網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

not permit them to endorse the other planks of the platform. I want these individuals to remember that this agitation of other questions is a post mortem agitation. When our platform was presented to the Democratic National Convention, the minority declared in their report that the money question was the paramount question. Let me read:

Upon the financial question, which engages at this time the chief share of public attention, the views of the majority differ so fundamentally from what the minority regard as vital as Democratic doctrine as to demand a distinct statement of what they hold to as the only just and true expression of Democratic faith upon this paramount issue.

If the money question was the paramount issue then, what has taken place since then to make the money question take second place? Will they bring in other issues which they did not think of then? If you will read the discussion in the Chicago convention you will find that the gold standard advocates did not then think that our platform attacked our form of government or endangered the safety of the nation. More than that, they had time to reflect before assembling at Indianapolis, and yet they there adopted a platform making money again the paramount issue. I submit, then, that within three weeks of election is too late to discover that the nation is in danger.

There is a fish, which, it is said, effects its escape by so clouding the water that it cannot be seen, and in this campaign the gold Democrat is engaged in clouding the water, while he gets over into the Republican ranks. There is nothing in the Chicago platform that suggests lawlessness or threatens the safety of society. There is nothing in the platform that interferes with the right of any man to life, liberty or property. There is nothing in that platform that menaces the welfare of the man who expects to earn his living. The only people whose interests are menaced by that platform are the people who expect to live on what other people are earning. They say that we criticise the Supreme Court. I want you to read the Democratic platform on that subject and then read what others have said, and see whether we do not fall below, rather than go beyond, what is proper in such a matter. What we said of the Supreme Court is weak, compared with the emphatic language used by Abraham Lincoln. Lest you should think Abraham Lincoln old-fashioned, let me read the language of a living Republican. Lest you should think that Abraham Lincoln's not being a member of the Supreme Court should have no weight, let me read you the language of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who ought to know what is due to the court. Let me read you these words:

While I have no doubt that Congress will find some means of surmounting the present crisis, my fear is that, in some moment of national peril, this decision will rise up to frustrate its will and paralyze its arm. I hope it may not prove the first step towards the submergence of the liberty of the people in a sordid despotism of wealth. As I cannot escape the conviction that the decision of the court in this great case is fraught with immeasurable danger to the future of the country, and that it approaches the proportions of a national calamity, I feel it a duty to enter my protest against it.

What anarchist used those words? Those are the words of Justice Brown, of your own State. If Justice Brown, who sat upon the Supreme bench and took part in the consideration of that very case, could express the fear that that decision might be the first step toward the submergence of our liberty

in despotism of wealth, may not we, as private citizens, honestly entertain the same fear? If Justice Brown thought that that decision was fraught with immeasurable danger to the future of the country, may we not also think so? If Justice Brown felt so deeply upon the subject that he spoke of the decision as approaching the proportions of a national calamity, may we not speak of it in the same language? Judges are human beings, and if you find a judge who thinks he is not human you will find him the most human of all beings. Judges have their weaknesses and judges have made mistakes. My friends, no good will come to the American people from an attempt to shield any public servant from the honest criticism of the people whom he serves. So when our opponents tell us that we are reflecting upon the Supreme Court, we can plant ourselves upon the precedent set forth in history and answer the charges of all our critics. But we shall not stop here. When did this spasm of virtue take possession of the Republican party? Ex-President Harrison seems to be deeply touched by our language in regard to the Supreme Court. And yet ex-President Harrison was a member of the Republican party when that party reduced the number of judges on the Supreme bench in order to prevent Andrew Johnson from appointing any judges, and then, when he went out of office, increased the number of judges in order to give another Republican President a chance to appoint new judges. I only refer to these things to show you how shallow, how baseless and how hypocritical is the criticism of the Democratic platform on that point.

