July 7, 1757. RICHARD SAUNDERS.

THE WATER-MILL.

Oh! listen to the water-mill, through all the live-long day, As the clicking of the wheels wears hour by hour away; How languidly the autumn wind doth stir the withered leaves, As on the field the reapers sing, while binding up the sheaves! A solemn proverb strikes my mind, and as a spell is cast, "The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

The summer winds revive no more leaves strewn o'er earth and main, The sickle never more will reap the yellow garnered grain; The rippling stream flows on, aye tranquil, deep, and still, But never glideth back again to busy water-mill. The solemn proverb speaks to all, with meaning deep and vast, "The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

Oh! clasp the proverb to thy soul, dear loving heart and true, For golden years are fleeting by, and youth is passing, too; Ah! learn to make the most of life, nor lose one happy day, For time will ne'er return sweet joys neglected, thrown away; Nor leave one tender word unsaid, thy kindness sow broadcast— "The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

Oh! the wasted hours of life, that have swiftly drifted by, Alas! the good we might have done, all gone without a sigh; Love that we might once have saved by a single kindly word, Thoughts conceived but ne'er expressed, perishing unpenned, unheard. Oh! take the lesson to thy soul, forever clasp it fast, "The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

Work on while yet the sun doth shine, thou man of strength and will, The streamlet ne'er doth useless glide by clicking watermill; Nor wait until to-morrow's light beams brightly on thy way. For all that thou canst call thine own, lies in the phrase, "to-day;" Possessions, power, and blooming health, must all be lost at last—

"The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

Oh! love thy God and fellow man, thyself consider last, For come it will when they must scan dark errors of the past; Soon will this fight of life be o'er, and earth recede from view, And heaven in all its glory shine where all is pure and true. Ah! then thou'lt see more clearly still the proverb deep and vast, "The mill will never grind again with water that is past."

D. C. MCCALLUM.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death.

PATRICK HENRY.

The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science, that smiles in yer face while it picks yer pocket; and the glorious uncertainty of it is of mair use to the professors than the justice of it.

MACKLIN.

OUR MISSION.

In calm and stormy weather Our mission is to grow; To keep the angle paramount And bind the brute below.

We grow not all in sunshine, But richly in the rain; And what we deem our losses May prove our final gain.

The snows and frosts of winter A richer fruitage bring; From battling with the anvil The smith's grand muscles spring.

'Tis by the law of contrast That fine effects are seen; As thus we blend in colors The orange with the green.

By action and reaction We reach our perfect growth; Nor by excess of neither, But equipoise of both. The same code binds the human.

That governs mother earth; God cradled her in tempest And earthquakes from her birth.

Our life is but a struggle For perfect equipoise; Our pains are often jewels, Our pleasures gilded toys.

Between the good and evil The monarch will must stand, To shape the final issue By God's divine command.

Our mission is to battle With ill in every form— To borrow strength and volume From contact with the storm.

In the beautiful hereafter These blinding mortal tears Shall crystalize in jewels To sparkle in the spheres.

With weak and moldish vision We work our way below; But sure our souls are building Much wiser than we know.

And when the work is finished The scaffolding then falls; And lo! a radiant temple, With pearl and sapphire walls.

A temple far transcending The grandest piles below, Whose dome shall blaze with splendor, In God's eternal glow.

Wealth is necessary; let us not disclaim against it; every nation needs it to attain the highest achievements in civilization. But it is a blessing only as a servant, and is destructive as a master.

JOHN P. ALTGELD.

If I were a young man I should ally myself with some high and at present unpopular cause, and devote my every effort to accomplish its success.

JOHN G. WHITTIER.

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay.

Princes and lords may flourish and may fade; A breath can make them, as breath has made; But an honest peasantry, a country's pride, When once destroyed, can never be supplied.

War preys on two things—life and property: but he preys with a partial appetite. Feasting on life, he licks his jaws and says, "More, by your leave!" Devouring property, he says, between grin and glut, "This is so good that it ought to be paid for!" Into the vacuum of wasted life rush the moaning winds of grief and desolation; in to the vacuum of wasted property rushes the goblin of debt. The wasted life is transformed at length into a reminiscent glory; the wasted property becomes a hideous nightmare. The heroes fallen rise from their bloody cerements into everlasting fame; the property destroyed rises from the red and flame-swept field as a spectral vampire, sucking the still warm blood of the heroic dead and of their posthumous babes to the tenth generation! The name of the vampire is Bond.

JOHN CLARK RIDPATH.

TO A WATERFOWL.

Whither, mid'st falling dew, While glow the heavens with the last steps of day, Far through their rosy depths, dost thou pursue Thy solitary way?

Vainly the fowler's eye Might mark thy distant flight to do thee wrong, As, darkly seen against the crimson sky, Thy figure floats along.

Seek'st thou the plashy brink Of weedy lake, or marge of river wide, Or where the rocking billows rise and sink On the chafed ocean side?

There is a Power whose care Teaches thy way along that pathless coast— The desert and illimitable air— Lone wandering, but not lost.

All day thy wings have fanned, At that far height, the cold, thin atmosphere, Yet stoop not, weary, to the welcome land, Though the dark night is near.

And soon that toil shall end; Soon shall thou find a summer home, and rest, And scream among thy fellows; reeds shall bend Soon, o'er thy sheltered nest.

Thou'rt gone, the abyss of heaven Hath swallowed up thy form; yet on my heart Deeply hath sunk the lesson thou hast given And shall not soon depart.

He who, from zone to zone, Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight, In the long way that I must tread alone Will lead my steps aright.

WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT.



ROBERT BURNS

(Considered by many the world's greatest Song writer and natural Poet.)

While Burns was yet a plow boy he was challenged by two highly educated gentlemen, who were seated awaiting their dinner to be served at an Inn in the town of Ayr.

The terms of the challenge was for each to write a verse on the event of their first acquaintance, the one writing the best and most appropriate short rhyme was to have his dinner paid for by the other two.

Burns wrote as follows:

I Jonnie Peep, Saw two sheep. Two sheep saw me. Half a crown apiece Will pay for their fleece. And I Jonnie Peep go free.

On another occasion while drinking at a Bar a hanger on who was notorious for his much drinking and was dubbed the Marquis, asked Burns to write an appropriate epitaph for his grave stone.

Burns, quick as flash and without any apparent effort, wrote:

Here lies a faulse Marquis: Whose title is shamed If ever he rises It will be to be damned.

TO A MOUSE.

Wee, sleekit, cowrin' tim'rous beastie. Oh, what a panic's in thy breastie! Thou needna start awa' sae hasty. Wi' bickering brattle! I wad be laith to rin and chase thee, Wi murd'ing prattle!

