our people. It means a reduction in the price of our wheat and our cotton. You have garbled the platform of the Democratic party. You have taken up one clause of it, and refused to give us a fulfilment of the other and more important clause, which demands that gold and silver shall be coined on equal terms without charge for mintage.

“Mr. Speaker, this can not be done. A man who murders another shortens by a few brief years the life of a human being; but he who votes to increase the burden of debts upon the people of the United States assumes a graver responsibility. If we who represent them consent to rob our people, the cotton-growers of the South and the wheat-growers of the West, we will be criminals whose guilt can not be measured by words, for we will bring distress and disaster to our people.”

44In thus boldly and positively aligning himself against the policy of the dominant wing of his own party, which would soon be backed by the incoming Cleveland administration, Mr. Bryan acted with his characteristic devotion to principle. He could not help seeing that all the odds were apparently against that faction of his party with which he threw in his fortunes. Mr. Cleveland and most of the old, honored, and powerful leaders of democracy, it was known, would join in the fight against silver. They would have the powerful aid of the great Republican leaders and be backed by the almost united influence of the hundreds of daily newspapers in all the large cities. Wealth, influence, experience, and so-called “respectability” were all to be the property of the Cleveland wing. Many trusted leaders of the old-time fight for silver succumbed to the temptation and identified themselves with the dominant faction. Not so Mr. Bryan. On the failure of the bill to pass he returned home and devoted all his time to a thorough study of finance and of money, making the most careful and complete preparation for the fight which he saw impending.

The great struggle, which Mr. Bryan has termed “the most important economic discussion which ever took place in our Congress” was precipitated by President Cleveland when he called Congress to meet in special session on August 7, 1893. Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced in the House the administration measure for the unconditional repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Act.

CHAS. A. TOWNE

45The debate that ensued was one of the most brilliantly and ably conducted in the annals of Congress. On August 16, near the close of the debate, Mr. Bryan delivered an extended argument against the bill. His speech in point of profound reasoning and moving oratory stands prominent in the list of congressional deliverances. It concluded with the following magnificent appeal:

“To-day the Democratic party stands between two great forces, each inviting its support. On the one side stand the corporate interests of the nation, its moneyed institutions, its aggregations of wealth and capital, imperious, arrogant, compassionless. They demand special legislation, favors, privileges, and immunities. They can subscribe magnificently to campaign funds; they can strike down opposition with their all-pervading influence, and, to those who fawn and flatter, bring ease and plenty. They demand that the Democratic party shall become their agent to execute their merciless decrees.

“On the other side stands that unnumbered throng which gave a name to the Democratic party, and for which it has assumed to speak. Work-worn and dust-begrimed they make their sad appeal. They hear of average wealth increased on every side and feel the inequality of its distribution. They see an overproduction of everything desired because of an underproduction of the ability to buy. They can not pay for loyalty except with their suffrages, and can only 46punish betrayal with their condemnation. Although the ones who most deserve the fostering care of Government, their cries for help too often beat in vain against the outer wall, while others less deserving find ready access to legislative halls.

“This army, vast and daily growing, begs the party to be its champion in the present conflict. It can not press its claims mid sounds of revelry. Its phalanxes do not form in grand parade, nor has it gaudy banners floating on the breeze. Its battle hymn is ‘Home, Sweet Home,’ its war cry ‘equality before the law.’ To the Democratic party, standing between these two irreconcilable forces, uncertain to which side to turn, and conscious that upon its choice its fate depends, come the words of Israel’s second law-giver: ‘Choose you this day whom ye will serve.’ What will the answer be? Let me invoke the memory of him whose dust made sacred the soil of Monticello when he joined

“He was called a demagogue and his followers a mob, but the immortal Jefferson dared to follow the best promptings of his heart. He placed man above matter, humanity above property, and, spurning the bribes of wealth and power, pleaded the cause of the common people. It was this devotion to their interests which made his party invincible while he lived, and will make his name revered while history endures.

“And what message comes to us from the Hermitage? When a crisis like the present arose and the 47national bank of the day sought to control the politics of the nation, God raised up an Andrew Jackson, who had the courage to grapple with that great enemy, and by overthrowing it he made himself the idol of the people and reinstated the Democratic party in public confidence. What will the decision be to-day?

“The Democratic party has won the greatest success in its history. Standing upon this victory-crowned summit, will it turn its face to the rising or the setting sun? Will it choose blessings or cursings—life or death—Which? Which?”

The bill passed the House by a considerable majority and went to the Senate. In two months it came back with Senate amendments. So earnest and determined was Mr. Bryan in his opposition to the measure that he resorted to dilatory tactics, employing every legitimate parliamentary weapon to obstruct its progress. When finally even the enemies of the bill would no longer assist him in the fight for delay, Mr. Bryan determined to abandon the fight in Congress to carry it before the Democracy of the nation. In concluding his last speech on the bill he said:

“You may think that you have buried the cause of bimetallism; you may congratulate yourselves that you have laid the free coinage of silver away in a sepulchre, newly made since the election, and before the door rolled the veto stone. But, sirs, if our cause is just, as I believe it is, your labor has been in vain: no tomb was ever made so strong that it could imprison a righteous cause. Silver will lay aside its 48grave clothes and its shroud. It will yet rise and in its rising and its reign will bless mankind.”

Though defeated in the first great contest, the silver advocates were far from dismayed. They began at once a systematic fight to wrest from the administration the control of the party organization. The factional fight within the ranks of Democracy gave early promise of becoming exceedingly bitter. The feeling was accentuated from the start by the personal efforts of President Cleveland in behalf of the repeal bill. In the Senate the silver men had what was considered a safe majority, and it was to overcome this and secure the passage of the bill that the President had directed his energies. His great weapon was Federal patronage, and he used it as a club. Never before in the history of popular government in the United States had the executive so boldly and so openly exerted the tremendous influence of his position in an attempt to force a coordinate branch of government into unwilling compliance with his wishes. Mr. Cleveland’s interference, which finally accomplished its purpose, was angrily resented by the Silver Democrats, and the lines between administration and anti-administration were early closely drawn.

Mr. Bryan, while the repeal bill was still under discussion in the Senate, attended the Nebraska State Democratic convention as a delegate, on October 4, 1893. In the convention the administration wing of the party was regnant, imperious, and arrogant. A platform endorsing the President and his fight against silver was adopted by a large majority. Bryan was 49even denied a place on the resolutions committee, although endorsed therefor by his Congressional district, which almost alone had sent silver delegates. His course in Congress was repudiated and himself personally received with but scant courtesy or consideration on the part of the great majority of the delegates. When the gold men, flushed with victory, were about to complete their conquest, the discredited young Congressman sprang to the platform to address the convention. His whole person was quivering with emotion, and as he spoke he strode up and down the platform with a mien of unconcealed anger and defiance. Never was he more truly the orator, and never was tame beast so abject and so pitiful under the scourge of the master as was that convention, mute and defenseless, under his scathing excoriation. The following extract will give an idea of the substance of the speech, though the flashing eyes of the orator, the tense and quivering frame, the voice now ringing with defiance, now trembling with emotion,—these may never be described.

“Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention—We are confronted to-day by as important a question as ever came before the Democracy of the state of Nebraska. It is not a personal question. It is a question that rises above individuals. So far as I am personally concerned it matters nothing whether you vote this amendment up or down; it matters nothing to me whether you pass resolutions censuring my course or endorsing it. If I am wrong in the position I have taken on this great financial question, I shall 50fall though you heap your praises upon me; if I am right, and in my heart, so help me God, I believe I am, I shall triumph yet, although you condemn me in your convention a hundred times. Gentlemen, you are playing in the basement of politics; there is a higher plane. You think you can pass resolutions censuring a man, and that you can humiliate him. I want to tell you that I still ‘more true joy in exile feel’ than those delegates who are afraid to vote their own sentiments or represent the wishes of the people, lest they may not get Federal office. Gentlemen, I know not what others may do, but duty to country is above duty to party, and if you represent your constituents in what you have done and will do—for I do not entertain the fond hope that you who have voted as you have to-day will change upon this vote—if you as delegates properly represent the sentiment of the Democratic party which sent you here; if the resolutions which have been proposed and which you will adopt express the sentiments of the party in this state; if the party declares in favor of a gold standard, as you will if you pass this resolution; if you declare in favor of the impoverishment of the people of Nebraska; if you intend to make more galling than the slavery of the blacks the slavery of the debtors of this country; if the Democratic party, after you go home, endorses your action and makes your position its permanent policy, I promise you that I will go out and serve my country and my God under some other name, even if I must go alone.”

51But Mr. Bryan was not destined to be driven from the Democratic party. He returned to Washington to persistently fight the financial policy of the administration until the Fifty-third Congress had adjourned. The withdrawal of the greenbacks, the granting of additional privileges to national banks, the Rothschild-Morgan gold-bond contract—these he opposed with the full measure of his mental and physical powers. In the meantime the Silver Democrats began the work of organization and propaganda in every state in the Union. In 1894 Bryan triumphed over his enemies in Nebraska in a convention whose platform declared, “We favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.” The Gold Democrats bolted the platform and the ticket. And until the last delegate was elected to the National convention which was to meet at Chicago in July, 1896, the Silver Democrats continued everywhere their efforts. They fought boldly and outspokenly against the administration they had helped to elect, and which was nominally Democratic. The result of their fight was the instruction of almost two-thirds of the delegates for an unambiguous free silver plank, with a certainty that the Gold Democrats, headed by President Cleveland, Secretary of the Treasury Carlisle, and hundreds of the leaders of the party, would bolt the action of the convention.

Thus torn and rent by dissentions, with little hope 52or prospect for success, the Democracy faced that remarkable convention which was to repudiate the administration itself had placed in power.

In the fall of 1896, within the period of one hundred days, William J. Bryan traveled eighteen thousand miles. He delivered over six hundred speeches to crowds aggregating five millions of people. Reduced to figures more readily comprehended, he averaged each day one hundred and eighty miles of railroad travel, interrupted by the stops necessary for the delivery of six speeches to crowds of over eight thousand each and fifty thousand in all. This was his personal service in the “first battle” for the restoration of bimetallism, acting as the standard bearer of three political parties.

The great presidential campaign of 1896 was in many respects the most remarkable in the history of the United States. It turned upon an issue which was felt to be of transcending importance, and which aroused the elemental passions of the people in a manner probably never before witnessed in this country save in time of war. It was an issue forced by the voters themselves despite the unceasing efforts of the leading politicians of both great parties to keep it in the background. Beneath its shadow old party war cries died into silence; old party differences were forgotten; old party lines were obliterated. As it existed in the hearts of men the issue had no name. 54Bimetallism was discussed; monometallism was discussed; these were the themes of public speakers, editors, and street corner gatherings when recourse was had to facts and argument. But when one partisan called his friend the enemy an “Anarchist!” and when the latter retorted with the cry of “Plutocrat,” then there spoke in epithets the feelings which were stirring the American people, and which made the campaign significant. For the terms indicated that for the first time in the Republic founded on the doctrine of equality, Lazarus at Dives’ gate had raised the cry of injustice, whereat the rich man trembled.

The Republican National convention met at St. Louis on June 16. William McKinley, of Ohio, was nominated for President and Garret A. Hobart, of New Jersey, for Vice-President. A platform was adopted declaring for the maintenance of “the existing gold standard” until bimetallism could be secured by international agreement, which the party was pledged to promote. The doctrine of a high protective tariff was strongly insisted on.

Against the financial plank of the platform there was waged a bitter, if hopeless, fight by the silver men of the West, under the honored leadership of United States Senator Henry M. Teller, of Colorado. On the adoption of the platform Senators Teller, Dubois, of Idaho, Pettigrew, of South Dakota, Cannon, of Utah, and Mantle, of Montana, with three congressmen and fifteen other delegates, walked out of the convention. They issued an address to the people declaring monetary reform to be imperative, that the deadly curse of 55falling prices might be averted. The dominant figure of this convention was Marcus A. Hanna, of Ohio, a millionaire coal and shipping magnate with large industrial and commercial interests in various sections of the country. In taking charge of the campaign that resulted in McKinley’s nomination he introduced his business methods into politics. He had conducted the canvass throughout along commercial lines. “He has been as smooth as olive oil and as stiff as Plymouth Rock,” said the New York Sun, since recognized as President McKinley’s personal organ. “He is a manager of men, a manipulator of events, such as you more frequently encounter in the back offices of the headquarters of financial and commercial centers than at district primaries or in the lobbies of convention halls. There is no color or pretense of statesmanship in his efforts; he seems utterly indifferent to political principles, and color-blind to policies, except as they figure as counters in his game. He can be extremely plausible and innocently deferential in his intercourse with others, or can flame out on proper occasion in an outburst of well-studied indignation. He is by turns a bluffer, a compromiser, a conciliator, and an immovable tyrant. Such men do not enter and revolutionize national politics for nothing. Now, what is Mark Hanna after?”

The question was soon answered. Mark Hanna became chairman of the National Republican committee, United States senator from Ohio, and the most powerful, if not the all-powerful, influence behind the McKinley administration. His rapid rise to commanding 56position and the unyielding manner in which he has utilized his power have furnished much argument to such as are inclined to be pessimistic regarding the enduring qualities of republics.

Early in July the Democratic National convention assembled in Chicago. Mr. Bryan, who had attended the St. Louis convention as editor-in-chief of the Omaha World-Herald, was here present as a delegate-at-large from Nebraska. Since the expiration of his second congressional term he had been active and unwearying in the fight to capture the convention for free silver. As editor of the World-Herald he had contributed numerous utterances that were widely quoted by the silver press, and much of his time had been devoted to delivering speeches and lectures in the interests of bimetallism in almost every section of the country. He came to Chicago fresh from a Fourth of July debate at the Crete, Neb., Chautauqua, with Hon. John P. Irish, of California, Cleveland’s collector of the port at San Francisco. Except a few intimate friends in Nebraska, who knew Bryan’s capacities and ambitions, no man dreamed of the possibility of his nomination for the presidency. There were available, tried, and time-honored silver leaders, men who had been fighting the white metal’s battles for a score of years, notable among whom were Richard P. Bland, of Missouri, and Henry M. Teller, of Colorado. One of these, it was generally believed, would be chosen to lead the forlorn hopes of a regenerated but disrupted democracy.

Mr. Bryan’s nomination was the spontaneous 57tribute of the convention to those qualities that since have made him not famous only, but well-beloved. These qualities are honesty, courage, frankness, and sincerity. They had veritable life in every line and paragraph of his great speech defending the free silver plank of the platform, delivered in reply to the crafty-wise David B. Hill, of New York. Hill, skilled and experienced practical politician, had pleaded with the convention that it pay the usual tribute at the shrine of Janus. He had begged that the ignus fatuus “international bimetallism” be used to lure the friends of silver into voting the Democratic ticket. Nurtured and trained in the same school of politics as William McKinley,—the school whose graduates had for many years dominated all party conventions,—Hill started back in affright from the prospect of going before the people on a platform that was straightforward and unequivocal, with its various planks capable of but one construction.

Mr. Bryan’s speech was as bold and ringing as the platform which he spoke to defend, with its plank, written by himself, and twice utilized in Nebraska, demanding “the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation.”

The letter and spirit of that plank were such as the great majority of the convention were thoroughly in sympathy with. The result of the great silver propaganda of the two years preceding had been to send to the convention honest and sincere men with 58profound convictions and the courage to express them. To do this, they knew, would be revolutionary, even as had been the platforms on which the Pathfinder, Fremont, and the Liberator, Lincoln, ran. But the spirit of revolution from cant and equivoque was rife in that convention. Of that spirit William Jennings Bryan was the prophet. In a speech that thrilled into men’s minds and hearts his defiance and contempt of the opportunists’ policy, his own fearless confidence in the all-conquering power of truth, he stirred into an unrestrained tempest the long pent emotions of the delegates. When he had finished not only was the adoption of the platform by a vote of two to one assured, but the convention had found its leader whom it would commission to go forth to preach the old, old gospel of democracy, rescued from its years of sleep. The nature of Mr. Bryan’s speech may be gained from these brief extracts:

“When you (turning to the gold delegates) come before us and tell us 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 a 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 the spring and toils all summer, 59and 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 business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for 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 defense 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; 60we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them....

“You come 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.... 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 can not 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 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 interest, 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.”