Well, they say that there is another plank that they think is dangerous. And what plank is it? It is the plank that declares against government by injunction and approves of a bill which passed the Senate, giving a trial by jury in certain contempt cases. Do you say that that plank is wrong? Then, my friends, if our plank is wrong the bill which we approved is also wrong, and yet when that bill was before the Senate the opposition was so small that they did not even call the roll upon its passage. That is the bill which we endorse; that is the policy set forth in our platform. We demand that this bill shall be passed, and that in these contempt cases a man charged with contempt shall be given a trial by jury instead of a trial before the judge. But, my friends, proof that that plank in the platform is sound is to be found in the fact that whenever a man goes to attack it he does it by indirection instead of openly opposing the plank. If a man thinks that he has a good case, he states the case. If he fears the merits of the case, he tries to win the same by underhand means. Our opponents dare not condemn that plank, because the right of trial by jury is too dear to the American people to permit any man to go before the public and condemn a bill which provides such a trial.

Now, there is another plank which they object to. They say that the Democratic party is opposed to the enforcement of law. I have heard men stand before the public and accuse the Democratic party of being in league with lawlessness and of being unworthy to be trusted with the enforcement of law. My friends, if the platform adopted at Chicago is endorsed by the people, I shall be the one to occupy the executive position and to carry out that platform. I challenge our opponents to find in any act or utterance of mine a justification of the charge that, if elected, I will not enforce the laws of the United States. There is nothing in that platform that declares against the en

forcement of the laws of the United States. Our platform simply declares against invasion of a State in matters of local concern, and in that we stand upon the Constitution, and no man should be President and swear to support the Constitution unless he is prepared to support it all. I repeat, therefore, what I have said time and again, that I, who stand upon that platform, I, who am to be elected if the platform is ratified at the polls, intend to and will enforce every law of the United States. But the trouble is, my friends, that they do not fear a failure to enforce the law. What they fear is that I will have an Attorney General, if I am elected, who will enforce the law against the big violators. Show me a man who has profited by violating the law, and I will show you a man who will tell you that he is afraid I will not enforce the law. In this campaign I have arrayed against me all of the big law breakers in the United States. This country is not in danger from the small law breakers; they are generally punished. It is the men who think that they are greater than the Government who menace our institutions. It is the coal trust that is afraid that I won't enforce the law, and the sugar trust and the Standard Oil trust. and all this brood of trusts that have violated the law and trampled upon individual rights with impunity. They know that the success of the Chicago platform means that their preying upon the public will forever cease. I repeat what I have said before, that, if elected, I shall use all the authority of the executive to enforce the laws which now exist against every trust in this country. But I shall not stop there. If the laws now in existence are not sufficient, I will recommend laws which are sufficient, and if the Supreme Court decides that the Federal Constitution prohibits the passage or enforcement of any law interfering with a trust, I will recommend an amendment to the Constitution which will permit the American people to live in spite of trusts. And more than that, if I have a Supreme judge to appoint and there are two men presented, one opposed to trusts and the other in favor of them, I will appoint the judge who is opposed to trusts.

Mr. Joseph S. Hall, of Detroit, was the superintendent of our train during the trip through Michigan, and so well did he do his work that during the four days we ran practically on time. The entire party felt indebted to him and to Mr. Campau. The trip through Michigan was enlivened by the presence of a number of persons who visited with us from time to time, among whom may be mentioned Mr. and Mrs. Wellington R. Burt, he being one of the few railroad presidents of the United States who openly advocated free coinage.

Sunday morning we attended Westminster Presbyterian Church. and listened to a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Patterson. In the evening I went with Col. R. G. Butler and made my only Sunday speech—a talk before the Newsboys' Association, a society in which Col. Butler was deeply interested.

CHAPTER XLV.

M

AMONG THE BUCKEYES AND HOOSIERS.

ONDAY, October 19, and the day following were spent in

Ohio. Starting from Detroit in the night, we reached Toledo about breakfast time and put in a long and busy day, meetings being held at a number of cities, prominent among which were Lima, Sidney, Piqua, Troy, Hamilton, Dayton, Xenia, Washington, Circleville, Lancaster and Zanesville. At Lima I referred to the request just made by the chairman of the Republican National Committee that the flag be displayed by those who believed in sound money. Below will be found a portion of my remarks:

Lima Speech.