I'm truly sorry man's dominion Has broken nature's social union, And justifies that ill opinion Which makes thee startle At me, thy poor earth-born companion And fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve; What then? poor beastie, thou maun live! A daimen icker in a thrave 'S a sma' o' request I'll get a blessin' wi' the lave, And never miss 't!

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin! Its silly wa's the win's are strewin'! And naething now to big a new ane O' foggage green! And bleak December's winds ensuin' Baith snell and keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare and waste And weary winter comin' fast. And cozie here, beneath the blast, Thou thought to dwell; Till, crash! the cruel coulter past Out through thy cell.

That wee bit heap o'leaves and stibble Has cost thee mony a weary nibble! Now thou's turn'd out for a' thy trouble, But house or hauld, To thole the winter's sleety dribble And cranreuch cauld.

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane, In proving foresight may be vain; The bes laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft a-gley, And lea 'e us naught but grief and pain For promised joy.

Still thou art blest, compared wi' me! The present only toucheth thee, But, och! I backward cast my ee On prospects drear! And forward, though I canna see, I guess and fear.

ROBERT BURNS.



CHAPTER XI.

ORATORICAL DEPARTMENT.

The author believes he is here presenting such selections as will be accepted as masterpieces.

Mr. Bryan's speech at New Haven, where he was disturbed by students is taken from his book, the First Battle, and is here offered to show the wonderful composure of the speaker, rather than to present a fine or eloquent speech.

The New York Sun's editorial, and the resolution of the council of Indians will show the difference of opinion that exists between commercial editors and the men of nature. It is obvious that these students were disturbing a public meeting, and to justify them is to wink at crime, scorn at justice, mock at the freedom of speech and excuse ignorance.

Certainly the Indian presents the idea of advancing forward, while the New York Sun man is advancing (?) backward.



PATRICK HENRY'S SPEECH.

VIRGINIA MUST PREPARE FOR WAR.

There is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of Hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that Siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes see not, and having ears hear not the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British Ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not. It will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed by a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission. Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain an enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No; she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? We have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not deceive ourselves longer. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned, we have remonstrated, we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the Throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hand of the Ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the Throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left to us.

They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope until our enemies have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which the enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and will raise us friends to fight our battle for us. The battle is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Besides, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged; their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston. The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it. Let it come! It is in vain to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ear the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field! Why are we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!—Speech in Convention, March 25, 1775.



ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S SPEECH.

SPEECH AT THE DEDICATION OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY AT GETTYSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, NOVEMBER 19, 1863.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a large sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead have not died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."



WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN'S SPEECHES.

YALE COLLEGE INCIDENT.—BRYAN SPEAKS UNDER DIFFICULTIES

I am glad that there are students here, because I want to say a word to students. Your college has helped to add fame to your city, and those who assemble here are supposed to come in order that they may better equip themselves for the duties of life. I am glad to talk to students, because, my friends, we have a cause which appeals to students. If the syndicates and corporations rule this country, then no young man has a fair show unless he is the favorite of a corporation. (Applause—and yells for McKinley by a cordon of the students.) If the people have a right to govern themselves and exercise that right, then every citizen has an equal chance and every man may achieve what he desires. We wish to leave all the avenues open so that the son of the humblest citizen may aspire to the highest position within the gift of the people. (Applause and yells repeated.)

I am not speaking now to the sons who are sent to college on the proceeds of ill-gotten gains. (Enthusiastic applause.) I will wait until these sons have exhausted what their fathers have left them and then appeal to their children who will have to commence life where their grandfathers commenced. (Great applause.) My friends, a just government is best for the great masses of the people. Equal laws and equal opportunities are best for nine out of every ten of us. (Yells again repeated.) Therefore, our cause appeals to every young man who wants to make this Government so good as to deserve the love, confidence and the support of every citizen in this land.

We appeal not only to the students; we appeal to business men who have been terrorized by the financial—what may I call it? (Applause.) People have been tyrannized over by financial institutions until in some instances it is more dangerous to raise your voice against the ruling power than it is in an absolute monarchy. (Great applause and yells.) If there is anybody who loves this sort of thing then I shall offend him by speaking of it, but I shall not offend any man who loves liberty and the right of free speech in this country. (Great applause.)

The business men have been told that the free coinage of silver would ruin them. If it can ruin them with more rapidity than the gold standard has ruined them, then, my friends, it will be bad, indeed, because the gold standard has increased the number of failures among business men, and every step that has been taken has been followed——(Yells from the students.) I have been so used to talking to young men who earn their own living that I do not know——(Great applause and cheering.) I say, I have been so used to talking to young men who earn their own living that I hardly know what language to use to address myself to those who desire to be known, not as creators of wealth, but as the distributors of wealth which somebody else created. (Great applause and cheering.) If you will show me a young man who has been taught to believe——(More yells and cries of "McKinley.")

In all my travels I have not found a crowd that needed talking to so much as this crowd does. (Cries of "That's right.") I came to this city something more than a year ago, and I then learned something of the domination of your financial classes. I have seen it elsewhere, but, my friends, the great mass of the people even of this city, will be better off under bimetallism that permits the nation to grow, than under a gold standard which starves everybody except the money changer and the money owner.

We sometimes out West are instructed by your insurance companies. I carry insurance in old line companies and in what are known as the mutual or assessment companies. I carry insurance in fraternal organizations like the United Workmen and the Modern Woodmen, as well as in the old line companies, and I am glad that my assessment companies are satisfied to take my money and give me insurance without attempting to tell me how I must vote. Your old line companies have seen fit to insult the intelligence of the people by attempting to exercise a guardian care, notwithstanding the fact that we are able to look after ourselves without their instructions.

You have laboring men also in large numbers in this city. I do not know whether the advocates of the gold standard here who employ men in the shops insist upon telling their employes how to vote. I have in other places found employers who would put in envelopes the pay for the day's work or week's work, and then print on the outside of the envelopes some instructions to the employes. If the manufacturer, employer, or railroad president feels that there must be something on the outside of the envelope as well as upon the inside, let him write on the outside: "You will find within your wages. They are to cover your work. We recognize that the men who have sense enough to do the work we want done have sense enough to vote right, without our telling them how to vote."

I notice that in some places they have been organizing sound money clubs, and they have the applicant sign a statement, saying that the free coinage of silver would hurt him in his business as a wage earner. I have wondered why our great financial magnates do not put in their application a statement similar to that. Why don't the heads of these syndicates which have been bleeding the Government make application to sound money clubs and write in their application that the free coinage of silver would hurt them in their business as heads of syndicates? They want people to believe that they are entirely benevolent, that they are philanthropists, and that what they do is done merely because they believe that the people will be benefited by having them run the Government, and they submit to the inconvenience of running the Government in order to help the people, who, they say, will be benefited. (More confusion and applause by the students.)