SENATOR J. K. JONES

61Mr. Bryan was nominated for President on the fifth ballot by a well-nigh unanimous vote, save for the 162 eastern delegates who, while holding their seats, sullenly refused to take any part in the proceedings. The demonstration following the nomination was even wilder and more prolonged than the memorable scene that marked the conclusion of his speech.

For Vice-President Arthur Sewall, of Maine, was nominated. With this ticket, on a platform declaring for free silver, opposing the issue of bonds and national bank currency, denouncing “government by injunction,” declaring for a low tariff, the Monroe doctrine, an income tax, and election of senators by a direct vote of the people, the democracy went before the country with a confidence and exuberance little anticipated before the convention met, and scarcely justified, as later proven, by the outcome.

The Populist and Silver Republican conventions met in St. Louis late in July. The latter endorsed the nominees of the Chicago platform and made them their own. The populists, however, while nominating Mr. Bryan, refused to nominate Mr. Sewall, naming for vice-president Thomas E. Watson, of Georgia.

The gold democrats met at Indianapolis on September 2, and nominated John M. Palmer, of Illinois, and Simon Buckner, of Kentucky, adopting the first gold standard platform ever presented to the people of the 62United States for endorsement. They called themselves “National Democrats,” but in the outcome carried but one voting precinct in the nation, and that in Kansas. Four votes were cast in the precinct, two for Palmer, and one each for Bryan and McKinley. In the precinct in Illinois where Mr. Palmer himself, with his son and coachman, voted, not a single ballot was cast for the nominee of the “National Democracy.” The fact was that a new party alignment was the inevitable result of the Chicago convention, the reorganized democracy gaining largely beyond the Missouri, but losing heavily east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of gold Democrats in the populous states, under the leadership of Grover Cleveland and John G. Carlisle, while pretending to support Palmer and Buckner, voted secretly for McKinley, whose platform was a virtual endorsement of the Cleveland administration, as Bryan’s platform repudiated and condemned it.

The campaign was remarkable not only for Bryan’s wonderful campaigning, but for the bitter feeling that pervaded both organizations. The Republicans particularly excelled in vituperative abuse. They began the use of billingsgate immediately after the Chicago convention had adjourned, applying to it such terms as “rabble,” “wild Jacobins,” “anarchists” and “repudiators,” while Bryan was characterized as a “boy orator” “a demagogue” and “an ass.” The Cleveland Leader said:

“Bryan, with all his ignorance, his cheap demagogy, his intolerable gabble, his utter lack of common sense, 63and his general incapacity in every direction, is a typical Democrat of the new school. His weapon is wind. His stock in trade is his mouth. Mr. McKinley’s election—and we apologize to Mr. McKinley for printing his name in the same column with that of Bryan—is no longer in any doubt whatever. We salute the next President. As for Bryan, he is a candidate for the political ash-heap.”

For efficient campaigning the two party organizations were most unevenly matched. The Republican National committee, under the directing genius of Mark Hanna, assisted liberally by the thoroughly affrighted financial and corporation magnates of the East, had at its disposal millions of dollars with which to organize, pay for speakers and literature, reward the efforts of newspapers and party workers, and debauch the electorate in states thought to be doubtful. It had the assistance of almost the entire metropolitan press—with the notable exception of the New York Journal—and the nearly united influence of the large employers of labor. And even further, it had the pulpit and the religious press. As the ministers of Christ’s gospel, in 1856, denounced and vilified Garrison and Phillips, so in 1896 they hurled anathema maranatha at Bryan and Altgeld. Grave and reverend preachers of national fame fulminated from their pulpits against “the accursed and treasonable aims” of Bryan and his supporters, and denounced them as “enemies of mankind.” Bishop John P. Newman, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, denounced Bryan as an “anarchist,” and in the church conferences over 64which he presided urged the clergy to use their influence to defeat the Democratic nominees. The Rev. Cortland Myers, in the Baptist Temple at Brooklyn, said that “the Chicago platform was made in hell.” Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., at the Academy of Music, New York, called Bryan “a mouthing, slobbering demagogue, whose patriotism is all in his jaw bone.”

Such were the cultured and scholarly contributions made by the noblest of professions to the discussion of an academic question of finance in the year of our Lord 1896.

The Democratic committee had little money. It had the support of but few large newspapers. It was fighting the battles of a party that had been disrupted and rent in twain at the Chicago convention. In every state and almost every county of the Union the old local and national leaders of the party had deserted, and the faithful but disorganized followers of Bryan had to be moulded anew into the likeness of an army.

The one inspiration of the party was in its leader. The embodiment of faith, hope, and courage, tireless, indomitable, undismayed by the fearful odds against him, with the zeal of a crusader he undertook his mission of spreading the message of democracy through the length and breadth of the land. For three months, accompanied most of the time by Mrs. Bryan, he sped to and fro across the American continent, an army of newspaper correspondents in his train, resting little and sleeping less, preaching the Chicago platform. His earnestness, his candor, his 65boldness, the simplicity of his style, the homeliness of his illustrations, the convincing power of his argument, the eloquence of his flights of oratory, and, above all, the pure and lovable character of the man as it impressed itself on those who met with him—these were the sparks that fired the hearts of men and left in his wake conviction fanned into enthusiasm all aflame.

Yet, with all his efforts, despite a record of personal campaigning such as never before was seen in the recorded history of man, Mr. Bryan was defeated. The tremendous influence wielded by the great corporate interests, both by persuasion and by coercion, were such as no man and no idea could overcome.

The popular vote stood 7,107,822 for McKinley and 6,511,073 for Bryan. Of the electoral votes McKinley received 271 and Bryan 176, the solid South and almost solid West going Democratic, while every state north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi went Republican.

Immediately after the result was assured Mr. Bryan telegraphed Mr. McKinley as follows: “Hon. Wm. McKinley, Canton, Ohio—Senator Jones has just informed me that the returns indicate your election, and I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law.—W. J. Bryan.”

Mr. McKinley responded: “Hon. W. J. Bryan, Lincoln, Neb.—I acknowledge the receipt of your courteous message of congratulation with thanks, and beg 66you will receive my best wishes for your health and happiness.—William McKinley.”

While Mr. Bryan and his party accepted defeat thus gracefully, victory seemed to have redoubled the venom of the opposition. This post-election utterance of the New York Tribune, founded by Horace Greeley, and then and now edited by ex-Vice-President Whitelaw Reid, will serve to close this chapter in the same gentle spirit which marked the close of that memorable campaign:

“There are some movements so base, some causes so depraved, that neither victory can justify them nor defeat entitle them to commiseration. Such a cause was that which was vanquished yesterday, by the favor of God and the ballots of the American people. While it was active and menacing, it was unsparingly denounced and revealed as what it was, in all its hideous deformity. Now that it is crushed out of the very semblance of being, there is no reason why such judgment of it should be revised. The thing was conceived in iniquity and was brought forth in sin. It had its origin in a malicious conspiracy against the honor and integrity of the nation. It gained such monstrous growth as it enjoyed from an assiduous culture of the basest passions of the least worthy members of the community. It has been defeated and destroyed, because right is right and God is God. Its nominal head was worthy of the cause. Nominal, because the wretched, rattle-pated boy, posing in vapid vanity and mouthing resounding rottenness, was not 67the real leader of that league of hell. He was only a puppet in the blood-imbued hands of Altgeld, the anarchist, and Debs, the revolutionist, and other desperados of that stripe. But he was a willing puppet, Bryan was, willing and eager. Not one of his masters was more apt at lies and forgeries and blasphemies and all the nameless iniquities of that campaign against the Ten Commandments. He goes down with the cause, and must abide with it in the history of infamy. He had less provocation than Benedict Arnold, less intellectual force than Aaron Burr, less manliness and courage than Jefferson Davis. He was the rival of them all in deliberate wickedness and treason to the Republic. His name belongs with theirs, neither the most brilliant nor the least hateful in the list.

“Good riddance to it all, to conspiracy and conspirators, and to the foul menace of repudiation and anarchy against the honor and life of the Republic. The people have dismissed it with no uncertain tones. Hereafter let there be whatever controversies men may please about the tariff, about the currency, about the Monroe doctrine, and all the rest. But let there never again be a proposition to repeal the moral law, to garble the Constitution, and to replace the Stars and Stripes with the red rag of anarchy. On those other topics honest men may honestly differ, in full loyalty to the Republic. On these latter there is no room for two opinions, save in the minds of traitors, knaves, and fools.”

The half decade between 1895 and 1900 may justly be considered one of the most important in American history. It witnessed the fiercest battle between political parties ever fought over the question of finance,—a contest exceeding in bitterness and the general participation of the people of the United States therein even the great struggle in which Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle were the opposing leaders. And, further, as the outcome of the war with Spain, it saw the birth and growth of an issue theretofore alien to American soil and portentous for its ultimate influence over the form and structure of our government. It was at once recognized as an issue overshadowing in its importance, and in the face of the greater danger the mutual fears of the friends of gold and the friends of silver were laid away in one common sepulchre.

On the part of the Democratic party the wraith of imperialism hovering over the Republic was recognized as the hideous and supreme exhalation from the poison swamp of plutocracy from which high tariff, trusts, and a gold standard had already sprung. Through all these policies, asserted the Democracy, through its recognized leader, Mr. Bryan, ran the common purpose of exalting the dollar and debasing the man. The Republican party hesitated long to 69recognize and admit the new issue, and when it finally took up the gage of battle it was on the declaration that a colonial policy, with alien and subject races under its dominion, had become the “manifest destiny” of the United States.

The cruelties and severities of General Weyler, the commander of the Spanish forces in Cuba, toward the insurrectionists who were in arms against Spain’s authority, early in Mr. McKinley’s administration aroused the indignation of the American people. The fact that the Cubans were bravely fighting for liberty, that their rebellion was against the exactions of an old world monarchy, even as ours had been, won them an instinctive sympathy that grew stronger each day and that finally swept like a tidal wave into the cabinet meetings at Washington, bearing the demands of the people of the United States for the intervention of our government in Cuba’s behalf.

On December 6, 1897, in his message to Congress, the President discussed the Cuban question at some length, arguing against any interference by the United States, on the ground that “a hopeful change has supervened in the policy of Spain toward Cuba.” Speaking of the possible future relations between this country and Cuba, the President used the words since so widely quoted against his subsequent policy in the Philippines: “I speak not of forcible annexation, for that is not to be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression.”

The evident reluctance of the administration to recognize Cuban independence was shortly after 70forced to give way to the compelling power of public opinion. On February 15, 1898, by the explosion of a submarine mine, the Maine, a first-class United States battleship, was destroyed in Havana harbor, with a loss of 248 officers and men. A fierce hatred for Spain was thereby added to the sympathy for Cuba, and war, or the abandonment of Cuba by Spain, became inevitable. A month after the destruction of the Maine Congress voted the President $50,000,000 to be used in the National defense. On April 11, President McKinley, in a message to Congress exhaustively reviewed the Cuban complications, disclaiming a policy of annexation and arguing for neutral intervention to enforce peace and secure for the Cubans a stable government. On the 20th, Congress declared Cuba to be free and independent, demanded that Spain relinquish her claim of authority, and authorized the President to use the land and naval forces of the United States to enforce the demand.

Congress expressly declared: “The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”

From such a lofty plane the United States entered into that brief but glorious combat with Spain that has rightly been called “the war for humanity.” On April 23, the President called for 125,000 volunteers. One of the first who offered the President his services in the war for “Cuba libre” was William J. Bryan. 71Long before, Mr. Bryan had declared for intervention, saying, “Humanity demands that we shall act. Cuba lies within sight of our shores and the sufferings of her people can not be ignored unless we, as a nation, have become so engrossed in money-making as to be indifferent to distress.” Mr. Bryan’s proffer was ignored by the President. He was later commissioned by Governor Holcomb, of Nebraska, to raise the Third Nebraska regiment of volunteers. This he did, becoming the colonel of the regiment. General Victor Vifquain, of Lincoln, a gallant and distinguished veteran of the Civil war was made lieutenant-colonel.

In the meantime Admiral George Dewey commanding the United States Asiatic fleet, had set forth from Hong Kong, engaged the Spanish fleet in Manila bay on May 1, and completely demolished it. Manila was the capital of the entire Philippine archipelago, with its eight to ten million inhabitants, then nominally under Spanish sovereignty. The Filipinos themselves, of whom Admiral Dewey said, “these people are far superior in their intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of Cuba,” were already in successful revolt against Spain, battling bravely for their independence. Under the leadership of General Aguinaldo, and at the invitation of Dewey and the representatives of the United States state department, the insurgents cooperated as allies with the American forces from the time of Dewey’s victory until the surrender of Manila. They were furnished arms and ammunition by Dewey, and were led to believe that their own independence would be assured 72on the expulsion of Spain from the archipelago. During this time they established a successful and orderly civil government throughout the greater part of the islands. But at home the United States government was already beginning to indicate its intention not to grant to the Filipinos, at the conclusion of the war, the same liberty and self-government as had been promised the Cubans. Rather, it was becoming evident it was the purpose of Mr. McKinley and his advisers to hold the islands as tributary territory, subject to United States’ jurisdiction, while, at the same time, the inhabitants should be denied the “inalienable rights” proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by our Constitution.

The American people were at a loss what to make of the situation. Their eyes dazzled by the glories of war and conquest, their cupidity appealed to by the vaunted richness of the “new possessions,” there still was latent in their hearts the love for liberty as “the heritage of all men in all lands everywhere,” and an unspoken fear of incorporating the government of alien and subject races as an integral portion of the scheme of American democracy.

Such was the situation when, at Omaha, Neb., on June 14, 1898, Colonel W. J. Bryan, shortly before the muster-in of his regiment into the service of the government, sounded the first note of warning against the insidious dangers of imperialism; the first ringing appeal to the Republic to remain true to its principles, its traditions, and its high ideals. In taking his stand on this great question Mr. Bryan acted with the boldness 73that has ever characterized him when matters of principle were at stake. He spoke against the earnest advice of numerous political friends, who warned him he was taking the unpopular side, and that his mistake would cost him his political life. Mr. Bryan, because he believed the policy of the administration to be radically wrong, paid no heed to all the well-meant protestations, but earnestly warned the people against the abandonment of the doctrines of the fathers of the Republic. These were his words:

“History will vindicate the position taken by the United States in the war with Spain. In saying this I assume that the principles which were invoked in the inauguration of the war will be observed in its prosecution and conclusion. If a war undertaken for the sake of humanity degenerates into a war of conquest we shall find it difficult to meet the charge of having added hypocrisy to greed. Is our national character so weak that we can not withstand the temptation to appropriate the first piece of land that comes within our reach?

“To inflict upon the enemy all possible harm is legitimate warfare, but shall we contemplate a scheme for the colonization of the Orient merely because our fleet won a remarkable victory in the harbor at Manila?

“Our guns destroyed a Spanish fleet, but can they destroy that self-evident truth that governments derive their just powers—not from force—but from the consent of the governed?

“Shall we abandon a just resistance to European 74encroachment upon the western hemisphere, in order to mingle in the controversies of Europe and Asia?

“Nebraska, standing midway between the oceans, will contribute her full share toward the protection of our sea coast; her sons will support the flag at home and abroad, wherever the honor and the interests of the nation may require. Nebraska will hold up the hands of the government while the battle rages, and when the war clouds roll away her voice will be heard pleading for the maintenance of those ideas which inspired the founders of our government and gave the nation its proud eminence among the nations of the earth.

“If others turn to thoughts of aggrandizement, and yield allegiance to those who clothe land covetousness in the attractive garb of ‘national destiny,’ the people of Nebraska will, if I mistake not their sentiments, plant themselves upon the disclaimer entered by Congress, and expect that good faith shall characterize the making of peace as it did the beginning of war.

“Goldsmith calls upon statesmen:

If some dream of the splendors of a heterogeneous empire encircling the globe, we shall be content to aid in bringing enduring happiness to a homogeneous people, consecrated to the purpose of maintaining ‘a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’”

Shortly after this speech Colonel Bryan left Nebraska with his regiment to go into camp at Tampa, 75Florida, awaiting orders to Cuba or Porto Rico. Like most of the other regiments called out by President McKinley, Colonel Bryan’s was not destined ever to come in sight of a battlefield. The amazing fact is that while the enormous number of 274,717 soldiers were mustered into service, only 54,000 ever left American soil up to the time the protocol was signed, August 12, 1898. The 220,000 were left through the sweltering summer months in unsanitary camps to broil under a southern sun. From May 1 to September 30, but 280 American soldiers were killed in battle, while 2,565 died in fever-stricken camps pitched in malarial swamps. The entire nation was aroused to the highest pitch of indignation, and the press, without regard to party, joined in denouncing the careless, cruel, and incompetent treatment of the volunteer soldier.