I want to call your attention to something that appeared in yesterday morning's paper. I find that the chairman of the Republican National Committee has issued a letter to the American people in which he says:

The American flag has been in the present campaign the emblem or insignia of national honor. Its influence has been great for good in the cause of a good people. Its display in many places has been potent in the advancement of the country's battle for the maintenance of its honor at home and abroad. I therefore suggest that on Saturday, October 31, all who intend to vote on November 3 for the preservation of our nation's honor, for sound money and the advancement of our people's interests and general prosperity, display the national colors at their homes, their places of business, or wherever they may be seen, in order that voters, whose hearts are for their country, may be strengthened in their purpose, and those who are undetermined may the more patriotically and intelligently conclude how best to perform their duty as citizens.

My friends, it is the first time, I believe, that I have ever agreed with the chairman of the Republican National Committee, but I want to sign my name to his letter and ask all those who believe in ideas set forth there to display the flag on the 31st of October, because there is not a thing in that letter that the advocates of free silver cannot indorse.

Now, note what he says-that he wants the flag displayed by all those who on the 3d of November intend to vote for the preservation of our national honor. We advocates of free silver believe that only by having a financial policy made by the American people for the American people can we support the honor of the United States. He wants those to display the flag who are for sound money. We who believe in the money of the Constitution are for a sounder money than those who want to change our currency into pounds, shillings and pence. We who believe in a basis for our finan

cial transactions sufficiently broad for those transactions to rest upon, believe in a sounder financial system than those who advocate a gold standard and a financial system based upon gold alone, when they cannot find the gold to furnish the foundation.

We not only believe in sounder money, but we tell you what we mean by sound money, and do not play the hypocrite by talking about sound money and then refusing to explain what the term means.

He wants those who are going to vote for the advancement of our people's interests and general prosperity to display the flag. My friends, we believe that free coinage of silver, the opening of the mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver at 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation, means the advancement of the interests of the people and general prosperity, and therefore we can join in displaying the American flag. Let it be known to the country that we are standing by the flag, and that we are not asking foreign nations what that flag shall mean.

I join, therefore, in the request for three reasons: First, because we believe in everything he advocates in that letter, and therefore have as much - right to display the flag on that day as any Republican has, and we believe that we have a good deal more moral right to do so in this campaign.

I join in the request for another reason. I do not want them to mark the advocates of free silver for slaughter on that day. I do not want the employers to go about over your town and throughout the country and find out who has a bag in his window and then threaten to discharge the man who does not say that he is going to vote the Republican ticket.

My friends, if coercion is going to be attempted, for heaven's sake let it not be attempted by using the flag as a means of pointing out the men to be threatened. If they want to find out who should be slaughtered, let them take some other emblem than the nation's flag under which to do their nefarious work.

There is another reason why I join in that request. I want some flags to float on that day which do not mean a government by syndicates and for syndicates. I want some flags to float on that day which do not stand for the right of a coal trust to send a representative to every fireside and collect tribute from every family in this land. I want some flags to float on that day that do not stand for the opinions of those who say that if the majority of the people win in this campaign they do not know whether they will submit to the decision or not. I want some flags to float on that day which have behind them the honest sentiment of the American people; of people who expect to attend to their own business, and do not intend to be bought or driven in to the support of foreign financial policies.

So, my friends, I want to ask all advocates of silver to bring out the flag on that day. I want them to display it in their homes and places of business and, if need be, carry it upon the streets. Let our opponents know that we do not intend to surrender that emblem into the hands of the enemies of the people of this country.

At Hamilton ex-Governor James E. Campbell presided; at Dayton I received a small silver-plated cannon, which is treasured among the

« 上一頁繼續 »