Why is it that the broker or the bond buyer does not write in his application that he has a personal interest in the gold standard? Why is it that these men want to throw upon the wage earners whatever odium there may be in using his vote to protect his personal interests? I believe the wage earner, and the farmer, and the business man, and the professional man, all of these will be benefited by a volume of money sufficient to do business with. If you make money scarce you make money dear. If you make money dear you drive down the value of everything, and when you have falling prices you have hard times. And who prosper by hard times? There are but few, and those few are not willing to admit that they get any benefit from hard times. No party ever declared in its platform that it was in favor of hard times, and yet the party that declares for a gold standard in substance declares for a continuation of hard times.

Here a band which had been playing for a drill in another part of the square came nearer and made talking more difficult, and my voice not being in good condition I concluded my remarks by saying:

It is hard to talk when all the conditions are favorable, and I must ask you to excuse me from talking any further in the presence of the noises against which we have to contend today.

I have since learned that some misunderstood my closing words, and thought I again referred to the students, but this is an error. They were making no disturbance when I finished speaking. I did not even mean to criticize the band, because I was sure that the interruption was not intentional, but my voice being hoarse and the crowd large, it was difficult to make myself heard even when there was perfect quiet.

The incident gave rise to a good deal of public discussion.

A few papers criticised my language on that occasion and declared that my words provoked the hostile demonstration. As a matter of fact, the hostility was manifested before I began to speak, and it was some minutes before I could obtain a hearing. This is the only speech in which I have inserted the applause, and it is only done here because the interruptions are also quoted. The report is reproduced exactly as it appeared at the time in order that the reader may form his own opinion upon the subject.

The following press dispatch appeared in the morning papers of September 3:

YALE STUDENTS CRITICISED.

Muskogee, I.T., Sept. 29.—At a mass meeting of the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws and Seminoles, held here yesterday, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, that we contemplate with deep regret the recent insulting treatment of William J. Bryan by students of a college in the land of the boasted white man's civilization, and we admonish all Indians who think of sending their sons to Yale that association with such students could but prove hurtful alike to their morals and their progress toward the higher standard of civilization.

THE "SUN" DEFENDS THE YALE STUDENTS.

The New York Sun came to the defense of the boys in an editorial, from which the following is an extract:

What did these students really do? On the day that Yale University opened its new college year, Bryan came to New Haven and prepared to address a great crowd at the green adjacent to which are the college buildings of the center of university life, in a town of which the university is the great and distinguishing feature. The students gathered in strong force, as was natural. Practically they were on their own ground. They expressed their feelings against repudiation with the vigor and vociferousness of youth; and they had a right to do it.

They ought to have done it; and the sentiment to which they gave utterance was honorable to them. The boys made a great noise, cheering for McKinley and yelling and jeering at repudiation, so that Mr. Bryan could not be heard for several minutes. If they had applauded him incessantly for even a full half hour, would there have been any complaint of their preventing him from starting out in his speech? Has not a crowd in the open air as much right to hiss as to cheer? At what period in our history was that privilege taken from Americans? These dissenting students, the reports agree, did not offer any personal violence to Mr. Bryan or anybody else. They did not throw rotten eggs at him or otherwise assail his dignity, but merely shouted their college cry and yelled derisively. They did not like the cause the speaker represented. They detested and despised both it and him, and they made known their feelings noisily.

Speech Concluding Debate on the Chicago Platform.

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen of the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity.

When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration, and also the resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle.

Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request that the believers of free coinage of silver in the Democratic party should organize, take charge of, and control the policy of the Democratic party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected and the silver Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into a platform the declaration they had made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by the plain people of this country. In this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love, acquaintance and association have been disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when they have refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people.

We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York (Senator Hill,) but we know that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side.

The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor Russell) spoke of the State of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of Massachusetts, but we stand here representing people who are the equals, before the law, of the greatest citizens in the State of Massachusetts. When you (turning to the gold delegates) come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your course.

We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day—who begins in the spring and toils all summer—and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much 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 the 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; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth.

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They criticize us for the criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not criticized; we have simply called attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They say that we have passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the burden of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the Government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.

They complain about the plank which declares against life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which is does not mean. What we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is being built up in Washington, and which excludes from participation in official benefits the humbler members of society.

Let me call your attention to two or three important things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment to the platform providing that the proposed change in our monetary system shall not affect contracts already made. Let me remind you that there is no intention of affecting those contracts which according to present laws are made payable in gold; but if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I desire to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find justification for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we must protect the creditors.

He says he will also propose an amendment which will provide for the suspension of free coinage if we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We reply that when we advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says he wants the country to try to secure an international agreement. Why does he not tell us what he is going to do if he fails to secure an international agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain the parity. Our opponents have tried for twenty years to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who do not want it at all.

And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money of the Constitution all other necessary reforms will be possible; but that until this is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished.

Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believe in the gold standard would frame our platform and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a president. And they had good reason for their doubt, because there is scarcely a State here today asking for the gold standard which is not in the absolute control of the Republican party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans, and three months ago everybody in the Republican party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, the man who was once pleased to think that he looked like Napoleon—that man shudders today when he remembers that he was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the change evident to any one who will look at the matter? No private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates and powers.

We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we shall point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism—thereby declaring that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of bimetallism is better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and were then telling us that we could not legislate two metals together, even with the aid of all the world. If the gold standard is a good thing, we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing why should we wait until other nations are willing to help us to let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the fight; we are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard and that both the great parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it. If they come to meet us on that issue we can tell them that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance where the common people of any land have ever declared themselves in favor of the gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but not where the masses have.

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country"; and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

My friends, we declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every State in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the fair State of Massachusetts nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by saying that, when they are confronted with the proposition, they will declare that this nation is not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

SPEECHES OF C. A. BOGARDUS.