The New York Herald voiced the general feeling when it said: “’Infamous’ is the only word to describe the treatment that has been inflicted upon our patriotic soldiers, and under which, despite the indignant outbursts of a horror-stricken people, thousands of them are still suffering to-day.” The Herald further declared the soldiers to be “the victims of job-and-rob politicians and contractors, and of criminally incompetent and heartlessly indifferent officials.”

For almost six months Colonel Bryan remained with his regiment in camp. The quarters, the sanitative conditions, and the general arrangements of the “Third Nebraska” were the pride of the army. Colonel 76Bryan was at once “guide, counselor, and friend” to his men, winning the almost idolatrous love of each and all of them. He gave lavishly of his meager funds to secure the comfort of the sick and maintain the health of the strong. His days and nights were devoted to the service of the regiment, and more than one poor boy, dying of fever far from the wind-swept Nebraska prairies, passed away holding his Colonel’s hand and breathing into his Colonel’s ear the last faltering message of farewell to loved ones at home.

77In joining the volunteer army, as when he delivered the first anti-imperialist speech, Colonel Bryan had acted against the advice of many of his closest personal and political friends. Despite his decisive defeat for the presidency in 1896, he had not only maintained but even strengthened his position as the recognized leader of the Democratic party and its allies. Undaunted by the result of the campaign, he had almost immediately resumed the fight for bimetallism. He had published a book reviewing the contest under the suggestive and defiant title “The First Battle.” He had taken to the lecture platform and to the political hustings, vigorously, hopefully, and earnestly propagating the principles of democracy, unwavering, unwearying, and undisturbed by the general depression of his followers and as general exultation of his opponents. He was the incarnation of the spirit of conservative reform, and all parties had come to regard him as the prophet and supreme leader of the new movement back to Jeffersonian principles. His friends feared to have him accept a commission, not only on the ground that his doing so might later compel his silence at a time when his voice ought to be heard, but more largely because they dreaded the possibility of having his motive impugned. It was evident to them, as to Colonel Bryan himself, that by taking up the role of colonel of a volunteer regiment, he had much to risk and lose, and little, if anything, to gain. But the Democratic leader was not to be dissuaded. Content in his own knowledge that his motive was worthy and patriotic, he assumed and bore unostentatiously and yet with dignity the office of military leader of 1,300 of his Nebraska friends and neighbors. He remained faithfully with his regiment, living the slow and tedious life of the camp, until the treaty of peace was signed with Spain in December, 1898. That treaty provided not only for the cession of Porto Rico to the United States and Spanish relinquishment of all claim to sovereignty over Cuba, but further for the turning over of the Philippine Islands to the United States on the payment of $20,000,000. This last concession was wrung from Spain by the insistent and uncompromising demand of the American Peace Commissioners, under instructions from the state department at Washington.

Shortly after the treaty was signed, President McKinley blasted the fond hopes for independence that had been planted in the Filipinos’ breasts by issuing this proclamation:

“With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries 78at Paris on the tenth instant, and as the result of the victories of American arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In fulfilment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired, and the responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands become immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained by the United States in the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory.”

Prior to this time, and later, the President explained his position on the Philippine question, and we quote from him at some length.

At Chicago, in October, 1898, he said: “My countrymen, the currents of destiny flow through the hearts of the people. Who will check them? Who will divert them? Who will stop them? And the movements of men, planned and designed by the Master of men, will never be interrupted by the American people.”

At the Atlanta (Ga.) Peace Jubilee in December of the same year, he said: “That [the American] flag has been planted in two hemispheres, and there it remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who will withhold it from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds? Who will haul it down?”

At Savannah, a day or two later he said: “If, following 79the clear precepts of duty, territory falls to us, and the welfare of an alien people requires our guidance and protection, who will shrink from the responsibility, grave though it may be? Can we leave these people who, by the fortunes of war and our own acts, are helpless and without government, to chaos and anarchy after we have destroyed the only government that they had?”

At the Home Market Club, in Boston, on February 16, 1899, he explained himself more fully, saying: “Our concern was not for territory or trade or empire, but for the people whose interests and destiny, without our willing it, had been put in our hands. It was with this feeling that from the first day to the last not one word or line went from the Executive in Washington to our military and naval commanders at Manila or to our Peace Commissioners at Paris that did not put as the sole purpose to be kept in mind, first, after the success of our arms and the maintenance of our own honor, the welfare and happiness and the rights of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity? If we can benefit these remote peoples, who will object? If, in the years of the future, they are established in government under law and liberty, who will regret our perils and sacrifices? Who will not rejoice in our heroism and humanity?”

One more quotation. At Minneapolis, October 12, 1899, President McKinley delivered himself of this utterance: “That Congress will provide for them [the Filipinos] a government which will bring them blessings, 80which will promote their material interests, as well as advance their people in the paths of civilization and intelligence, I confidently believe.”

With such phrase-making as this, concealing in sonorous periods the most un-American of sentiments, Colonel Bryan’s utterance, delivered immediately after he had resigned his commission, stands out in bold and pleasing relief: “I may be in error, but in my judgment our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea—the colonial idea of European nations. Heretofore greed has perverted the government and used its instrumentalities for private gains, but now the very foundation principles of our government are assaulted. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy, such as is now pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. To borrow a Bible quotation ‘A house divided against itself can not stand.’ Paraphrasing Lincoln’s declaration, I may add that this nation can not endure half republic and half colony, half free and half vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests, and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest....

“Some think the fight should be made against ratification of the treaty, but I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected, negotiations must be renewed, and instead of settling the question according 81to our ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possibility of international complications. It will be easier, I think, to end the war at once by ratifying the treaty and then deal with the subject in our own way. The issue can be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation upon this subject. The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress could reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba, and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Porto Rico. Such a resolution would make a clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of imperialism. We should reserve a harbor and coaling station in Porto Rico and the Philippines in return for services rendered, and I think we would be justified in asking the same concession from Cuba.

“In the case of Porto Rico, where the people have as yet expressed no desire for independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island, if the citizens desire annexation, but the Philippines are too far away and their people too different from ours to be annexed to the United States, even if they desired it.”

In making this statement, and in his subsequent active support of the treaty, Mr. Bryan’s course was again opposed to the wishes and advice of many of his close political friends. In fact, before Mr. Bryan took his firm stand probably the majority of Democratic 82leaders in and out of Congress were opposed to the ratification of the treaty because of its Philippine clause. But Mr. Bryan, while as strongly opposed to this clause as anyone, was anxious to see the war finally ended. He knew that for the Senate to reject the treaty would prolong the war perhaps a year or more, and, further, that it might lead to endless and unpleasant complications. Once the war was ended, he held, the American people themselves could dispose of the Philippine question.

Largely owing to the aid extended the administration by Mr. Bryan, the treaty was ratified by the Senate. Those senators who were opposed to the imperial policy of President McKinley supported the “Bacon resolution” as a declaration of this nation’s purpose toward the Philippines and Filipinos. This resolution declared:

“The United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, and assert their determination, when a stable and independent government shall have been erected therein, entitled in the judgment of the government of the United States to recognition as such, to transfer to said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of the islands to their people.”

The Democratic policy, as outlined by Mr. Bryan, was the support of the treaty and of the foregoing resolution. The treaty was ratified, but the resolution, 83though supported by practically the solid Democratic, Populist, and Silver Republican strength in the Senate, and by a number of Republican senators who were opposed to the imperial policy, was defeated by the deciding vote of Vice-President Hobart. Had the resolution been adopted, and the Philippines been given the same promise of independence and self-government as had already been given Cuba, it is believed that the long, bloody, and costly war in the Philippine Islands might have been averted, and the abandoned old-world heresy of the right of one man to rule another without that other’s consent would not now have regained a footing on the soil of the great American Republic.

In the meantime the President’s proclamation of December 21, 1898, to the Filipinos, asserting the sovereignty of the United States over them and theirs had provoked a veritable hurricane of indignation among that people.

The characteristic that distinguishes the Filipinos from all other Asiatic races is their fierce, inherent love for liberty. For three hundred years they had been intermittently battling with the Spaniard to regain what they had lost, and the palm of victory was within their eager reach on the day that Dewey’s guns first thundered across Manila bay. Knowing as they did that the United States had gone to war to secure liberty for the Cubans, why should they doubt the securing of their own liberty as well?

The President’s proclamation came like a thunder clap. General Otis, who was commander-in-chief of 84the American forces in the Philippines, reported its effect as follows:

“Aguinaldo met the proclamation by a counter one in which he indignantly protested against the claim of sovereignty by the United States in the islands, which really had been conquered from the Spaniards through the blood and treasure of his countrymen, and abused me for my assumption of the title of military governor. Even the women of Cavite province, in a document numerously signed by them, gave me to understand that after all the men are killed off they are prepared to shed their patriotic blood for the liberty and independence of their country.”

The revulsion was complete. Before the proclamation was issued, it is true, there had been growing among the Filipinos a feeling of distrust of the Americans, and of doubt whether, after all, they were to be conceded their independence. For, at the surrender of Manila, although its capture had been impossible without the aid of the insurgents, they were studiously excluded from any share of the honor, and thus given the first intimation of the final treachery of the administration. Later the Filipinos were refused a hearing at Washington, and again before the Peace Commission which was to dispose of them like chattels.

Actual hostilities broke out February 4, 1899, and are thus referred to by President McKinley in his message to Congress December 4, 1899: “The aggression of the Filipinos continually increased, until finally, just before the time set by the Senate of the 85United States for a vote upon the treaty, an attack, evidently prepared in advance, was made all along the American lines, which resulted in a terribly destructive and sanguinary repulse of the insurgents.”

The report of General Otis, reads as follows (page 96): “The battle of Manila commenced at half past eight o’clock, on the evening of February 4 (1899), and continued until five o’clock the next evening. The engagement was strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents, and one of vigorous attack by our forces.”

Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, in a letter to the Springfield (Mass.) Republican, January 11, 1900, is responsible for this statement regarding the first battle: “The outbreak of hostilities was not their fault, but ours. We fired upon them first. The fire was returned from their lines. Thereupon it was returned again from us, and several Filipinos were killed. As soon as Aguinaldo heard of it he sent a message to General Otis saying that the firing was without his knowledge and against his will; that he deplored it, and that he desired hostilities to cease, and would withdraw his troops to any distance General Otis should desire. To which the American general replied that, as the firing had begun, it must go on.”

Thus began the War in the Philippine Islands. It has cost thousands of lives and millions of treasure. It has burned the homes and uprooted the fields of a frugal, intelligent, and industrious people in whose minds and hearts have been seared the ringing words of Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death!” 86It has not brought to the United States either riches or glory, but, on the contrary, lost to us much in taxes on our people, more in the death of our youth, and most of all in the sullying of the noble and lofty ideals which animated the Fathers of the Republic and made their lives sublime. An American soldier writing to the Minneapolis Times, in describing a captured city, thus simply sets forth the enormity of our national offense:

“Every inhabitant had left Norzagaray, and no article of value remained behind. The place had probably been the home of fifteen hundred or two thousand people, and was pleasantly situated on a clear mountain stream in which a bath was most refreshing. It was not a city of apparent wealth, but in many houses were found evidences of education. In a building which probably had been used as a schoolhouse were found a number of books, and a variety of exercises written by childish hands. Pinned to a crucifix was a paper upon which was written the following in Spanish: ‘American soldiers—How can you hope mercy from Him when you are slaughtering a people fighting for their liberty, and driving us from the homes which are justly ours?’ On a table was a large globe which did not give Minneapolis, but had San Pablo (St. Paul) as the capital of Minnesota. On a rude blackboard were a number of sentences, which indicated that the teacher had recently been giving lessons in the history of the American revolution.”

The demoralizing effect of this war against liberty 87on the American conscience became early apparent. If it were permissible to make war on the Filipinos because they would not yield to our government, it was no far cry to withhold from the Porto Ricans the protecting aegis of the Constitution, to levy a discriminating tariff against them, and to tax them without their consent. And it of course became impossible for the United States to express sympathy for the Boers in their war against British aggression, or even to maintain neutrality between the two. As a consequence horses, mules, arms, and ammunition were permitted to be freely shipped from our ports for the use of British soldiers, while British ships were permitted to intercept and capture American ships laden with American breadstuffs, when consigned to the Boers. In fact, an “Anglo-Saxon alliance” was more than hinted at by John Hay, then United States Ambassador to Great Britain, and later Secretary of State, when he said at London, on April 20, 1898, speaking of England and the United States:

“The good understanding between us is based on something deeper than mere expediency. All who think can not but see that there is a sanction like that of religion which binds us in partnership in the serious work of the world. We are bound by ties we did not forge, and that we can not break. We are joint ministers in the sacred work of freedom and progress, charged with duties we can not evade by the imposition of irresistible hands.”

To this sentiment Joseph Chamberlain, the British 88Secretary of the Colonies, replied in kind on May 13, at Birmingham, saying:

“I would go so far as to say that, terrible as war may be, even war itself would be cheaply purchased if, in a great and noble cause, the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack should wave together over an Anglo-Saxon alliance. At the present time these two great nations understand each other better than they ever have done, since, over a century ago, they were separated by the blunder of a British government.”

So we come to the close of the recital of the most salient events which gave rise to the greatest issue save that of independence, and later, of slavery, with which the American people have ever stood face to face.

Contemporaneous with the growth of the question of imperialism, and allied to it, another great issue arose,—the problem of the trusts.

A “trust” may be defined as an industrial combination of such huge proportions as to enable it not only arbitrarily to fix the price of the finished product in which it deals, through the stifling of competition, but frequently to determine alone the price of the raw material it uses and to fix the rate of wages of those whom it employs. Of these great and dangerous combinations there were formed, during the years 1897 to 1900, a number exceeding all those already in existence. That this was permitted to be done with the Sherman anti-trust law on the Federal statute books has puzzled many. Its explanation may be found in the following candid admission made by Dr. Albert Shaw in the Review of Reviews for February, 1897:

89“The great sound-money campaign of 1896 was carried on by money contributed by corporations—money voted by the directors out of the funds held by them in trust for the stockholders. Nobody, probably, would even care to deny that this is literally the truth.”

When the “great sound money campaign” was concluded, it was but fair, of course, that those who had given so lavishly should be allowed to replenish their depleted coffers. And so neither anti-trust laws, supreme court decisions, nor the cry of protest rising from the people was allowed to stand in the way of those generous corporations to whom President McKinley owed so much.

In the last six months of 1898 the movement toward centralization that meant monopoly was most alarmingly pronounced. During this time there were filed articles of incorporation by more than one hundred companies of abnormal capitalization. The most important trusts were:

90Among those classed as “miscellaneous” were trusts in leather, starch, lumber, rubber, dressed beef, lead, knit goods, window glass, crockery, furniture, crackers, sheet copper, paper, acids and chemicals, wall paper, typewriters, axes, bolts and nuts, salt, saws, rope, twine, thread, stock yards, matches, refrigerators, potteries, marbles, packing and provisions.

After the formation of each trust the first step was almost invariably to limit production by shutting down a portion of the mills controlled by the combination, thus reducing the number of wage earners. And almost as invariably the next step was to increase prices. By thus reducing expenses and increasing receipts the result was, though much of the trust property had been put in at an enormously inflated valuation, the watered stock yet earned exceedingly large dividends. The evil was not only that these unnatural dividends were earned at the expense of the laborer and the consumer, but that concentration of profits was leading to congestion of capital in certain sections of the country at the expense of other sections.

The great friend and helper of the trust-promoter was, of course, the high protective tariff. Without the tariff, to shut out competition from abroad, it would be impossible for the domestic concerns to form a close corporation and arbitrarily to fix prices. But Congress, instead of attempting to remedy the evil by lowering the tariff, deliberately raised it, being particularly careful to see that the percentage on trust-controlled goods was made sufficiently high to render foreign competition impossible. This led the Philadelphia Ledger, a Republican newspaper, to remark:

91“If Congress had any genuine regard for the interests of the people, or if it were sincere of purpose respecting their common welfare, or in regard to the proper protection of labor, it would promptly transfer to the free list every product controlled by a conscienceless and predatory trust which reduces production, cuts off working people from work and wages, and increases prices to the tens of millions of consumers.” The correctness of this view was testified to, before the United States Industrial Commission, in June, 1899, by no less a personage than Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the sugar trust, who said:

“The existing [tariff] bill and the preceding one have been the occasion of the formation of all the large trusts with very few exceptions, inasmuch as they provide for an inordinate protection to all the interests of the country—sugar refining excepted. All this agitation against trusts is against merely the business machinery employed to take from the public what the government in its tariff laws says it is proper and suitable they should have. It is the government, through its tariff laws, which plunders the people, and the trusts, etc., are merely the machinery for doing it.”

The showing regarding trusts made in the “Commercial Year Book” for 1899 was startling. Its salient features may be thus tabulated:

92This shows an increase for the year of 76 per cent. in the number of institutions and of 60 per cent. in stock and bonded debt. But it shows more than this. According to the census of 1890 the entire capital employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries was $6,525,000,000. A comparison of this figure with the stock and bonds of trusts for 1899 shows that the capitalization of these gigantic combines was equal to 90 per cent. of the entire manufacturing investments of 1890.

It was such significant figures as these that woke the country to a realization of the imminence and great importance of the trust problem. It was felt that the most stupendous industrial revolution in the history of the world was on, because it was realized how closely our industrial system had approached to complete absorption under monopolistic control. Industry at large was becoming organized into a system of feudalized corporations. Each was stifling competition, discouraging enterprise, and padlocking the gates of opportunity. Together they were in absolute mastery of the industrial field.

The menacing danger of the situation was early realized, and the “anti-trust” movement progressed side by side with the opposition to imperialism. The fight was to be one of individualism against a gigantic and arrogant plutocracy, the forces of individualism contending for the doctrines of liberty and equal opportunity as against the reactionary tendencies of which trusts and imperialism were the supremest manifestations. In this Titanic struggle it was but fitting that the Jeffersonian hosts should be marshaled under the leadership of the brave, aggressive, eloquent, and inspired evangel of the doctrines of the Fathers—William J. Bryan.

DAVID B. HILL

When the result of the great presidential contest of 1896 was made known, Mr. Bryan’s political enemies, both in and out of the Democratic party, loudly proclaimed that “Bryanism”—or “Bryanarchy,” as a green-eyed relict of Mr. Cleveland’s second cabinet terms it—was dead and buried. Some said it was “too dead to bury.” And Bryan himself, they gleefully asserted, had died with the death of ideas to which he was wedded. Doubtless many of them believed this. The fierce and determined onslaught of the silver men in that memorable campaign had so wrought upon the fears of the class of Americans of whom Marcus A. Hanna and Pierpont Morgan are representative, that, in their nervous hysteria after their narrow escape, they were in a frame of mind where but little evidence was required to induce great faith. And, moreover, the decisive defeat which Bryan had suffered, considered in its probable effect on his disorganized following, was such as naturally gave birth to the hope that to the outstretched palms of the repudiated and disowned leaders of the party, such as Mr. Cleveland, might soon be restored in contrition the insignia of power and authority.

But even those who most sincerely believed and uproariously heralded the death of Bryanism and of Bryan continued their flagellations of both as earnestly 95as of yore. To them the good old Latin rule “De mortuis nihil nisi bonum” was obsolete and cobwebby.

And so, for almost three years succeeding Mr. McKinley’s election, the funeral notices of Democracy’s leader were daily published and his requiems daily sung. But, through all this time, the faith of the allied forces of reform that their leader was still of the living abode with them, and, firm in the belief, they were neither faltered nor dismayed, and never a man broke ranks.

And it was not long before faith that was of the spirit gave way to that certainty which comes of knowledge that is of the brain and senses. The first evidence was the remarkable sale and popularity of “The First Battle.” Another was the increasing demand for Mr. Bryan’s services as lecturer and public speaker, and the rapturous enthusiasm with which he was received, excelling, if possible that which greeted the Presidential candidate. Then, when he fearlessly took a stand against imperialism, which seemed to be sweeping the country like a great forest fire, and at once, in response to his appeal, the great Democratic party lined up against that policy, it became clearly evident that the powers of the great popular leader had not waned; neither had his influence over the minds and hearts of the people been lost. Finally, just as he was the first great public man of the United States to raise his voice in protest against the abandonment of the Republic, so he was the first to propose a definite and coherent remedy for the overshadowing 96evil of the trusts. This again demonstrated his natural fitness for leadership. Mr. Bryan first outlined his views at the Anti-Trust Conference held in Chicago in 1899. Because of its importance, as well as because it was the first tangible remedy proposed, it is here reproduced:

“I believe we ought to have remedies in both state and nation, and that they should be concurrent remedies. In the first place, every state has, or should have, the right to create any private corporation, which, in the judgment of the people of the state, is conducive to the welfare of the people of that state. I believe we can safely entrust to the people of a state the settlement of a question which concerns them. If they create a corporation, and it becomes destructive of their best interests, they can destroy that corporation, and we can safely trust them both to create and annihilate, if conditions make annihilation necessary. In the second place, the state has, or should have, the right to prohibit any foreign corporation from doing business in the state, and it has, or should have, the right to impose such restrictions and limitations as the people of the state may think necessary upon foreign corporations doing business in the state. In other words, the people of the state not only should have a right to create the corporations they want, but they should be permitted to protect themselves against any outside corporation.

“But I do not think this is sufficient. I believe, in addition to a state remedy, there must be a Federal remedy, and I believe Congress has, or should have, 97the power to place restrictions and limitations, even to the point of prohibition, upon any corporation organized in any state that wants to do business outside of the state. I say that Congress has, or should have, power to place upon the corporation such limitations and restrictions, even to the point of prohibition, as may to Congress seem necessary for the protection of the public.

“Now, I believe that these concurrent remedies will prove effective. To repeat, the people of every state shall first decide whether they want to create a corporation. They shall also decide whether they want any outside corporation to do business in the state; and, if so, upon what conditions; and then Congress shall exercise the right to place upon every corporation doing business outside of the state in which it is organized such limitations and restrictions as may be necessary for the protection of the public.”

The legislation to be enacted by Congress Mr. Bryan roughly outlined as follows:

“Suppose that Congress should say that whenever a corporation wants to do business outside of the state, it must apply to and receive from some body, created by Congress for the purpose, a license to do business. Suppose the law should provide three conditions upon which the license could be issued:

“1. That the evidence should show that there was no water in the stock.

“2. That the evidence should show that the corporation has not attempted in the past and is not now 98attempting, to monopolize any branch of industry or any article of merchandise; and

“3. Providing for that publicity which everybody has spoken of and about which everybody agrees.”

This plan of Mr. Bryan’s for the suppression of monopolistic trusts is given here, not especially because of the intrinsic merit it may possess, but as illustrating one of the important phases of his character.

When the tariff question was under discussion, Mr. Bryan was an outspoken advocate of a tariff for revenue only. When the silver question arose Mr. Bryan wrote and stood squarely upon the first platform that declared for the “free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.” When the dark cloud of imperialism rose on the horizon his was the first voice to point out the danger, and he took an unequivocal position in favor of granting independence to the Filipinos. And now, at the Trust Conference, while many joined with him in denunciation of the evil, he alone proposed and ably defended a definite and explicit remedy. So it has been with every other question with which Mr. Bryan has had to deal, in his career as a public man; he has never failed to state his exact position and to take the American people fully and freely into his confidence. And his frankness and honesty have been appreciated. Of the thousand delegates chosen during the first six months of the year 1900 to attend the great Democratic National 99convention at Kansas City, those from every state but two were instructed for Bryan for President. When it is remembered that this was done in spite of the earnest desire of a number of well-known Democrats who wished it otherwise, but absolutely dared not make a fight, the full significance of this great popular tribute to the defeated candidate of four years before may be understood. It was this unanimity as regarded the candidate, together with the unanimity regarding the issue, the feeling of enthusiasm aroused by the one, and of patriotic fervor excited by the other, that made the Kansas City convention one destined to be memorable in American history. And while the name on the lips of every Democrat was the same name as was pronounced at Chicago four years before, the issue which aroused them by the compelling force of events was entirely different. Then the question was: What kind of money shall this nation have, and who shall issue it and control its volume? Now the question was: What form of government shall this nation have; shall it remain a Republic, as contemplated by the fathers,—the world’s beacon light of liberty,—or shall it turn its face to the past, extinguish its light, and on the dark sea of empire, littered with the flotsam and jetsam of nations that once were great and free, set forth toward the orient? The issue was worthy of the man, and the man, with a reunited and virile Democracy behind him, was prepared to meet it.

No man who was so fortunate as to be present at the Kansas City convention can live long enough to forget it. It was epoch-marking not only for its 100outward appearance, but for its inward significance. To the onlooker, stirred by its emotional enthusiasm, by the wildness and frenzy of its patriotic manifestations, these were its memorable and significant features. But to him who looked beneath the surface, who knew and saw the strange combat being waged between one man and many hundreds of men,—a combat one of the strangest in nature and most remarkable in its outcome ever waged in a parliamentary body,—it was this that held him entranced to the end, and sent him home marveling at that one man’s strength and greatness. It came about in this wise: Of the hundreds of thousands of Gold Democrats who left the Democratic party in 1896 because of the silver question, ninety per cent. or more were anxious to come back and aid in Mr. Bryan’s nomination and election, now that they believed they saw the Republic itself in danger at the hand of President McKinley and his advisers. They saw, as did the Silver Democrats, as did Mr. Bryan himself, that imperialism was to be the dominating, all-important issue of the campaign. In the shadow of the great danger of the conversion of the Republic into an empire they were willing to subordinate all minor differences and join to defeat the President they had themselves helped to elect four years before. It is true that to these men “free silver” was still a bugaboo. At the same time they were convinced that, because of the complexion of the Senate, with its heavy Republican majority, even should Mr. Bryan and a Democratic House of Representatives be elected on a free silver 101platform, it would be impossible for them, in four years, to enact any legislation along that line. But nevertheless, after the manner of many a returning prodigal, they demanded a concession. It was a very modest and moderate concession they wanted. They asked the party only to reaffirm instead of reiterating the free silver plank of the Chicago platform.

It can hardly be denied that to reaffirm is, in effect, to reiterate. The difference is only in seeming,—and, possibly, that it gives opportunity for “interpretation” and “construction.” At all events, the Gold Democrats had early gone to work to secure this concession. They had been successful in enlisting in their behalf scores and hundreds of sincere friends of bimetallism in the Democratic party. And when the delegates were gathered at Kansas City it became evident that a large majority of them were favorable to the policy of a general reaffirmation of the Chicago platform without a specific repetition of the demand for free silver at the ratio of sixteen to one. Not only were the most of the delegates inclined to this course, but it was advocated, before the convention met, by a large majority of the influential party leaders. It was, on the part of the leaders, as of most of the delegates, a sincere and honest advocacy, by men whose fealty to the doctrine of bimetallism was undoubted. It was their intent, not to abandon the demand for free silver,—far from it,—for the platform would reaffirm the demand made in 1896,—but to subordinate it in such a way as would do least damage in the fight for the preservation of the Republic. Such was their honest position.

102But here the trouble arose. The Gold Democrats, by their very insistence, had made “free silver” the only issue, so far as the convention was concerned. There was no difference among Democrats as to any other plank of the platform. This very fact, and the fact that in every newspaper in the country the one question of discussion and of speculation concerning the convention was whether it would “reaffirm” or “reiterate” had brought the old issue so prominently to the fore-ground that not to reiterate would mean practically to abandon the position, while under fire. Had the issue never been raised, had the fight thereon never been precipitated, it is conceivable, even probable, that there had come from no source any objection to the policy of reaffirming the Chicago platform so far as the old issues were concerned, and making specific declarations on the new ones. But the issue had been raised, and the objection came,—came from William J. Bryan, at his home in Lincoln.

On July 1, R. L. Metcalfe, a delegate at large from Nebraska, after a long consultation with Mr. Bryan gave out an authorized interview in which he declared that there must be a specific declaration on the money question. This was taken as a statement of Mr. Bryan’s position, and David B. Hill, the leader of the Gold Democrats, at once hastened from Kansas City to Lincoln on a futile mission. He wished to induce Mr. Bryan to recede from his position. It became at once evident that there was to be a contest over the money plank of the platform.

On July 3, the day before the convention met, A. S. 103Tibbets of Lincoln, another delegate-at-large from Nebraska, threw this bomb-shell: “Bryan will not run on any platform which does not contain a specific declaration in favor of free coinage at the ratio of sixteen to one. If this convention does not put that declaration in the platform it will have to nominate another candidate for president.”

This authorized statement was a bugle call to Democrats, reminding them that parties are founded on the bed-rock of principle, and that platforms are made unequivocally to express convictions. Many of the leaders of the party, assembled at Kansas City, took their stand by Bryan’s side, and the fight for sturdy, honest, and manly candor waged fiercely to the end.

Ex-Governor Hill, who had returned from Lincoln, alone among the leaders who had fought for a specific silver plank, boldly and openly continued his fight. He is a hard and stubborn fighter, and he centered his efforts on the organization of the committee on resolutions. He sent for heads of delegations known to be favorable to his plan, and urged upon them the necessity of selecting “careful, conservative, long-headed men,” as members of that important committee. He argued vehemently for the necessity of such action as would “reorganize the party” and make victory assured. “Good God, gentlemen,” the famous New Yorker exclaimed to one delegation with which he was closeted, “we must not lose this election. It means fifty years of republican rule. And if we are wise,” he said, wagging his head solemnly, “we will not lose it. The people want to be with us. Shall we be so 104generous”—with an oratorical flourish and Frenchified shrug of his expressive shoulders—“as to refuse to allow them to fight our battles?”

Here a Kansan spoke up. “I am not a delegate, senator,” he said, “but I want a conservative platform. If we don’t get it I’ll go home and quit, and I’ve voted the Democratic ticket for fifty years.”

“Wait, wait, my friend,” came the quick response; “don’t, don’t, I pray you, say that. Whether the platform pleases us or not, we must fight, fight to win, fight to the death.” The eyes of the shrewd and wily politician flashed. In quick, nervous staccato he continued: “Mark my words, mark my words. If McKinley and a Republican Congress are elected inside the year a force bill will be fastened upon us. Why? Kentucky; that will be the excuse. And the next move—do you know what it will be? On the pretext that the negro vote is not cast nor counted, the representation of the southern states in Congress will be reduced. Their vote in the electoral college will be diminished, and they’ll have the Democratic party by the throat, bound hand and foot. We must not permit it. We must not.”

The second day before the convention met, the writer of this chapter, in a dispatch to the Omaha World-Herald, said:

“There are many Democrats in Kansas City to-night who profess to deplore what they term William J. Bryan’s lack of skill as a “practical politician,” who murmur their complaints that the leader of their party does not understand the gentle art of constructing 105a platform that will “catch ‘em acomin’ and catch ‘em a gwine,” who complain that Mr. Bryan does not understand that the end and aim of a political party is to get into power—to hold offices and control the patronage of the administration. These men, crafty, cunning diplomats, though not always successful withal, are, it may frankly be admitted, grieved and disappointed at Mr. Bryan’s insistence that the Democratic platform should clearly and explicitly set forth the conviction and the purpose of Democracy’s heart and brain.

“But in all Kansas City, among all the sweltering and noisy crowds that throng the lobbies and march up and down the streets, there can not be found a single man—Democrat, Populist, or Republican—but will confess his admiration of Mr. Bryan’s honesty and courage.

“To the leaders and manipulators of parties, to the men taught and accustomed to play to the pit, Mr. Bryan is a source of ever-increasing wonder and surprise. It is hard for the politician to understand the statesman.

“It it not to be doubted that Mr. Bryan’s wishes are to prevail in the great convention of American patriotism which is to convene to-morrow on the anniversary of the Republic’s birth, to proclaim anew the unchanged and never-changing truths to perpetuate which the blood of heroes and of martyrs was shed on a hundred battlefields.

“The platform will be an honest platform, it will be an easily understood platform, it will conceal nothing, 106and it will evade nothing. It will there declare, in explicit terms, for independent bimetallism by this country alone, at the present legal ratio of sixteen to one. This prediction may be safely hazarded.

“All day long the leaven has been working, all day long the gospel of candor and righteousness has been preached, and to-night there is not a delegate but knows that Mr. Bryan demands that the Democratic party deal in unequivocal good faith with the people of this country.”