"I don't know much about the tariff "I don't know much about the question, but I think I know enough money question, but it appears to know that if we buy $20.00 worth to me that if under the gold of rails of a foreigner, the standard we borrow $20,000,000 foreigner will have the money and of a foreigner, when we pay it we will have the rails, but if we back the foreigner will have the make the rails in America and buy money and the interest, too, but them of an American, America will if we coin the silver (which have the money and the rails, too." is an American product) into American dollars, borrow ABRAHAM LINCOLN. $20,000,000 of an American, when we pay it back America will have the money and the interest, too." C. A. BOGARDUS. "Nothing should ever tempt "I hope nothing ever will tempt us nothing will ever tempt us us to scale the debt of the to scale down the sacred debt nation through a legal of the nation through a technicality. Whatever may legal technicality. Whatever may be the language of the contract be the language of the contract the United States should the United States will discharge discharge its obligations all its obligations in the according to the contract." currency recognized as the best throughout the civilized world C. A. BOGARDUS. at the time of payment." WM. MCKINLEY. "This word to all when I am dead, "This word to all while we are Be sure you are right, then go alive, ahead." Be sure we are right, then let drive." DAVID CROCKETT. C. A. BOGARDUS.

SPEECHES OF C. A. BOGARDUS

ADDRESS DELIVERED AT FARMINGTON, IOWA, NOVEMBER 20, 1897, BY C. A. BOGARDUS.

SUBJECT: HOW TO READ.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:—

It is not so much the amount of reading that educates us, as it is what we read and the manner it is done that benefits us, for as Poor Richard says: "The used key is always bright," so the well-read book always shows the handling. A small well chosen library carefully read is of vastly more benefit than the large, poorly chosen, unread volumes that adorn the shelves of many homes. Yet I am not sure but that poorly chosen books are better not read than read. A learned doctor once said: "It is not what we eat that sustains life, but is what we digest."

We might well paraphrase his words and say it is not what we read that educates us, but it is what we understand. For what we want is not learning, but knowledge; that is the ability to make learning answer its true end as a quickener of intelligence and widener of the intellectual field.

We should not read to contradict; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider. This being self-evident, we should ever remember that whatever is worth reading at all is worth reading well. Hence, inasmuch as reading matter is always the expression of some author's thoughts, it follows that the object of reading at all is to learn the thoughts of the writer. So we may well aver that to read understandingly requires thought and industry. For reading availeth not unless done understandingly. Therefore, an article is not read, in the full sense of the word, until it is understood.

I will close by reading an article from an old scrap-book. When it is read I trust it will accomplish a double mission, viz: that we more thoroughly comprehend the necessity of putting thought into our reading; and that the real virtue in thought is acting in harmony with the knowledge or right. The article to which I refer is entitled "An Angel in a Saloon." I will now read it:

"One afternoon in the month of June, 1870, a lady in deep mourning, followed by a little child, entered one of the fashionable saloons in the city of N——. The writer happened to be passing at the time, and prompted by curiosity, followed her in, to see what would ensue. Stepping up to the bar, and addressing the proprietor, who happened to be present, she said:

"'Sir, can you assist me? I have no home, no friends, and am not able to work.'

"He glanced at her and then at the child, with a mingled look of curiosity and pity. Evidently he was much surprised to see a woman in such a place begging, but without asking any questions gave her some change, and turning to those present, he said:

"'Gentlemen, here is a lady in distress. Can't some of you help her a little?'

"They cheerfully acceded to the request, and soon a purse of two dollars was made up, and put in her hand.

"'Madam,' said the gentleman who gave her the money, 'why do you come to a saloon? It isn't a proper place for a lady, and why are you driven to such a step?'

"'Sir,' said the lady, 'I know it isn't a proper place for a lady to be in, and you ask me why I am driven to such a step. I will tell you in one short word,' pointing to a bottle behind the counter, labelled whiskey, 'that is what brought me here—whiskey!'

"'I was once happy and surrounded with all the luxuries that wealth could procure, with a fond, indulgent husband. But in an evil hour he was tempted, and not possessing the will to resist the temptation, fell, and in one short year my dream of happiness was over, my home was forever desolate, and the kind husband, and the wealth that some called mine lost, lost, never to return, and all by the accursed wine cup.

"'You see before you only the wreck of my former self, homeless and friendless, with nothing left me in this world but this little child,' and weeping bitterly, she affectionately caressed the golden curls that shaded a face of exquisite loveliness. Regaining her composure, and turning to the proprietor of the saloon, she continued:

"'Sir, the reason why I occasionally enter a place like this is to implore those who deal in the deadly poison to desist, to stop a business that spreads desolation, ruin, poverty and starvation. Think one moment of your own loved ones, and then imagine them in the situation I am in. I appeal to your better nature, I appeal to your heart,—for I know you possess a kind one,—to retire from a business so ruinous to your patrons.

"'Did you know the money you take across the bar is the same as taking the bread out of the mouths of the famished wives and children of your customers? That it strips the clothing from their backs, deprives them of all the comforts of this life and throws unhappiness, misery, crime, and desolation in their once happy homes? Oh! sir, I implore, beseech, and pray you to retire from a business you blush to own you are engaged in before your fellow-men, and enter one that will not only be profitable to yourself but your fellow-creatures also. You will excuse me if I have spoken too plainly, but I could not help it when I thought of the misery, the unhappiness, and the suffering it has caused me.'

"'Madam, I am not offended,' he answered in a voice husky with emotion, 'but I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you have said.'

"'Mamma,' said the little child, who meantime had been spoken to by some of the gentlemen present, taking hold of her mother's hand, 'these gentlemen wish me to sing "Little Bessie" for them. Shall I do so?'

"They all joined in the request, and placing her in a chair she sang, in a sweet childish voice, the following beautiful song:

"'Out in the gloomy night, sadly I roam, I have no mother dear, no pleasant home; Nobody cares for me, no one would cry Even if poor little Bessie should die. Weary and tired I've been wandering all day, Asking for work, but I'm too small, they say; On the damp ground I must now lay my head; Father's a drunkard and mother is dead.

"'We were so happy till father drank rum, Then all our sorrow and trouble begun; Mother grew pale and wept every day, Baby and I were too hungry to play; Slowly they faded till one summer night Found their dead faces all silent and white; Then with big tears slowly dropping I said, "Father's a drunkard and mother is dead."

"'Oh! If the temperance men only could find Poor, wretched father and talk very kind; If they would stop him from drinking, then I should be so very happy again. Is it too late, temperance men? Please try Or poor little Bessie must soon starve and die! All day long I've been begging for bread,— Father's a drunkard and mother is dead.'

"The game of billiards was left unfinished, the cards thrown aside and the unemptied glass remained on the counter; all had pressed near, some with pity-beaming eyes, entranced with the musical voice and beauty of the child, who seemed better fitted to be with angels above than in such a place.

"The scene I shall never forget to my dying day, and the sweet cadence of her musical voice still rings in my ears, and every word of the song as it dropped from her lips sank deep into the hearts of those gathered around her.

"With her golden hair falling carelessly around her little shoulders, and looking so trustingly and confidingly upon the gentlemen around her, her beautiful eyes illuminated with a light that seemed not of this earth, she formed a picture of purity and innocence worthy the genius of a poet or painter.

"At the close of the song many were weeping; men who had not shed a tear for years, now wept like children. One young man who had resisted with scorn the pleadings of a loving mother and the entreaties of friends to strive to lead a better life, to desist from a course that was wasting his fortune and ruining his health, now approached the child, and taking both hands in his, while tears streamed down his cheeks, exclaimed with deep emotion:

"'God bless you, my little angel! You have saved me from ruin and disgrace, from poverty and a drunkard's grave. If there are angels on earth, you are one! God bless you! God bless you! and putting a bill into the hands of the mother said, 'Please accept this trifle as a token of my regard and esteem, for your little girl has done me a kindness I can never repay; and remember, whenever you are in want, you will find in me a true friend,' at the same time giving her his name and address.

"Taking her child by the hand she turned to go, but pausing at the door, said:

"'God bless you, gentlemen! Accept the heartfelt thanks of a poor, friendless woman for the kindness and courtesy you have shown her.' Before any one could reply she was gone.

"A silence of several minutes ensued, which was broken by the proprietor, who exclaimed:

"'Gentlemen, that lady was right, and I have sold my last glass of whiskey; if any one of you want more you will have to go elsewhere.'

"'And I have drank my last glass of whiskey,' said a young man who had long been given up as utterly beyond the reach of those who had a deep interest in his welfare, as sunk too low ever to reform."

SPEECH AT DECATUR, INDIANA, SEPTEMBER 22, 1896.

The occasion being a rally in which the Hon. B. F. Shively, candidate for governor, and John R. Brunt, candidate for congress, had spoken over three hours.

The Indianapolis Sentinel said of Mr. Bogardus that "he held the closest attention throughout, and closed amid great cheers and cries of go ahead."

MR. BOGARDUS SPOKE AS FOLLOWS:

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:—That phase of the money question which is before the American people today and upon which we will vote in November is merely shall we, or shall we not, open the mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver as they are now open to the coinage of gold. Concurrent with, and as a part of the phase, is the declaration that when the metals are so coined that the money made therefrom shall be treated equally under the law, and that the Democratic idea of equal rights to each and special privileges to neither, shall be again incorporated in our national laws. A great many rash, and it seems to me foolish things, are being said concerning the independent bimetallists of our country, to charge the free coinage people with being repudiators and anarchists, is but to put the party making such false statement in the position of a base misrepresenter, and sooner or later the charge must slap its maker in the face. There is no doubt in my mind, but that there is a party in this country who is advocating repudiation, but it is not the Democratic party; it is the Republican party that is advocating it. Webster says repudiation is the act of rejecting or refusing. If a party desires to pay the national debt according to contract it certainly is not advocating repudiation, but if a party desires to violate the contract it desires to repudiate. Now, my friends, let us get right at the facts, before we can tell who the repudiators are; we must know what the contract is, and then we must know what the contesting parties want to do in the premises. I will read you a copy of a U.S. bond:

(COPY OF U.S. BOND.)

The United States of America are indebted to the bearer in the sum of One Hundred Dollars.

This bond is issued in accordance with the provisions of an act of congress, entitled, "An act to authorize the refunding of the National Debt," approved July 14th, 1870, amended by an act approved January 20th, 1871, and is redeemable at the pleasure of the United States, after the first day of July, A.D., 1907, in coin of the standard value of the United States on said July 14th, 1870, with interest in such coin from the day of date hereof, at the rate of four per cent per annum, payable quarterly, on the first day of October, January, April and July of each year. The principal and interest are exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the United States, as well as from taxation in any form, by or under State, Municipal or local authority.

Washington, July 1st, 1877.

J. M. DOTY, Register of the Treasury.

Entered (G. W. B.) (Recorded W. S.)

Now I am not trying to mislead you when I say that a party who proposes to pay that bond according to contract is not a repudiator, nor am I misleading when I say that a party who attempts to prevent its payment according to contract is a repudiator. The bond, according to its own wording, is payable in coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870. When we learn exactly what that coin is we will then, like Saul of Tarsus, see things in a new light. By the law that was in force on that date silver or gold could be coined into standard money and their standard value was their legal value. The Democratic party desires the privilege of coining the metals according to that law, and then paying the bonds with those coins according to that law. No repudiation there. No, not a particle. (Cheers.) The Republicans do not want to coin silver and gold according to that law, and they do not want to allow the debts to be paid in gold or silver money according to that law. There is repudiation there, yes lots of it; in fact, it is nothing but repudiation. (Great applause.) Do you want to hear about the anarchy part of this question? (Cries of yes! yes!) Very well, let us examine along that line. The Democrats say that the government can coin money and regulate its value and they will accept it in payment of a debt. No anarchy there; no, not a bit. (Laughter.) The Republicans admit that the government can coin money and regulate its value and make it a legal tender. But they openly declare that they won't take it in the payment of a debt unless they want to. There is anarchy there in abundance, yes in great abundance. (Great and continued applause.)

Let me ask the Republicans if it is not a little strange that a law savored with such element of anarchy and repudiation, should have been in full force in America from 1792 to 1873, a period of eighty-one years, and have pleased the people so well, that during all that time no political party ever openly advocated its repeal? Is it not, I ask, strange that George Washington, who fought so bravely for independence, should have signed a law for repudiation and anarchy? Strange, ah, very strange! is it not, that General Grant, when he discovered that he had unknowingly signed a bill for the repeal of the law that they now say would be repudiation, should have said he did not know that the law demonetized silver, and if he had known it he would have suffered his right arm to have been cut off before he would have signed the law.

My friends, not only do the Republicans advocate repudiation, but it also by proposing a scarce money system is advocating confiscation of the debtor's property, for with a large money basis, money is easier to get than with a small money basis. Careful thought will show that easy money means high prices, and when money is scarce and hard to get prices are low; it therefore follows that President Lincoln was correct when he said: "If a government contract a debt and then contract the money before the debt is paid, it is the most heinous crime a government can commit against its people."

We may boast long and strong of the great wisdom of our diplomats and the brilliancy of our statesmen, but whatever they may say will never overshadow the fact that in a people's government the people must vote understandingly, and when we thoroughly analyze this charge of repudiation and anarchy, we will see that it is the same old trick of the burglar crying stop thief to the honest man, while the rogue himself escapes.