In truth the bold and manly position taken by Mr. Bryan had won him the admiration and respect of the whole country. It demonstrated anew those noble qualities which he possesses in such an unusual degree. The strength of his position was well outlined in an interview given to the New York Herald by Mr. Metcalfe, who led the fight for a specific declaration. Mr. Metcalfe said:

“When the American people know Mr. Bryan better, they will learn that he is not a politician in the popular acceptation of that term, but that he is honestly devoted to his views of fundamental principles, and that, while not an obstinate man, on this question of principle he is as firm as a rock. Men who know him best know him to be a man of iron. He stands to-day determined that the platform on which he is to be a candidate shall contain a plank explicitly pledging independent bimetallism at the ratio of sixteen to one. Those men of the East who do not know the man, and who may be inclined to regard his position on this question as an obstinate one, should know that 107the same firmness of purpose, the same indifference to appeal even by men known to be friendly to him that characterizes his adherence to the principle in which some of the men of the East believe him to be wrong, will sustain him in the White House on the many great questions on which they believe him to be right.

“The situation is an unusual one as political situations have gone in this country, but the man who is to be the nominee of this convention is an exceptional man. As the prospective nominee of this convention he will not surrender his convictions. As the nominee of the Democratic party in the coming campaign he will not be a dodger. In the White House he will not be a wabbler. When he shall be elected, men who may be saddened by the thought that they have a President who believes in bimetallism at the ratio of sixteen to one may find consolation in the demonstration of the fact that they also have an American president who adheres to the policies and traditions of a republic in preference to the habits of an empire; who draws his inspiration from the great mass of the people, rather than from a coterie of trust agents; whose purpose it is to discharge his duties so that the result shall be the greatest good to the greatest number, rather than to surrender to a handful of men the privilege of administering the government to the end that the many shall bear all the burdens and the few shall enjoy all the benefits.”

The fight in the resolutions committee was a hard and long one. So closely was the committee divided 108that it was evident that neither side had more than two or three majority. It seemed almost inevitable that a minority and majority report, differing only as to the wording in which the party’s allegiance to silver should be expressed, would go before the convention. And in this event hard feeling would in all probability be engendered, harsh words be spoken, and factionalism and disunion might result. In this crisis, one of the members of the resolutions committee was seized with an inspiration. In a half hour the whole difficulty was solved. The committee unanimously agreed to a specific demand for free silver coupled with the declaration that imperialism was the paramount issue of the campaign.

On July 5 the platform was read and adopted by the convention, and Bryan nominated for president of the United States.

Again the writer incorporates a portion of a dispatch sent by him to the World-Herald descriptive of this memorable session of the convention:

“Never in the history of popular government has there been held a national convention of a great political party that can be likened to that which at Kansas City to-day promulgated its declaration of principles and nominated its candidate for the chief magistracy of the great commonwealth of sovereign American states.

ADLAI STEVENSON

109“To-day’s session witnessed scenes of turbulent enthusiasm, of intense patriotic ardor such as have never before been witnessed and such as promise a victory at once glorious and complete for William J. Bryan at the polls next November. It has been a day marked by loftiest patriotism and noblest purposes, a day that for centuries to come will stand clear and distinct as marking an epoch in the cause of human liberty.

“To-day was fired the first gun of that great war which is to be waged during the next four months for the preservation of the Republic and the perpetuation of American institutions. And to-day, on a Democratic platform, addressing a Democratic convention, Webster Davis, Republican orator, statesman, and publicist, denounced in words of burning eloquence Republican abandonment of republican principles, and pledged his loyal and unswerving support to William J. Bryan. And on that same platform David B. Hill, Gold Democrat, stood before wildly cheering thousands, and announced a reunited Democracy.

“’Save the Republic,’ is to be the battle cry, the Declaration of Independence the party creed, ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic’ the battle hymn, and the American flag the party emblem. And the leader, honest, unswerving, and undaunted, is to be the same gallant chieftain who breathed anew the breath of life into Democracy four years ago and marched it to glorious battle. Such, while the fire of patriotism burned fiercely in its heart, was the unanimous decision reached to-day by the Democratic National convention.

“As has been daily predicted in these dispatches, the Democratic party took no backward step on the question of finance.

110“There is no attempt at quibbling, at subterfuge, or equivocation. Honesty and candor of the highest order live in this plank of the platform as they have their being in every other plank. There is not a line, a word, or a syllable capable of more than the one meaning; there are no omissions, no half statements, no dodgings of any question. The platform is in every sense worthy of the man—candid, bold, honest, and sincere even as he is candid, bold, honest, and sincere. Most wondrously were the schemes and machinations of the enemies of the Democratic party confounded. For on the single question on which the delegates were divided, as to whether there should be a specific demand for the free coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one by this nation alone, the committee on resolutions brought in a unanimous report and the demand was boldly and specifically made. And the platform in which that demand was incorporated was adopted by the convention, not only with absolute unanimity, but amid the wildest, the most general, and most prolonged enthusiasm.

“In this unanimity spoke the love of every delegate for the Republic. It came because of a realizing sense that popular government and free institutions are in danger. And with that danger threatening, not a man in the convention but felt that all other differences must be buried while the party that founded and builded the Republic rallies to guard the sacred edifice from the vandal hands that are outstretched for its destruction. And thus it was that the great Democratic party reunited, north, south, east, and west 111clasping hands, love of country in every man’s heart and ‘save the Republic’ on each man’s lip, gave its platform and its candidate to the country.”

So Mr. Bryan won his greatest fight. It was a fight not only for principle and honesty, but for absolute candor and sincerity in dealing with any question before the American people. And, having won it, he was again the candidate for President of three political parties. For at Kansas City, at a convention held at the same time as the Democratic, the Silver Republican party, under the leadership of that pure and disinterested patriot, Charles A. Towne, had made Bryan and Stevenson, the Democratic nominees, its own nominees. And the Peoples’ party, at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, early in May had, in a spirit of noble self-sacrifice, gone outside its own party in its search for candidates, naming Mr. Bryan for President and Mr. Towne for Vice-President. Mr. Towne, believing that by so doing he could better further Mr. Bryan’s election, later withdrew from the ticket.

The Republican party met at Philadelphia in June, and renominated President McKinley, choosing as its Vice-Presidential candidate Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York. The platform declared for the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands as property of the United States.

President McKinley, in his speech of acceptance, thus outlined his Philippine policy:

“There must be no scuttle policy. We will fulfil in the Philippines the obligations imposed by the triumph of our arms, by the treaty of peace, and by international 112law, by the nation’s sense of honor, and, more than all, by the rights, interests, and conditions of the Filipinos themselves.... The Philippines are ours, and American authority must be supreme throughout the archipelago.”

Those who find this declaration vague and unsatisfactory may well turn to Mr. Bryan’s great speech of acceptance delivered at Indianapolis on August 8, in which he makes this distinct pledge:

“If elected, I shall convene Congress in extraordinary session as soon as I am inaugurated and recommend an immediate declaration of the nation’s purpose, first, to establish a stable form of government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos, just as we have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central and South America and are, by the Monroe Doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba. A European protectorate often results in the exploitation of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength without making it the victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe Doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics, and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us.”

So is the issue drawn in the important campaign in which, for a second time, William J. Bryan and William McKinley are the opposing candidates for 113the highest elective office in the world. For weal or for woe, who can doubt that the outcome will be of serious and far-reaching import to the people of the United States and to their children and children’s children who shall live after them?

Mr. Bryan was notified of his second nomination for the Presidency by the Democratic party at Indianapolis, Ind., on August 8, 1900. The ceremonies took place in the presence of an immense multitude of people, the number being conservatively estimated at fifty thousand, among whom were included many of the most distinguished members of the party. In formally accepting the nomination Mr. Bryan delivered a speech which will not only rank as incomparably the best of his numerous public utterances, but which is destined to immortality in the brief list of the world’s great orations.

For purity and simplicity of style, and beauty and strength of structure, as well as for its masterful logic and sublimity of sentiment, this speech has never been excelled. While it has not the stately sweep of Demosthenes’ Philippics, the incisiveness of Cicero’s invectives, or the grandeur of Burke’s sonorous periods, in its every sentence lives such honesty, sincerity, ardent patriotism, and lofty purpose that it thrills the hearts and stirs the consciences of men as no other speech, save only Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, has ever done before.

This speech, not only because of its wondrous effect on the American people and its direct bearing on the great issue with which Mr. Bryan’s life has become 115wedded, but as much because of the glowing light it sheds upon the character of the man, his ideals, and his motives, is here reproduced in full:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Notification Committee—I shall, at an early day, and in a more formal manner accept the nomination which you tender, and I shall at that time discuss the various questions covered by the Democratic platform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations at this time upon the general character of the contest before us and upon the question which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign.

When I say that the contest of 1900 is a contest between democracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other, I do not mean to say that all our opponents have deliberately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the government, but I do assert that, on the important issues of the day, the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to substitute the worship of mammon for the protection of the rights of man.

In 1859 Lincoln said that the Republican party believed in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it believed in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should exist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master, money the servant, but upon all important 116questions to-day Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant.

The maxim of Jefferson, “Equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” are being disregarded and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a position to secure favors from the government.

The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage industry, economy, and thrift. On the contrary, it gives to every citizen the greatest possible stimulus to honest toil when it promises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights are most respected. Democracy strives for a civilization in which every member of society will share according to his merits.

No one has a right to expect from society more than a fair compensation for the service which he renders to society. If he secures more it is at the expense of someone else. It is no injustice to him to prevent his doing injustice to another. To him who would, either through class legislation or in the absence of necessary legislation, trespass upon the rights of another the Democratic party says, “Thou shalt not.”

Against us are arrayed a comparatively small but politically and financially powerful number who really profit by Republican policies; but with them are associated a large number who, because of their 117attachment to their party name, are giving their support to doctrines antagonistic to the former teachings of their own party. Republicans who used to advocate bimetallism now try to convince themselves that the gold standard is good; Republicans who were formerly attached to the greenback are now seeking an excuse for giving national banks control of the nation’s paper money; Republicans who used to boast that the Republican party was paying off the national debt are now looking for reasons to support a perpetual and increasing debt; Republicans who formerly abhorred a trust now beguile themselves with the delusion that there are good trusts and bad trusts, while, in their minds, the line between the two is becoming more and more obscure; Republicans who, in times past, congratulated the country upon the small expense of our standing army are now making light of the objections which are urged against a large increase in the permanent military establishment; Republicans who gloried in our independence when the nation was less powerful now look with favor upon a foreign alliance; Republicans who three years ago condemned “forcible annexation” as immoral and even criminal are now sure that it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That partisanship has already blinded many to present dangers is certain; how large a portion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new policies remains to be seen.

For a time Republican leaders were inclined to deny to opponents the right to criticise the Philippine 118policy of the administration, but upon investigation they found that both Lincoln and Clay asserted and exercised the right to criticise a president during the progress of the Mexican war.

Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a platform, the larger part of which was devoted to boasting and self-congratulation.

In attempting to press economic questions upon the country to the exclusion of those which involve the very structure of our government, the Republican leaders give new evidence of their abandonment of the earlier ideals of the party and of their complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations.

But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issue which they have deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the House and Senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots of Cuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded. Although the Democrats recognized that the administration would necessarily gain a political advantage from the conduct of a war which in the very nature of the case must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the President. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy, opposition at once manifested itself. When the President finally 119laid before the Senate a treaty which recognized the independence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine islands to the United States, the menace of imperialism became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the chance of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action of this country.

I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures, and then give to the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.

In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation. Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, “Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?” I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified, a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question is settled. If the treaty had been rejected, the opponents of imperialism would have been held responsible for any international complications which might have 120arisen before the ratification of another treaty. But, whatever differences of opinion may have existed as to the best method of opposing a colonial policy, there never was any difference as to the importance of the course to be pursued.

The title of Spain being extinguished, we were at liberty to deal with the Filipinos according to American principles. The Bacon resolution, introduced a month before hostilities broke out at Manila, promised independence to the Filipinos on the same terms that it was promised to the Cubans. I supported this resolution and believe that its adoption prior to the breaking out of hostilities would have prevented bloodshed, and that its adoption at any subsequent time would have ended hostilities.

If the treaty had been rejected considerable time would have necessarily elapsed before a new treaty could have been agreed upon and ratified, and during that time the question would have been agitating the public mind. If the Bacon resolution had been adopted by the Senate and carried out by the President, either at the time of the ratification of the treaty or at any time afterwards, it would have taken the question of imperialism out of politics and left the American people free to deal with their domestic problems. But the resolution was defeated by the vote of the Republican Vice-President, and from that time to this a Republican Congress has refused to take any action whatever in the matter.

When hostilities broke out at Manila Republican speakers and Republican editors at once sought to 121lay the blame upon those who had delayed the ratification of the treaty, and, during the progress of the war, the same Republicans have accused the opponents of imperialism of giving encouragement to the Filipinos. This is a cowardly evasion of responsibility.

If it is right for the United States to hold the Philippine islands permanently and imitate European empires in the government of colonies, the Republican party ought to state its position and defend it, but it must expect the subject races to protest against such a policy and to resist to the extent of their ability. The Filipinos do not need any encouragement from Americans now living. Our whole history has been an encouragement, not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government. If the Republicans are prepared to censure all who have used language calculated to make the Filipinos hate foreign domination let them condemn the speech of Patrick Henry. When he uttered that passionate appeal, “Give me liberty or give me death,” he expressed a sentiment which still echoes in the hearts of men. Let them censure Jefferson; of all the statesmen of history none have used words so offensive to those who would hold their fellows in political bondage. Let them censure Washington, who declared that the colonists must choose between liberty and slavery. Or, if the statute of limitations has run against the sins of Henry and Jefferson and Washington, let them censure Lincoln, whose Gettysburg speech will be quoted in defense of popular government 122when the present advocates of force and conquest are forgotten.

Some one has said that a truth once spoken can never be recalled. It goes on and on, and no one can set a limit to its ever-widening influence. But if it were possible to obliterate every word written or spoken in defense of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, a war of conquest would still leave its legacy of perpetual hatred, for it was God Himself who placed in every human heart the love of liberty. He never made a race of people so low in the scale of civilization or intelligence that it would welcome a foreign master.

Those who would have this nation enter upon a career of empire must consider not only the effect of imperialism on the Filipinos, but they must also calculate its effects upon our own nation. We can not repudiate the principle of self-government in the Philippines without weakening that principle here.

Lincoln said that the safety of this nation was not in its fleets, its armies, its forts, but in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere, and he warned his countrymen that they could not destroy this spirit without planting the seeds of despotism at their own doors.

Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence of imperialism. Heretofore, this nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the western hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. 123We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern themselves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power. Three-quarters of a century ago, when our nation was small, the struggles of Greece aroused our people, and Webster and Clay gave eloquent expression to the universal desire for Grecian independence. In 1896, all parties manifested a lively interest in the success of the Cubans, but now when a war is in progress in South Africa, which must result in the extension of the monarchial idea, or in the triumph of a republic, the advocates of imperialism in this country dare not say a word in behalf of the Boers. Sympathy for the Boers does not arise from any unfriendliness towards England; the American people are not unfriendly toward the people of any nation. This sympathy is due to the fact that, as stated in our platform, we believe in the principles of self-government, and reject, as did our forefathers, the claims of monarchy. If this nation surrenders its belief in the universal application of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, it will lose the prestige and influence which it has enjoyed among the nations as an exponent of popular government.

Our opponents, conscious of the weakness of their cause, seek to confuse imperialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant 124of his views. On one occasion he declared: “If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.” And again he said: “Conquest is not in our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.”

The forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary power differs as much from the acquisition of territory to be built up into states as a monarchy differs from a democracy. The Democratic party does not oppose expansion, when expansion enlarges the area of the Republic and incorporates land which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are capable of discharging their duties as such. The acquisition of the Louisiana territory, Florida, Texas, and other tracts which have been secured from time to time enlarged the Republic, and the Constitution followed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory, already more densely populated than our own country, and to force upon the people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or our laws. Even the argument that this earth belongs to those who desire to cultivate it and who have the physical power to acquire it can not be invoked to justify the appropriation of the Philippine islands by the United States. If the islands were uninhabited American citizens would not be willing to go there and till the soil. The white race will not live so near the equator. Other nations have tried to colonize in 125the same latitude. The Netherlands have controlled Java for 300 years, and yet to-day there are less than 60,000 people of European birth scattered among the 25,000,000 natives. After a century and a half of English domination in India, less than one-twentieth of one per cent of the people of India are of English birth, and it requires an army of 70,000 British soldiers to take care of the tax collectors. Spain had asserted title to the Philippine islands for three centuries and yet, when our fleet entered Manila bay, there were less than 10,000 Spaniards residing in the Philippines.