Much is being said about our money being good abroad, and great fear is expressed by the banker's party that our silver money under bimetallism will only be worth fifty cents on the dollar in foreign countries. Now, my friends, let us use common sense, and we will easily solve the problem as to how to make our silver dollars good abroad, that feature of the question can be accomplished by following this plain easy method, namely, the next time a foreigner presents a bond of a few million dollars for payment, have Uncle Sam hand the gentleman the amount in silver dollars, then let the foreigner attend to making them good abroad. It will be to his interest to procure a law making the silver good in his own country. Now, I want to ask you in the name of common sense, would not you think the foreigner crazy if when we paid him in our silver, he would go to his own country and cry down the very money we had paid him? Oh, no, he would not do that; he would use his influence to have a law passed in favor of bimetallism in his own country.

But you may urge that he might not succeed in his effort, and he would have a lot of half value American dollars on hand that would not be good abroad. Very well, the worst thing that could possibly happen to us under circumstances of that kind would be when the foreigner found he could not pass the money abroad he would discover all of a sudden that the money is good in America, and as a matter of fact he would spend his money where it would be taken for goods. So we see that we would thus either force a recognition of our money abroad or else we would control the markets of the world. Then in reality we would pay our debts abroad in American produce at a fair price and keep our money at home, where it belongs, as a medium of exchange. And we would then realize the wisdom of the Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone when he said to the English Parliament that "so far as England was concerned bimetallism to them as a creditor country would compel them to pay more for American produce," but the grand old man in his frank and honest manner added, "so far as America is concerned, it would immediately give her control of the markets of the world."

When we lament the fact that under our present financial system the rich are growing richer and the poor are becoming poorer day by day, we hear some one say, "that is true, but the law of the survival of the fittest is to blame for those facts." If you will pardon me for seemingly diverging from the subject I will say something in regard to the abuse of the law of the survival of the fittest. Yes, I admit that under any law, and under any conditions, those who are best suited to the conditions under which they live will get on better than those who are not so well suited by nature to combat for existence and prosperity. Nature has so laid its plans that, at or near the equator in the warm climate tropical fruits grow better than they do in Iceland, while the pine trees, true to nature, thrive best in cold regions. The Polar bear enjoys the snows of Alaska, but would suffocate in the tropical heat of Borneo or Sumatra. True to the law of the survival of the fittest, the elephant and ostrich thrive in sunny Africa, but would perish in Norway's winters. These things are true, because all nature is in perfect harmony with itself. When carefully considered, we find that the reason some things prosper in one place and perish in another is merely that they are fitted for the conditions in which they thrive and are unfitted for the vicious surrounding in which they perish. The lion and tiger prosper among vicious beasts, but the child and lamb survive better where love, mercy and righteousness reign.

Let us suppose that Christ and John L. Sullivan were contesting for the pugilistic championship under London prize ring rules, most assuredly Sullivan would win in the first round. But let us change the conditions and make the place of contest the pulpit of a Quaker church, and the subject: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven," don't you think Sullivan would be quite out of place and Christ would be the victor on that occasion? Suppose a fine pasture, bountiful with grass and water should be well stocked with a few hundred sheep and lambs and lurking around in hidden nooks of the field were a dozen or more Norway wolves; the sheep and the wolves are in the same pasture, I want to ask you, my friend, what kind of stock do you think the farmer will have in that pasture in a few days if he says to himself the law of the survival of the fittest will protect those sheep if they are fit to live, and if they can't survive then I will shear the wolves for my winter's wool. My friends, if that farmer ever got any wool from those wolves he would have to get it from their stomachs; he couldn't shear it from their backs, because it don't grow on that class of animals. What would you think of the farmer's good wife if after the wolves had killed and sucked the warm blood of the last lamb she would in her supreme recognition of the law of the survival of the fittest take from her child's grave the tombstone that had carved thereon the image of a little lamb at rest under the weeping willow and place in its stead a statue of marble with the life-sized image of a wolf with the blood of a lamb streaming from his teeth? No, that would not be the act of a sane mother, nor would the farmer willingly leave the sheep in the pasture with no other protection but the wolves.

Under laws recognizing viciousness the most vicious will survive best.

Our country and her people are industrious and willing, but we are in debt, having promised to pay American dollars that by the vicious system of contracting the money under the gold standard which makes dollars harder and harder to get, which is only another way of expressing the fact that wages and produce will go lower year by year under the system of greed that is accompanying the gold standard in all countries. But one thing can help the masses of our people out of the bondage of debt, and that thing is higher prices for labor and produce.

Higher prices in America will follow either of two causes—foreign famine and war or bimetallism and an increased volume of money. The latter is within our control, the former method no one should desire.

Let us not disclaim against the wolves, for scientists tell us that the shepherd dog that so kindly protects the sheep is a direct descendant of the wolf, but he has been domesticated by the law of man. So we see that under the vicious law of the survival of the fittest the wolf as a master was a sheep destroyer, but under the civilized law of the survival of the fittest, the descendant of the vicious wolf as we know, the shepherd dog is a servant of the sheep. Gold is good money, but as a master it is a tyrant. Let us hitch it side by side with silver and paper money, put it all under direct control of the government, and the wealth of this nation will be our servant, but with gold in control our nation's wealth becomes a hard master.

The other day, while on the train, in conversation with a rich banker, the subject of the rich and poor came up. He said "there was nothing in the law that tended to make people rich or poor." His idea was that individual prosperity came from each man's ability as a financier. "Why," said he, "don't you know that if the property was all equally divided among the people, the same people who now have it would get it again in a very short time?" I asked him if he was willing to change certain laws about the banking business, then divide the property and money of the United States equally among the people? He said "he did not want to have any such thing done." When I asked him to specifically name his objections to such a transaction, he replied "that it would not be fair to take what he made and give it to some one who had not made it." Then when I reminded him that he had said he would have it all back in a short time, he said that "if the law was changed about banking he would not have the same chance to get it back that he now had to keep it." I told him that I agreed with him on his last statement, but if I should agree with him in his first statement I could not see how the changed law and division of property would affect his ability, and if it did affect it, then I said the banking law must be a part of his ability. Then he replied that "banking laws were something that our congressmen would attend to." At this part of the conversation the train stopped and the banker bade me good-by and with a pleasant smile greeted a crowd that was waiting at the depot to escort him to the opera house, where he was to make a speech in favor of a law allowing the banks to issue all the money and retire the government from the banking business. The fellow was a candidate for congress.

As the train left the station I took from my valise a little book of statistics and found that 79 per cent of our Congressmen and 63 per cent of our Senators were either bankers or bank directors, then I thought his last remark was true, that our Congressmen would attend to the banking laws all right, especially from a banker's point of view. I then thought of a path up the mountain side that was so crooked a traveler going up would meet himself coming back.