A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippine islands a few traders, a few taskmasters, and a few office holders, and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the people while they rule the natives.

If we have an imperial policy we must have a great standing army as its natural and necessary complement. The spirit which will justify the forcible annexation of the Philippine islands will justify the seizure of other islands and the domination of other people, and with wars of conquest we can expect a certain, if not rapid, growth of our military establishment. That a large permanent increase in our regular army is intended by Republican leaders is not a matter of conjecture, but a matter of fact. In his message of December 5, 1898, the President asked for authority to increase the standing army to 100,000. In 1896 the army contained about 25,000. Within two years the President asked for four times that many, 126and a Republican House of Representatives complied with the request after the Spanish treaty had been signed, and when no country was at war with the United States. If such an army is demanded when an imperial policy is contemplated, but not openly avowed, what may be expected if the people encourage the Republican party by endorsing its policy at the polls? A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation, but it is ever a menace to a Republican form of government. The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers. A small standing army and a well equipped and well disciplined state militia are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should, in the future as in the past, place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country’s call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required—men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers.

The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the Republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we 127to bring into the body politic eight or ten million Asiatics, so different from us in race and history that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No Republican of prominence has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition. The McEnery resolution, adopted by the Senate immediately after the ratification of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the Filipinos can not be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the Democratic platform speaks with equal emphasis. It declares that the Filipino can not be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Republican platform says that “the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them [the Filipinos] by law.” This is a strange doctrine for a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest against government without consent and taxation without representation. In what respect does the position of the Republican party differ from the position taken by the English government in 1776? Did not the English government promise a good government to the colonists? 128What king ever promised a bad government to his people? Did not the English government promise that the colonists should have the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and English duties? Did not the Spanish government promise to give to the Cubans the largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare and Spanish duties? The whole difference between a monarchy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy, the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a good government. The Republican party has accepted the European idea and planted itself upon the ground taken by George III., and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs.

The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is to be given the Filipinos by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly sixteen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment of Congress last June, and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situation. The will of the President has been the only law in the Philippine Islands wherever the American authority extends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Because a law would disclose the radical departure from history and precedent contemplated by those who control the Republican party. The storm of protest 129which greeted the Porto Rican bill was an indication of what may be expected when the American people are brought face to face with legislation upon this subject. If the Porto Ricans, who welcomed annexation, are to be denied the guarantees of our Constitution, what is to be the lot of the Filipinos, who resisted our authority? If secret influences could compel a disregard of our plain duty toward friendly people, living near our shores, what treatment will those same influences provide for unfriendly people 7,000 miles away? If, in this country where the people have the right to vote, Republican leaders dare not take the side of the people against the great monopolies which have grown up within the last few years, how can they be trusted to protect the Filipinos from the corporations which are waiting to exploit the islands?

Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the United States, and the twilight of semi-citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The Porto Rico tariff law asserts the doctrine that the operation of the Constitution is confined to the forty-five states. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system of government for the deposit of arbitrary and irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great party should claim for any president or congress the right to treat millions of people as mere “possessions” and deal with them unrestrained 130by the Constitution or the bill of rights shows how far we have already departed from the ancient land marks, and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberately enters upon a career of empire. The territorial form of government is temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory has is found in the fact that he enjoys the same constitutional guarantees and is subject to the same general laws as the citizen of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his interests sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what nation it is applied.

What is our title to the Philippine Islands? Do we hold them by treaty or by conquest? Did we buy them or did we take them? Did we purchase the people? If not, how did we secure title to them? Were they thrown in with the land? Will the Republicans say that inanimate earth has value, but that when that earth is molded by the Divine hand and stamped with the likeness of the Creator it becomes a fixture and passes with the soil? If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, it is impossible to secure title to people, either by force or by purchase. We could extinguish Spain’s title by treaty, but if we hold title we must hold it by some method consistent with our ideas of government. When we made allies of the Filipinos and armed them to fight against Spain, we disputed Spain’s title. If we buy Spain’s title we are not innocent purchasers. But even if we had not disputed Spain’s title, she 131could transfer no greater title than she had, and her title was based on force alone. We can not defend such a title, but as Spain gave us a quit-claim deed, we can honorably turn the property over to the party in possession. Whether any American official gave to the Filipinos formal assurance of independence is not material. There can be no doubt that we accepted and utilized the services of the Filipinos, and that when we did so we had full knowledge that they were fighting for their own independence, and I submit that history furnishes no example of turpitude baser than ours if we now substitute our yoke for the Spanish yoke.

Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of an imperialistic policy. Some say that it is our duty to hold the Philippine Islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclusion. To ascertain what our duty is in any emergency, we must apply well settled and generally accepted principles. It is our duty to avoid stealing, no matter whether the thing to be stolen is of great or little value. It is our duty to avoid killing a human being, no matter where the human being lives or to what race or class he belongs. Everyone recognizes the obligation imposed upon individuals to observe both the human and moral law, but as some deny the application of those laws to nations, it may not be out of place to quote the opinions of others.

Jefferson, than whom there is no higher political authority, said:

132“I know of but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively.”

Franklin, whose learning, wisdom, and virtue are a part of the priceless legacy bequeathed to us from the Revolutionary days, expressed the same idea in even stronger language when he said:

“Justice is as strictly due between neighbor nations as between neighbor citizens. A highwayman is as much a robber when he plunders in a gang as when single; and the nation that makes an unjust war is only a great gang.”

Men may dare to do in crowds what they would not dare to do as individuals, but the moral character of an act is not determined by the number of those who join it. Force can defend a right, but force has never yet created a right. If it were true, as declared in the resolutions of intervention, that the Cubans “are and of right ought to be free and independent” (language taken from the Declaration of Independence), it is equally true that the Filipinos “are and of right ought to be free and independent.” The right of the Cubans to freedom was not based upon their proximity to the United States, nor upon the language which they spoke, nor yet upon the race or races to which they belonged. Congress by a practically unanimous vote declared that the principles enunciated at Philadelphia in 1776 were still alive and applicable to the Cubans. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cuban and the Filipino? Who will say that the former has a right to liberty and the latter has no rights which we are bound to respect? And, 133if the Filipinos “are and of right ought to be free and independent,” what right have we to force our government upon them without their consent? Before our duty can be ascertained, their rights must be determined, and when their rights are once determined, it is as much our duty to respect those rights as it was the duty of Spain to respect the rights of the people of Cuba or the duty of England to respect the rights of the American colonists. Rights never conflict; duties never clash. Can it be our duty to usurp political rights which belong to others? Can it be our duty to kill those who, following the example of our forefathers, love liberty well enough to fight for it?

Some poet has described the terror which overcame a soldier who in the midst of battle discovered that he had slain his brother. It is written “All ye are brethren.” Let us hope for the coming of the day when human life—which when once destroyed can not be restored—will be so sacred that it will never be taken except when necessary to punish a crime already committed, or to prevent a crime about to be committed!

If it is said that we have assumed before the world obligations which make it necessary for us to permanently maintain a government in the Philippine Islands, I reply, first, that the highest obligation of this nation is to be true to itself. No obligation to any particular nation, or to all the nations combined, can require the abandonment of our theory of government and the substitution of doctrines against which our whole national life has been a protest. And, second, that our obligation to the Filipinos, who inhabit 134the islands, is greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreigners who have a temporary residence in the Philippines or desire to trade there.

It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in an official report to the navy department, declared the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cubans and said that he based his opinion upon a knowledge of both races. But I will not rest the case upon the relative advancement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defending the right of the people of South America to self-government, said:

“It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans assert his incapacity in reference to all nations; if they can not command universal assent to the proposition, it is then demanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence Himself to suppose that He has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled on by kings. Self-government is the natural government of man.”

Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that He denied to any people the capacity for self-government. Once admit that some people are capable of self-government and that others are not and that the capable people have a right to seize upon and govern the incapable, and you 135make force—brute force—the only foundation of government and invite the reign of a despot. I am not willing to believe that an all-wise and an all-loving God created the Filipinos and then left them thousands of years helpless until the islands attracted the attention of European nations.

Republicans ask, “Shall we haul down the flag that floats over our dead in the Philippines?” The same question might have been asked when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by the United States and cared for by an American citizen. Our flag still floats over our dead, but when the treaty with Mexico was signed, American authority withdrew to the Rio Grande, and I venture the opinion that during the last fifty years the people of Mexico have made more progress under the stimulus of independence and self-government than they would have made under a carpet bag government held in place by bayonets. The United States and Mexico, friendly republics, are each stronger and happier than they would have been had the former been cursed and the latter crushed by an imperialistic policy, disguised as “benevolent assimilation.”

“Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever 136it desires to do, but it can not avoid the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct. The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the state, the laws of society, and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he can not annul the sentence, “The wages of sin is death.” And so with the nation. It is of age, and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property, and kill their people; but it can not repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights.

Some argue that American rule in the Philippine Islands will result in the better education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain 137a colonial policy, we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The educated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most ignorant ones have made the least resistance to our domination. If we are to govern them without their consent and give them no voice in determining the taxes which they must pay, we dare not educate them, lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and mock us for our inconsistency.

The principal arguments, however, advanced by those who enter upon a defense of imperialism, are:

First—That we must improve the present opportunity to become a world power and enter into international politics.

Second—That our commercial interests in the Philippine Islands and in the orient make it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently.

Third—That the spread of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonial policy.

Fourth—That there is no honorable retreat from the position which the nation has taken.

The first argument is addressed to the nation’s pride and the second to the nation’s pocket-book. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan.

It is a sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent influence in the world. Not only has it been a world power, but it has done more to affect the politics 138of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Declaration of Independence was promulgated, others have been promulgated. Because the patriots of 1776 fought for liberty, others have fought for it; because our constitution was adopted, other constitutions have been adopted. The growth of the principle of self government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. It has made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this republic for the glory of all the empires that have risen and fallen since time began.

The permanent chairman of the last Republican National convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness, when he said:

“We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines solely on account of others. While we regard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution, we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.”

This is the commercial argument. It is based upon 139the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of parliament, which brought on the Revolution, were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied:

“To me it seems that neither the obtaining nor retaining of any trade, how valuable soever, is an object for which men may justly spill each other’s blood; that the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities, and that the profits of no trade can ever be equal to the expense of compelling it and holding it by fleets and armies. I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise.”

I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The Democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood.

But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity, and such a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty.

It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them. We carry on trade to-day with every part 140of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connection with Canada or the nations of Europe, in order to trade with them. Trade can not be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary. When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits, and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few.

Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it-would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man, and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations, it would bring expenditure without return and risk without reward.

Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes, and, under systems which place the tax upon consumption, pay more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it.

THE BRYAN FARM

141In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses, and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government.

It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism.

The pecuniary argument, though more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much emphasis as the religious argument. If what has been termed the “gun-powder gospel” were urged against the Filipinos only, it would be a sufficient answer to say that a majority of the Filipinos are now members of one branch of the Christian church; but the principle involved is one of much wider application and challenges serious consideration.

The religious argument varies in positiveness from a passive belief that Providence delivered the Filipinos into our hands for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the natives (Filipinos) until they understand who we are,” and that “every bullet sent, every cannon shot, and every flag waved means righteousness.”

142We can not approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heart. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the faraway orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil. If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation. Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” has no gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive Him, some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge the insult, but the Master rebuked them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose He had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Love, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary 143recently told me that the stars and stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it. Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let it be known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and to uplift, having their loins girt about with truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.

The argument made, by some, that it was unfortunate for the nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine islands, but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary is also unsound. We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba. The shedding of American blood in the Philippine Islands does not make it imperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan hill and El Caney, and yet the President has promised the Cubans independence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; the American flag waves over Havana to-day, but the President has promised to haul it 144down when the flag of the Cuban republic is ready to rise in its place. Better a thousand times that our flag in the orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self government than that the flag of this republic should become the flag of an empire.

There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in the Democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to the American people. This plan I unreservedly endorse. If elected, I will convene Congress in extraordinary session as soon as inaugurated and recommend an immediate declaration of the nation’s purpose, first, to establish a stable form of government in the Philippine Islands, just as we are now establishing a stable form of government in Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos just as we have promised to give independence to the Cubans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Central and South America and are, by the Monroe Doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba. A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it the victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe Doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics, and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us. After the Filipinos had aided us in the war against Spain, we could not honorably turn them over to their former masters; we could not leave them to be the victims of 145the ambitions designs of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part of us or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to give them independence and guard them against molestation from without.

When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that it is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates moral precepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance.

Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. Washington said that the destiny of the Republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people. How different Washington’s definition of destiny from the Republican definition! The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the Republican form of government throughout the world was entrusted to American hands. Immeasurable responsibility! The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course. What the future has in store for this nation 146no one has authority to declare, but each individual has his own idea of the nation’s mission, and he owes it to his country as well as to himself to contribute as best he may to the fulfilment of that mission.

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee: I can never fully discharge the debt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought this Republic into existence.

I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past—a destiny which meets the responsibilities of to-day and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by Revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth—a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident proposition, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights; and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Behold a republic in which civil and religious liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor, and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor’s injury—a republic in which every citizen 147is a sovereign but in which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments—a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood—a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the world’s progress and the accepted arbiter of the world’s disputes—a republic whose history, like the path of the just, “is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”

The firm hold which Mr. Bryan has over the confidence, esteem, and love of his followers was strikingly proven in the dark days that followed November, 1896. It is certain that no other public man of his time could have been the candidate of the Democratic party on the Chicago platform, suffered that severe reversal, and yet retained, undisputed and undisturbed, the acknowledged leadership of the party. Whoso learns why it was that Mr. Bryan stood stronger in defeat then he was before has found the key to the man’s greatness. Certainly it was not that he was a great and eloquent orator. For the orator, while always assured a hearing and a place under the lime-light, is still far from the actual leadership of his party. It was not because of the views which he entertained on public questions, for they were those of scores of other well known and able men. It was not because of his honesty and sincerity alone, any more than of his undoubted courage or his clean and upright personality and blameless home life. These, while all real qualifications, were not essentials. Each and all of them were marked characteristics of other notable public men, although it is doubtful if any possessed them all alike in the same degree as Bryan. But there were other and rarer qualities, the most important, his cheerful and contagious optimism 149and his intensity of character, which spoke in his every act and utterance. His optimism is an unwavering faith in the ways and ends of the Creator; a firm and abiding belief that “He doeth all things well.” The verse from Ella Wheeler Wilcox with which Mr. Bryan closes his “First Battle” well illustrates this phase of his character:

It is this inspiring belief, planted on a foundation so deep and so secure that no storm can shake it, that leaves Mr. Bryan as hopeful, confident, and serene in the darkest hour of defeat as his opponent can possibly be with the paeans of victory ringing in his ears. It is a rare trait, this superb optimism. It wins, instinctively, the hearts and affections of men, only to inspire them to heroic effort under the most adverse surroundings. But its strongest feature is its effect on the possessor. For when that discouragement which comes from failure, and the inertia which discouragement brings in its train, is eliminated from a strong man’s composition he becomes a god, with the power and greatness of the immortals. The scope of his vision is broadened, his mental horizon enlarges, fear and weakness are banished from his heart, and 150his might becomes irresistible as he battles for the right as he sees the right. So Mr. Bryan’s optimism has made him a strong, self-poised, cheerful, happy man, whose confidence and good spirits are contagious and whose following increases as his reverses multiply.

His second marked characteristic, his intensity, is one even rarer than the first. The extent to which it is his it is most difficult to make clear. It may, perhaps, be best done by illustration drawn from the writer’s personal experience.

One Saturday, toward the end of the 1899 campaign, Mr. Bryan was speeding across southern Nebraska from east to west on a special train. Every half or quarter hour stops were made at stations along the route, and Mr. Bryan would hastily emerge from his car, make his way, generally unassisted, to a nearby platform, and speak for from ten minutes to an hour to the crowds assembled to hear him. It was most fatiguing work and done by a thoroughly worn-out man. For Mr. Bryan had for two weeks been constantly traveling by train and carriage, speaking from two to a dozen times daily, eating at irregular intervals, and sleeping not more than four or five hours out of each twenty-four. As a natural result his face was drawn and haggard, his muscles frequently twitching, and under his eyes were great black hollows. Yet at every stopping point, when he rose to face his fellow Nebraskans, the worn look would give way, the deep-set eyes would lighten with the fires of a holy zeal, and, in a voice that rang out clear and 151strong and passionate he pleaded for the preservation of the Republic and its ideals, inviolate and intact. The train was running on schedule time, of course, and at each stopping point it was necessary for the engineer to toot his whistle and ring his bell, not once, but continuously, in order to tear Mr. Bryan away from his audience when the alloted time had expired. Then the indefatigable campaigner, shaking scores of outstretched hands as he ran, would hasten to his car, and the train would speed along to the next stopping place. Mr. Bryan would no sooner enter his car than he dropped his head on a pillow and slept until a tap on the shoulder awoke him, and he rushed out to make another speech, generally differing in form from any made that day or any previous day, though the substance of all was, of course, largely the same. Once, as the train was screaming along between stations Mr. Bryan called the writer to his state-room, where he lay at rest. He raised his head from the pillow as I entered, and started to speak. What words of suggestion or advice were on his tongue I shall never know, for, in the middle of his first sentence the tired head fell back, the lustrous eyes were closed, and his heavy breathing alone told that life remained in the man’s worn and exhausted frame as he lay there fast asleep.

Late in the afternoon of that same day Mr. Bryan’s dinner was brought him on the train, and he ate—as he slept—between stations. His traveling companions, it may be observed, had eaten hearty meals at a town long passed, dining in leisure while Mr. Bryan, 152standing with bared head on a wind-swept platform, with a scorching sun beating down upon him, addressed five thousand or more wildly cheering people. As he sat in his little compartment, hastily munching his food, there were with him Mr. Joseph A. Altsheler, of the New York World, and the writer, representing the Omaha World-Herald. One of us chanced to mention some interruption made at the last meeting, where a shrewd Republican partisan had raised a point which Mr. Bryan’s ready repartee had quickly, if not efficiently, disposed of. As soon as the matter was mentioned Mr. Bryan turned from the tray on which were his fried chicken, cold slaw, and coffee. And there, his eyes glowing like lakes of molten metal, his expressive features all in play, in the voice of one who addressed a multitude, he took up that Republican’s sophism and analyzed it for the benefit of us twain. Such was the concentrated and awful intensity of the man that it thrilled me to the core, and, under that burning gaze and vibrant, moving voice, in such an unusual entourage, I trembled with an emotion I could not name.

It was near midnight of that day when the train reached Benkelman, in far western Nebraska, where the last speech was to be delivered. The warm day had been succeeded by a night that was almost bitter cold, and, as we alighted from the train, tired, sleepy, and hungry, the cold, fierce wind from the mountains swooped down on us, and pierced us through and through. At that late hour, and in that semi-arid, scantily populated country, there were patiently waiting, 153wrapped in their great coats, nearly fifteen hundred people, most of whom had driven from twenty to one hundred miles “to hear Bryan speak.”

In the course of that day Mr. Bryan had already spoken sixteen times. To do this he had risen before five o’clock in the morning and had traveled over two hundred miles. At Benkelman, it was agreed, he should speak not longer than fifteen minutes, and go to bed.

The speaker’s stand was at the principal street intersection of the village. It was gaily decorated with flags and bunting, and lighted by flaring gas jets. The piercing mountain wind swooped down on it like a wolf on the fold. Up on this eminence the worn and wearied campaigner, half dead from want of sleep and his constant exertions, was hurried. Shrill volleys of cheers and yells rose to the heavens. There was a moment’s silence. Then, on the cold air, there fell the deep, melodious, serene voice of the orator, in words of earnest protest and warning, in a magnificent plea for the Republic. For ten or twelve minutes we, who were his traveling companions, remained; and though our eyes were heavy and our senses dulled, though we shivered from the cold even as we trembled with exhaustion, the splendid enthusiasm of that hardy little band of frontiersmen warmed our hearts, and we cheered with them. But, in a few minutes, tired nature called loud to us, and we plodded to the hotel, a block and a half away. We sat for a half hour about the blazing fire, absorbing the grateful warmth. Through the closed doors and windows there came to 154us, ever and anon, the rich and powerful voice of the orator down the street, punctuated by the wild yells of applause that came from the delighted men of the sand-hills. Again we retreated,—this time to our bed chambers. My teeth chattered like castanets as I disrobed. And now I could plainly hear the orator’s voice,—sometimes his very words,—words that thrilled and pulsated with the life of an animate thing. I pulled the blankets and comforters close about me, and fell into the sleep of utter exhaustion. The next morning we learned that, for just one hour and three quarters Mr. Bryan had stood in that bitter, piercing wind, under the inscrutable stars of midnight on the prairie, and preached the gospel of democracy. Do you gather, now, what I mean in saying that Mr. Bryan’s intensity is something most difficult to describe? It is something that knows not fear, nor hunger, nor exhaustion; that keeps him moving on,—ever and steadily on toward the goal, unswerved and unhindered by those hardships, trials, and obstacles that check the course of other men, or cause them to turn into broader and easier paths.

It is this intensity of character and purpose that makes heroes and martyrs. It also makes fanatics. But Mr. Bryan is no fanatic; his stubborn determination and unyielding purpose is tempered with mental equipoise, good judgment, and common sense.

The first impression one receives of Bryan as a man, and the last one to fade, is that of his reckless sincerity. Right or wrong, he is honest; he is of such a nature that he can not be otherwise; and all things for 155good or evil, for success or defeat, must subordinate themselves to his personal conception of duty. He possesses all those qualities common to all great men, and some that but very few great men can claim. He has few friends among the rich men of the nation, and is a stranger to fashionable “society;” but he is loved and trusted by the millions who follow him with a devotion such as no other American has won. At his home or abroad, among his children or with his neighbors, or on his well-kept farm, may be found a kindly, upright, debt-paying, unassuming citizen, full of a gentle rollicking humor, a man without an impure thought or act, a profoundly religious Presbyterian, a man who does not smoke, yet who does not hesitate, on occasion, to offer cigars to his friends; who will sit hour after hour in tobacco-laden air, sharing in the conversation of those whose mouths are chimneys for the time. He never drinks wine or liquor, yet he never flaunted a phylactery, or called names when the clink of glasses was heard. In all things a temperate and abstemious man, yet, such is his toleration that there is nothing oppressive about his being better than most of us.

In personal appearance as well as mental gifts, Mr. Bryan is highly favored. Before uttering a word, his magnetic influence wins for him the favor of his audience. Simple is his delivery and bearing. “As he stands before his listeners,” said Mr. R. L. Metcalfe, in a book published four years ago: “he presents a bold and striking picture; intelligence is stamped on every feature; he commences in the soft, pleasant tone, 156instantly riveting your attention upon him. Your eyes are fastened upon the orator. As he moves, you in spirit move with him; as he advances to his climax his audience advances with him. In perfect harmony orator and audience travel over the path of thought, until the climax is reached, and then, as the last tone of the deep, rich, melodious voice of the orator is uttered with a dramatic force, there breaks forth the full, earnest applause that marks the approval of those who listen. The hand of the orator is raised; instantly perfect silence follows. The sweet tones of the marvelous voice are again heard within the enclosure, no matter how vast.

“There is much in Mr. Bryan’s oratory that recalls to us many of our noted speakers of long ago. Search his speeches through, whether in Congress, before the convention, or on the stump, and you will find them absolutely free from personalities. No audience ever sat within the sound of his voice and caught a word that would appeal to the lower passions of anger, hate, or revenge. He is always the master of himself.”

The directness, simplicity, and purity of Mr. Bryan’s style as an orator and the loftiness and beauty of his sentiment are well shown in the appended excerpt from one of his Congressional speeches on “Money,” in which occurs his famous apostrophe to Thomas Jefferson:

“There are wrongs to be righted; there are evils to be eradicated; there is injustice to be removed; there is good to be secured for those who toil and wait. In this fight for equal laws we can not fail, for right is 157mighty and will in time triumph over all obstacles. Even if our eyes do not behold success, we know that our labor is not in vain, and we can lay down our weapons, happy in the promise given by Bryant to the soldier:

“Let us, then, with the courage of Andrew Jackson, apply to present conditions the principles taught by Thomas Jefferson—Thomas Jefferson, the greatest constructive statesman whom the world has ever known; the greatest warrior who ever battled for human liberty. He quarried from the mountain of eternal truth the four pillars upon whose strength all popular government must rest. In the Declaration of American Independence, he proclaimed the principles with which there is, without which there can not be, ‘a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ When he declared that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,’ he declared all that lies between the alpha and omega of the Democracy.

158“Alexander ‘wept for other worlds to conquer,’ after he had carried his victorious banner throughout the then known world. Napoleon ‘rearranged the map of Europe with his sword’ amid the lamentations of those by whose blood he was exalted; but when these and other military heroes are forgotten and their achievements disappear in the cycle’s sweep of years, children will still lisp the name of Jefferson, and freedom will ascribe due praise to him who filled the kneeling subject’s heart with hope and bade him stand erect—a sovereign among his peers.”

In all of his rapid utterances and unpremeditated sentences one would fail to detect the slightest lapse from good English; not only good, but admirable. His talk is not that of a pedant,—far from it; but he does speak like a cultivated, well-read man; like a polished man of letters, but not so polished as to leave nothing but the gloss apparent. You may search his numerous speeches, lectures, and addresses without finding the slightest “lapsus linguae,” and all without sterility or banality. In his speeches he shows a very remarkable versatility. “He will talk along in a colloquial manner,” says Mr. Metcalfe, “making you laugh or stirring your heartstrings with his pathos as he wills, and suddenly he will throw forth his periods in language that makes one involuntarily suspect of plagiarism from Milton or the prophets. Simplest words are chosen, and they are formed in short, pithy sentences. No word is used solely for its sound; the mere jingle of words has no place in the mental workshop of our orator. 159To him words are the servants of thought, and take their real beauty from the thought that blazes through them. His style is as pure and captivating as that of Irving or Addison, and not dissimilar to either. But style with him, as with those two great masters, is valued not for itself, but because it conveys in the most pleasing manner the thoughts which he would have others know.

“Mr. Bryan is not averse to the employment of the thoughts of others wherever they add force and attractiveness to the argument in hand. Accordingly, we find his speeches interspersed with quotations from some of the best writers in both prose and poetry, but in each instance the quotation has a natural fitness for the place in which it is found. There are some productions which pass for oratory that are mere mechanisms—the offspring of minds cold and plodding without a ray of genius to illumine their path. The work of genius springs spontaneously from the depths of the heart ruled by purity.”

In the preparation of his deliverances Mr. Bryan reads widely and extensively, exhausting all the available sources of information. By carefully and thoroughly acquainting himself with every possible phase of his subject, by viewing it in all lights, he prepares himself not only to prove the correctness of his own position, but to meet every objection that may be offered against him.

In the diction of his speech the most acceptable language is chosen, and so clear and simple do the most profound thoughts appear when they come 160fresh-coined from his brain, that men have no difficulty in comprehending them in all their force.

But it takes more than good English to make a great public man, though good language is one of the most essential features of the part. An instance that is told will illustrate one of his other qualifications. On his arrival in a large city in the East, he had been taken for a drive, and a number of people were waiting for him when he alighted on his return. All the American people seem to consider it a duty to shake hands with a public man, and these were there for that purpose. Among them was a faded woman, apparently having worked out her hopes and ambitions; while her face showed refinement and intellectuality, her hands were gnarled by years of labor. As the candidate stepped from the gay carriage, he was at once encircled by a throng of local dignitaries, who successfully monopolized his attention, to the hopeless exclusion of the woman, who was thoughtlessly jostled aside.

Mr. Bryan, glancing quickly about, saw her turning away, her disappointment shown in her worn face, and, maneuvering about, he delicately managed to bring himself in front of her, and, as he saw her face light with pleasure, he extended his hands and murmured a few words of pleasant meaning to her and passed on.

It is extremely doubtful if, among the public men of all time, there has lived one more abounding in a superb vitality, or possessing so magnificent a physique as Mr. Bryan. In his case, as in that of most 161men of profound mentality, the powerful mind is found with powerful muscles and a strong constitution to back it in its contests. His massively moulded frame, capable of enduring the severest hardships and nerve-racking strains, is the result of a clean, strong ancestry and pure and temperate living in the life-giving atmosphere of the great West.

Altogether Mr. Bryan is a good specimen of an American. He is, for example, neat in his dress, but his apparel is the least obtrusive part of him. He is frank, companionable, courteous without subserviency, aggressive without boorish insistence, well poised, witty and yet cleanly minded, learned without conceit. And he loves his family above all else on earth. At one place a hasty departure from a hotel had to be made to catch a train, and one of the party took Mr. Bryan’s coat by mistake. The discovery was made as soon as the garment was put on, and to ascertain to whom it belonged the wearer put his hands in the pocket to see if any article might be found that would serve for identification. There were only two things found, and those were photographs of Mr. Bryan’s family. He had evidently put them where he could find them most readily.

One can not help but remember the marvelous campaign Bryan made four years ago. A terrible campaign for mind and body; no one who traveled with him will ever forget it. As for Bryan himself—though, needless to say, he worked harder, thought more, and shouldered an infinitely heavier responsibility than all the newspaper reporters who kept 162constantly in his wake—he was least fatigued of all. Hoarse and husky he certainly did become toward the end—speaking from the rear end of a train to open air crowds of thousands, a dozen times a day, and at the top of his voice. But Bryan, upon a physique of the most vigorous and massive kind, inspired by a stupendous vitality, which should keep him in good condition for sixty years to come, had superimposed a brain of the healthiest, keenest, and most capable sort. In addition he had a colossal firmness, and an unmitigable will; he had thorough belief in the goodness of his cause, and in himself as its champion; and finally he understood the people, loved them, was in touch with them, and won their confidence to an extent and to a degree of enthusiasm that can not be paralleled in modern times. Had some of the qualities above named been less in him, or more, he might have been a broader statesman; but he would not have been so mighty and formidable a leader of men.

Other men are admired or feared, or can spend money, or swing a machine; but Bryan is personally trusted as no other man is, and as he deserves to be. “Bryan is a man standing plumb on his own feet, other candidates have been propped on their feet by other persons. Which will last the longer? No man can count on the ultimate triumph of his cause, or even know how strong or how weak it is, unless he comes out flat-footed and tells the people exactly what it contemplates and requires. He must show the seamy side as well as the smooth one; else, when the seamy side shows itself (as it is certain to do) the 163people will leap to the conclusion that the fabric is seamy on both sides, and the reaction will sweep it out of existence. McKinley, in laboring to make the people believe that his policy is all sweetness, honor, and virtue, is preventing himself from discovering how abhorrent it really is to the desires and wishes of the people.”

Bryan’s method is just the opposite of President McKinley’s. The only criticism to be passed on him is that he is too uncompromisingly outspoken and sincere. He says things that make his own party friends and managers shudder. He never strives for popularity except in so far as it may be consistent with truth and right. He does not want to please any one who can not be pleased with facts and realities. Bryan, in short, from the standpoint of mere policy, always puts his ugly foot forward, always turns his seamy side, always says “If you don’t have me this way, I am not to be had at all.”

A very wholesome theory that a man’s home is his castle and that the sanctuary of private life is one that must be respected has no application in America to a public man. The fact that few public men quarrel with the general idea upon this subject proves that it has its basis in sound judgment and honest desire for greater intimacy rather than in impertinent curiosity.

In the case of Mr. Bryan he has never quarreled with this widely held theory. For ten years he has been in the glare of publicity. From the night, a decade ago, when he discomfited the champion of Republican politics in the opening debate of his first congressional campaign, a light has been constantly turned upon him and from him to his home life. That he has come out from under this strong scrutiny a more commanding figure, viewed either from the standpoint of the wise statesman or the typical head of an American family, is a statement that will meet with no attempt at refutation.

THE BRYAN HOME

165On the first day of October next Mr. Bryan will have been married sixteen years. The ceremony was the culmination of a courtship extending over a period of four years, a wooing that had its inspiration in the atmosphere of school life, and which was continued during the years when he was a diligent student of the law and a struggling young attorney with the unblighted courage and the indomitable energy that have come to be such marked characteristics of the man. They first met at a reception given in the parlors of the Presbyterian Academy at Jacksonville, Ill., to the young men of Illinois College. Mrs. Bryan, then Mary Baird, was a student at the Academy, and Mr. Bryan was in attendance at the College. There was little of romance attached to either their meeting or their courtship. Both were young, he twenty, she nineteen. Some sentimentalist has told that she was first attracted to him by hearing him recite some school book classics. The fact is that some friend pointed her out to Mr. Bryan as a girl he “ought to meet.” And mutual friends introduced them.