Thanks for your attention.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 15, 1897, BY C. A. BOGARDUS.

OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:—I am going to request my hearers this evening to be not possessed of party prejudice. If there is any one feature of the human mind that works more disaster to civilization and humanity, than another, that feature is political partyism made blind by prejudice. Prejudice blinds the eye to light and benumbs the mind until reason is shut out. The Bible says, "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

In examining any proposition we should not proceed to change reasons and facts to suit our thoughts, but rather remove all prejudice from our mind and then change our thoughts to agree with the facts. For my part I would that all voters and their wives and children would form themselves into a party of political truthseekers. When that is done humanity, justice and a pure government of all the people, by all the people and for all the people, will form the armor of our civilization.

But as long as blind partyism prevails men will get into heated political discussions that only widen the gulf of misunderstanding. Misleading newspaper articles will make the gulf deeper, and the cunning hand of plutocracy and coercion will widen the waters of the gulf into a vast restless ocean, without even the signs of a rainbow to tell them that the great storm of poverty and human slavery to the money power, that knows no love, no mercy, no justice or Christianity, shall not continue forever and anon.

As we stand on a mountain crest and cast our eyes over the wide extent of country, it is the more prominent features that impress themselves on our vision. The lesser details, the waving field, the blooming bush, the evergreen moss, the singing bird and fragrant rose, which attract the attention and admiration of the immediate bystander, are lost to our view by the distance. But the range of forest-clad hills, the winding river, the crystal lake, the wide expanse of fertile plains and snow-capped mountain peaks, determine the landscape and claim our attention.

We of the United States are today surrounded by the Anglo-American civilization of the closing days of the 19th century. Let us from this height glance along the road of our nation's journey hither. We can at best only hope to notice the more prominent lines of advance. To carefully trace the growth of all the departments would not only greatly exceed the limited time at our command this evening, but would also confuse us by the multiplicity of subjects demanding our attention.

When God created man in his own image and placed him on earth, He gave man dominion over the earth and all the fullness thereof. There is an old maxim which teaches, that through respect for the giver, we should not give, barter or sell away a present. God gave the earth and all that is in it to mankind. May we not here ask, to what mankind was the earth given? And what is meant by man? It is plain to the student that by man is meant all mankind, for all time so long as he shall live, for we find in research of the scripture that "God is not God of the dead, but of the living." I want to ask you in the name of justice and humanity, should a great majority of mankind now, in the strongest and most highly civilized country, give the earth and its abundance to the money corporations, trusts and combines, that are in reality transforming our beloved republic into a "Den of Thieves;" or should we keep possession of the bountiful gift, that our children and the children of the generations to follow will inherit the land, that was so graciously presented to all mankind, by an all wise Providence?

One of the uppermost features in our civilization today is our national medium of exchange, called "money." Reasonable men of all parties agree that our money should be sound and honest, and limited only in amount by the necessities and requirements of the citizens of our country, in striving after a nobler and higher civilization in which the greatest good to the greatest number shall be the pinnacle of ultimate achievement.

In June of 1896, the representatives of a great party met in national convention in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and outlined a party platform in which we find a plank which says: "We are therefore opposed to the free coinage of silver, except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and until such agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved."

As we think of and discuss this or any other proposition, the question foremost in our mind should be: Is that proposition, if adopted, likely to promote the interest of an independent liberty loving, Democratic people, or will it, if adopted, work in an opposite direction?

In my judgment, a careful examination of that plank will reveal the fact that it is hypocritical in the extreme, and in itself makes by its own declaration, improbable the very thing it pretends to advocate and pledge itself to support, namely: Bimetallism, by an international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world.

There is no business man, farmer or politician who has ever successfully accomplished any undertaking by adopting the idea most prominent in this plank, which is declaring bimetallism to be right, and then saying that we cannot and will not do anything to procure it if the leading commercial nations of the world do not consent to it.

Let us examine this plank in detail, and see if the general proposition of waiting for our common enemy to assist us in helping ourselves is not ridiculous.

We notice that the party in drawing up this plank, says: "That they pledge themselves to promote bimetallism by agreement;" then in the next clause, say, "and until such an agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved."

Let me illustrate: Suppose this gentleman on my right having a horse fairly worth on the market $100, should say to the young man on my left that he desired to sell the animal. If the young man wished to buy he would ask the price of the horse. I ask, what would the owner receive for his steed, if he should reply, "Well, I ask $100, but if you will not give that much, I will take $25."

Now, my gold standard friends, do you not know that the purchaser would take advantage of the seller and only give $25 for the horse.

When the party at St. Louis pledged themselves to promote international bimetallism, and then asserted, "until such an agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved," they in effect, like the man with the horse, put their business in the other fellow's hands; for was not that clause simply another way of saying to the foreigner, if you will not give us bimetallism we will take the gold standard, although we prefer the bimetallic standard?

Fellow citizens, I ask you in the name of American independence, does it not appear as though there was a colored gentleman somewhere in the background? Let us examine further, and we will see that the colored man wears a British coat of arms, and has his American office on Williams street, New York city.

We will make no mistakes in our conclusion if we understand the facts, and to more clearly appreciate the full international effect, of the plank under examination, let us draw another picture from human nature. We will imagine you people of Jacksonville to be a little sporty, and that you have in your midst a prize fighter of whom you are quite proud; we will suppose that Springfield has a character of the same kind, and the St. Louis Athletic club should offer $50,000 as a purse for a fistic contest between these two champions, $40,000 to be the reward of the winner and $10,000 to soothe the wounds of the defeated pugilist. We will suppose the fight is arranged and the men go into careful training, the time for the mill has at last arrived, the ring is complete, and all details perfect. A large audience has assembled and betting is liberally indulged in; of course Jacksonville sports back their home man. At the appointed hour the contestants enter the ring. Then you see your Jacksonville man is much the superior in appearance to the Springfield upstart. Your man being the quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is the more scientific. (America is quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is more scientific than any other nation on earth.) You feel sure your man will win the fight on short notice, in fact you almost pity the man from Springfield, to see that he must compete in a fistic combat with such a giant as the Jacksonville Gladiator. The referee announces that Marquis of Queensbury's rules are to govern, he looks at his watch and announces that in one minute the fight will be on, the fighters raise their hands to position. When just a few seconds of time still remains before the slugging is to commence, your Jacksonville man says to his opponent, hold on, if you don't run, I will. What, I ask you, would you think of your prize fighter then? Think of the United States training for a century for supremacy of American self-government over foreign monarchical governments, then when all things are completed for the final fight of the survival of the fittest, a great party saying to the monarchies of Europe, "we know bimetallism is right, but if you will not consent to it, then we will stick to the gold standard. If you don't run, we will." (Great laughter and applause.)