Miss Baird was born at Perry, Ill., on the seventeenth day of June, 1861. Her father was a merchant, one of a firm that conducted a general store in that town. His employment gave Mr. Baird, naturally a studious man, much leisure, and this he improved by reading. His daughter inherited his taste for literature and it has abided with her. The invalidism of her mother prevented her from finishing the course she had begun at Monticello Seminary, at Godfrey, Ill., but later she was able to attend the academy at Jacksonville, from which she graduated with first honors of her class.

The young couple began their married life in a little home of their own in Jacksonville. With the prudent care that has always distinguished both of them, they postponed their happiness until he had secured a practice 166sufficient to support them and until they were able to have a roof-tree of their own. Three years after their marriage Mr. Bryan came west on a business trip for a client. At Lincoln he met an old friend and classmate, A. R. Talbot. Talbot had made an excellent beginning in the West, and he suggested to Bryan that he locate at Lincoln and join his law firm. Mr. Bryan said little at the time. A few months after his return, however, he wrote to Mr. Talbot and asked him if he was in earnest in making the proposition. Mr. Talbot replied that he was, and outlined the prospects in the West, then the center of a vast speculation in lands and town lots. Mr. Bryan had been enchanted with the city of Lincoln when he first saw it, and he had simply waited until he could talk it over with his wife.

In this sentiment lies the keynote of the perfect sympathy that has been so marked a characteristic of their wedded life. Mr. Bryan came first, his wife and his young daughter remaining in Jacksonville until he had become settled. They then joined him. They immediately began the erection of a modest home in Lincoln, buying a building lot on D street, and upon it erected the home he now occupies, at No. 1625. The money was furnished by Mr. Baird, but has long since been paid. Three children have been born to them, Ruth, now nearly fifteen, William, aged eleven, and Grace, aged nine. The first named is now a registered student at the seminary at Godfrey, where the mother first began her college career.

Even the most casual visitor to the Bryan residence 167is impressed with the distinctive home atmosphere of the place. Mrs. Bryan, as its presiding genius, has stamped upon it the impress of her individuality, no less marked in that sphere than her husband’s in his. The house itself is little more than a cottage, although it boasts of a second story and a cupola. Outwardly its lines are a little more impressive than when it was first built. This can be traced to the addition within the past year of a many-columned porch, stretching across its entire front and bending in a graceful curve to a point midway of the rear. With its paneled roof and the electric lights, its cosy corners and inviting arm chairs, it is an enticing retreat, and here the Bryan family spend most of their waking hours in the summer months.

There is no ostentation displayed in the furnishings of the Bryan residence. The parlor is the parlor of the well-to-do middle class. The sitting room is simply furnished, but home-like and inviting. The library is the workshop and no unnecessary tools are lying about. On the walls hang large portraits of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, and steel engravings of Benton, Webster, and Calhoun. They are inexpensive pictures, but typical of the ideals of the occupants of the room. Another picture shows Henry Clay, addressing his colleagues in the United States Senate. The artist’s perspective was sadly at fault, but it was not the art, but the subject, that attracted Mr. Bryan. The library is an extensive one, but unique in its character. Fiction and the classics find very little room. In their places are histories, 168orations, works on political economy, lives and speeches of famous men, who have helped build the nation of the past, dissertations and addresses upon the hundred and one questions that have vexed and still perplex the modern school of statesmanship. Upon few of these has any dust accumulated, and upon all of them are the unmistakable signs of frequent usage.

The characteristic that strikes the visitor most is the bon homme, the camaraderie, of the household. A wholesome sympathy seems to be the bond that unites all members. Neither the father nor the mother is a strict disciplinarian. They do not believe in tyrannizing over their children. They believe in encouraging their respective bents, and in guiding them in the right channels, rather than in forcing in the ways hallowed by tradition. Mrs. Bryan is essentially a home body; her husband and children are her chiefest, but not her only cares. She is a mentor to them all. Miss Ruth is much like her father in temperament. She is quick and impulsive, warm-hearted and generous. Her popularity among her girl friends is attested by the number that throng her lawn every evening. William is a sturdy youth in build, and, boy-like, more self assertive than his sisters. As his father is a typical American man, so is the youth a typical American boy, fun-loving and possessed of a harmless mischievousness that often disturbs the young girls who are his older sister’s confidantes. Grace, the youngest, is delicate in health, and her father’s favorite. It is to him she goes with her 169childish troubles, sure of the sympathy that never fails her.

Mr. Bryan takes great pride in his household, and he bends every energy to the end that the bonds of mutual confidence and love, the elements so essential in a perfect home, may be strengthened and cemented. Every hour that he can give to them he gladly spares. For four years he has had no other office, no other working place, than in this home. After the campaign of 1896 he gave up, to all intents and purposes, his down town office, and has spent his time at home. His office is now in his library, an inviting room opening off the parlor on one side, and the sitting room on the other. His work is performed on a big flat-topped desk that occupies a goodly share of the floor space. Here he is surrounded by book-cases and statuettes, by curious mementoes, ink stands, canes, a hundred and one articles that admirers in all sections and climes of the country have sent him. Most of these have been gathered together in a glass-covered compartment that separates the two big book-cases.

Mr. Bryan finds that his best work is done with his wife as his counselor and guide. She has a place on one side of the big desk, he on the other. She is no less indefatigable as a worker than he. She finds time between her consultations with him, when an important work is on hand, to care for her household, and to direct the work of the one domestic employed. Mrs. Bryan’s thorough understanding and appreciation of every detail of his labors make her companionship 170and aid almost indispensable. Together they have gone over the details of his campaigns in the past years, and with him she still plans for the future. What he writes, she either passes upon or assists in its production. Her self-poise, marred by no self-consciousness, but marked by a quiet dignity, is one of her remarkable possessions. Perhaps the best delineation of the characteristics of this woman, remarkable in many ways, is furnished by the eminent novelist, Julian Hawthorne, who spent some time at the Bryan home during the past summer. Of her he said, “Mrs. Bryan is as unusual a woman as her husband is a man, but she is so unobtrusive that few people have much idea of her true character. I had the opportunity to learn something of her during the campaign of ‘96, and I well recollect her admirable bearing at the great meeting in Madison Square Garden, when she was recognized and greeted on entering her box by more than ten thousand people. It was a tremendous ordeal for a woman to undergo. But she sustained herself with steadiness and self-possession, remarkable in any woman, but more than remarkable in her, who had always lived in quiet domestic ways, occupied with her husband, her children, and her household duties. She is a woman of great courage and unshakable faith, of exceptional intellect, also, nourished with adequate education. She possesses the coolness of judgment which must often have served him well in times of doubt. She is not led away by imagination or hope, but sees things as they are, and resolutely faces facts. Should the decrees 171of Providence see fit to place her in a position of the first lady of the land, I should have no fear that she would discharge her duties irreproachably. A true American woman, she is such as you may always be glad to match against the great dames of the old world. The dominant expression of her face is penetration, combined with a gentle composure. But there is the sparkle of demure humor in her eyes, and she can use speech as the most delicate of rapiers when she chooses. It is easy to know her as an acquaintance, but I surmise that no one really knows her except her husband, and probably she will be able continually to discover new resources and depths even to him. She is a good woman, with strong religious convictions, and she regards Bryan’s political aspirations from that point of view. If it is the will of God that he shall reach the highest place among his countrymen she will accept the mission with good will and confidence. But should he be defeated she will welcome the life of obscurity with unshaken equanimity, believing that the councils of the Almighty are unsearchable, but faithful. If she be destined to higher things, the example to the nation, irrespective of party, of such a wife and such a mother as she is, can not but be beneficial. If not, ‘Those also serve who only stand and wait.’”

Sociability is one of the graces that attach to her naturally. The number of visitors to her husband is so large and his amiability so great, that if Mrs. Bryan did not maintain a watchfulness over them they would consume all of his hours. This guardianship 172of his time has imbued her with a little more sternness than is her nature, but at the same time has endowed her with shrewdness of discernment that enables her to gauge every one’s errand with astonishing accuracy. The true democracy of the man is shown in his earnest desire that even the lowest of his callers shall be received with the same consideration bestowed upon the great ones, and no visitor ever leaves the Bryan home, even though he may not have gained his wish, without the consciousness of the gentle courtesy and a full-souled welcome.

But Mrs. Bryan is in no sense a society woman. She is of a turn of mind too serious and too well poised to enable her to find enjoyment in the frivolities and vanities that go to make up so much of the life of the society woman. She likes to meet with her friends and talk with them, and she misses no opportunity to indulge in this pleasure. Club and church work take up much of her leisure. She has been active for years in the work of the Nebraska state federation of women’s clubs. She can write, and frequently does, for newspapers and periodicals. She can also speak and speak well, but this she does rarely. Her range of information is as varied as that of her husband, and she knows the ins and outs of politics as well as she does the theories of good government, and the vagaries of the different schools of political economy. For years Mrs. Bryan’s father has resided with them. Now he is sightless and infirm, but his hours are cheered and his burden lightened by the loving care of his daughter.

173The passing years have dealt very gently with Mrs. Bryan. She is above the average in height, but her figure is matronly. Her face is pale, but there is no pallor, the graceful curves of youth have softened in outline, but in manner she has gained the dignity that does not hint of reserve. Mrs. Bryan is always well dressed, the unobtrusiveness and appropriateness of her garments marking the taste of the wearer. Her gowns are usually of one color, relieved here and there by the bright tints women love.

“Mrs. Bryan’s whole life has been one of study,” says Miss Wright, of Lincoln, a friend of the family. “Long before she could read she knew the names of all the bugs her little hoe turned up in the garden. In her early life the doctor said she must be kept out of doors. Luckily she did not like indoor life. All day long she tagged her father, and they played together in the garden. By the time she was old enough for books she was kin to everything they told about. She idealized the earth and its generating and regenerating character. From a weak child she has grown to be a strong woman with rare power of endurance and concentration. She and her father would sit on the porch at night and study the skies, and the Greek and Norse stories of the stars were repeated until she had committed all of them to memory. He told her how far away they were and what a speck the world would look if it could be seen from Venus. The idea of the immensity of the Universe and the relation of the world to the solar system seldom enters the mind of a child, but with Mary Baird, it was the most interesting 174story that could be told. Early star-gazing and her father’s influence trained her to think of things abstractly, nakedly, and without the impediments of custom and fashion. During her first days in school, her text-books were distasteful, as they were new, but she studied them nevertheless, and soon was at the head of her class. This habit of study has clung to her ever since.”

Social dissipation is unknown in the Bryan household. Since Miss Ruth has grown to the dignity of young womanhood, and has gathered about her a bevy of young friends, an added gaiety has been given. She has had her little parties, but her parents receive rarely, and then but informally. The Bryans have several carriages and horses, and in these they find their chief amusement. Once in a while Mr. and Mrs. Bryan are seen at the theatres, but only at the best plays. Mr. Bryan has grown much stouter in late years, and has taken to frequent horseback rides as both an exercise and a pleasure. His favorite animal is a Kentucky bred saddle horse. It was presented him by ex-Governor W. J. Stone, of Missouri, and in compliment to its donor, Mr. Bryan has named it “Governor.”

The figure of W. J. Bryan on horseback is a familiar one in the city of Lincoln, a city where horseback riding has never been in vogue. Governor is a coal-black, high-spirited animal, and prances and pirouettes with nervousness at every halt. Mr. Bryan’s favorite ride is to his farm, four miles east of the city. Here, on a thirty-acre tract, he has for several 175years been making experiments in farming, or rather in endeavoring to discover whether he has forgotten the lessons instilled into his mind by his agricultural experiences in youth. Mr. Bryan insists that he is not a farmer, but an agriculturalist, and defines the difference tersely in this wise: “You see, a farmer is a man who makes his money in the country, and spends it in the town. The agriculturalist makes his money in town and spends it in the country.”

Mr. Bryan has no intention of taking up the life of a farmer. Ten years ago, in the boom days of Lincoln, he purchased a five-acre tract close to the suburb of Normal. He had driven out east of the city one day, and at the top of a hill stopped to rest his horse. As he sat in his carriage the splendid panorama of field and house and tree unrolled before him. He was enchanted. Then and there he resolved to build a permanent home upon that spot some day. The original five acres cost him a good round sum, but his later purchases, made now and then, have been at greatly reduced figures. The buildings upon the farm are largely temporary in character. The house is a small one of five rooms, and shelters the man who does the real work on the place. Mr. Bryan has found much pleasure and recreation during the summer at the farm. During the planting season and in the weeks that followed, he made a visit daily and spent several hours “puttering” about, directing things here and bearing a hand there himself, at the harder tasks. In the rural atmosphere, away from the conventions of the city, he threw aside every care and every 176burden. His ordinary clothing was cast aside for the habiliments that distinguish the farmer at work. Mr. Bryan confesses to a weakness for high-top boots, in which his trouser ends can be hidden,—and then to work.

The one singular thing about everything that this man does is that he is at all times able to preserve his dignity. There is nothing selfconscious about that dignity. In the West, that sort is dangerous to attempt. Simplicity is the dominant note in his character, his manners, his talk, his walk. His amiability is inexhaustible, his patience unending. If a delegation of Democrats passing through Lincoln do not have time to go out and see Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bryan finds time to ride down to the depot and see them. He has, since his nomination, made several speeches from horseback, to boisterous but zealous delegations, and always with the old charm and effect.

As to his patience, no better witnesses to its enduring qualities need be asked than the newspaper correspondents who form a corps of watchful guardians upon his footsteps. Many are the questions, some of them impertinent, that are asked him, and during a campaign, the presence of the press representatives, unobtrusive as they are, really destroys whatever privacy remained to him. And yet through it all, his courtesy is ever gentle, his good nature unfailing, his temper always under such control as to seem to be an absent quantity in his make-up.

Lincoln, the city of his residence, has always been dominated by the Republican party, and so great has 177been the preponderance of that political organization that Mr. Bryan has never been able to carry it in any of his campaigns. Mr. Bryan came to Lincoln a young man, and entered into a very brisk competition with a number of other young lawyers, most of them Republicans. None of these have risen above the political level of county leaders, nor have they found fame or other reward at the bar. The rapid flight of Mr. Bryan and his pre-eminence has engendered in their breasts a bitterness of partisanship, accentuated and multiplied by their personal jealousies, that has found its vent in mean and malicious assaults upon his political integrity and attempted belittlings of his abilities. This influence has in the past over-ridden a local pride that would have justified an endorsement at least of his Presidential candidacy, and added flame to the fires of partisanship that particularly distinguishes the city. These two facts form the solution to a mystery that has seemingly vexed a great many good people in America, who do not understand the local conditions. Mr. Bryan seems, too, to have pitched his tent in the most rabidly Republican section of the city, as evidenced by the elaborate display of McKinley pictures in the front windows of the houses of his neighbors, who are as lacking in good taste as in civic pride.

None of these elaborate attempts at incivility have ever ruffled his temper, nor have they caused him to retaliate with the weapons he so well knows how to use. The fact is, he has many warm friends among the Republicans of the city. His old law partner has 178long been a Republican leader, and is now president of the State Senate. This year he has espoused Mr. Bryan’s cause.

It has been said that the home of Mr. and Mrs. Bryan is a typical one. It is more than a type; it is an ideal. The simplicity of the life his family leads, the wholesomeness of the atmosphere, the absence of affectation, the presence of a democracy that includes courtesy, gentleness, amiability, and cordiality invariably impresses one. The home life of a man is the mirror of his character; and in its limpid depths one sees the secret springs of thought and reads the heart aright. That that of Mr. Bryan reflects with truthful fidelity is a fact within the knowledge of all who know the man and revere the woman. The words he himself used in describing the beautiful home life of a friend who had been called across the river apply with equal fitness to his own:

“He found his inspiration at his fireside, and approached his ideal of the domestic life. He and his faithful wife, who was both his help-mate and companion, inhabited as tenants in common that sacred spot called home, and needed no court to define their relative rights and duties. The invisible walls which shut in that home and shut out all else had their foundation upon the earth and their battlements in the skies. No force could break them down, no poisoned arrows could cross their top, and at the gates thereof love and confidence stood ever upon guard.”