Party prejudice prevailed and through the misrepresentations of the papers and certain unscrupulous politicians the party making those representations carried the election. International bimetallic commissioners were sent to the foreign countries to procure this great international agreement, and did they get it? Facts answer no.

Let me again implore you to lay aside party prejudice and look matters squarely in the face, and we will immediately see, that not only did Mr. Wolcott and his party make a signal failure in procuring international bimetallism, but by the very terms of the St. Louis platform it was impossible for him to succeed in his alleged purpose. Now, my friends, let us suppose Mr. Wolcott and his two associates are in England talking with the rich moneyed men for international bimetallism and Mr. Wolcott is dealing out sledge-hammer argument in favor of international bimetallism, using the same argument in England the Bryan Democrats used in the campaign of 1896 in the United States. The financial men of England would then say to Mr. Wolcott, did you say that bimetallism in the United States meant 50-cent dollars? Mr. Wolcott would answer, "Yes, I said that;" whereupon the Englishman would say, "Then international bimetallism would mean international 50-cent dollars." Question No. 2. Mr. Wolcott, did not you say bimetallism in the United States meant repudiation? Yes, would come from Mr. Wolcott. Then the Englishman would reply, "Would not international bimetallism mean international repudiation?" Question No. 3. "Mr. Wolcott, did you not tell the people of the United States that free silver over there meant anarchy and lost confidence?" Again Mr. Wolcott is forced to admit that was just what he said here in 1896. In a triumphant air the Englishman would say international free silver would mean international anarchy and international lost confidence. (Laughter and applause). If Mr. Wolcott should further continue the argument, what could the poor fellow say if the Englishman would draw the Republican platform of '96 on him and read the following: "And until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved." Johnny Bull would add, "You Americans served notice on us that all we had to do was to stick to the gold standard and you would also stick to it."

"Now, we money men of England think we can get more bushels of corn, oats, rye and barley, more days labor of you fellows for what you owe us under the gold standard than we could under international bimetallism. We know it is hard on you, but it is the making of us, and we will stick to the gold standard; and as you said you would stick to it if we did, all we can do for you, Mr. Wolcott, is to serve you a fine wine supper, and tell you to return to America and stick to the gold standard." (Great applause.)

My friends, the most ridiculous proceeding I ever heard of was the Republican party sending commissioners abroad to procure international bimetallism with that plank staring them in the face. I want to ask you if you do not think that if Mr. Wolcott would have taken a carload or two of the Republican literature of 1896 and handed out the pamphlets to the Englishmen, saying this is what we think of free silver in the United States, will you help us to have it by an international action? Would not that kind of literature hurt the cause instead of helping it? For my part, I have no objections to the President sending a Senator from Colorado to the foreign countries to advocate bimetallism, but I do insist that he sent the wrong senator. Most certainly Mr. Teller could have gone abroad with a little handful of free silver literature that was left over in the campaign of '96 and accomplished more, in a day's honest consistent work, for bimetallism, than could Senator Wolcott with the tons of gold standard pamphlets published by the Republican party. (Great applause.)

A noticeable fact is that one of the greatest job lots of political trickery and deception that was ever attempted in America has been practiced in the United States since the month of June, 1896.

Later in the season the so-called Gold-standard Democrats conventioned in Indianapolis; their money plank reads, "We assert the necessity of such intelligent currency reform as will confine the government to its legitimate functions, completely separated from the banking business, and afford to all sections of our country a safe, uniform and elastic bank currency, under government supervision, measured in volume by the need of business." Strange as it may seem, while Mr. Wolcott was abroad, pretendingly for the purpose of procuring bimetallism by international agreement, the President and Secretary of the Treasury were working up a scheme to have the gold standard adopted according to the tenor of the Indianapolis platform. When we consider 7,000,000 voted for international free silver, and 6,500,000 voted for independent free silver, we see the United States has 13,500,000 bimetallists; only 134,000, or less than one per cent, voted the Gold-standard Democratic ticket. Yet, my friends, we today find Mr. Gage trying to overrule the desire of more than ninety-nine per cent and put into law the will of less than one per cent of our voting population. And what amount of money do the gold standard people want? They say they want it safe, uniform and elastic, measured in volume by the need of business. Will you tell me by whose business they wish to measure the volume of money? It cannot be the farmers' business and the merchants' business they would have to measure the volume by, for that would make a double standard of measurement, and they tell us we cannot have but one standard of measurement.

Then I ask, whose business will measure the amount under such a law? To me the answer comes back in reverberating tones repeated with emphasis, measured in volume according to the bankers' business, of course. Our philosophers tell us there are two kinds of elasticity—elasticity by compression and elasticity by expansion. Thus an elastic substance after being either compressed or expanded when released, returns to its original shape and size, so when the bankers want money expanded in volume according to the need of their business, they would expand it, and whenever their business ends are best accomplished by contraction; then, of course, contraction is the program with them. While the government is completely separated from the banking business so they can furnish no relief, we might compare that system with an alligator on the banks of a Louisiana river lying out to sun himself; he gets the bankers' elastic idea in his head, and his upper jaw flies over his back, and his mouth is twice as large as when it is closed, elasticity by expansion. (Laughter.) A sweet substance gathers on his open mouth, and the flies light there to eat it (just as the people will gather around the bankers for money when there is no other place to procure it). The flies gather thicker and thicker, and the mouth gets bigger and bigger, more and more elasticity by expansion; finally the alligator, like the banker, happens to think that there is another kind of elasticity, when down comes the upper jaw on the lower jaw and the flies are caught in the trap, and the Government shall go out of the banking business to furnish no relief or escape (cries of good, and cheers). My friends, if I mistake not, every cry of the Republican party from the time of John C. Fremont until the campaign of 1896 has been against banks issuing paper money except that the Government was strictly in the banking business. Have not they always told us, that when state or other banks issue paper money without the Government in the banking business to back up the issue, such money in case of a failure of the issuing bank became wild-cat money, and did they not say to us wild-cat money made paupers? Now they go squarely back on all they have taught us on the money question, and advocate the wild-cat money system themselves according to their own statements. One thing I will concede is, that the Republicans and gold standard Democrats are certainly on their past statements entitled to the $1,000,000 offered by the United States patent office for the invention of a perpetual motion, would not they have a complete and perpetual motion in their bank issuing money with the Government completely separate from the banking business, for we see the bank issue would be made of paper, so we have the perpetual motion in this simple problem. Rags make paper, paper makes money, money makes banks, banks make paupers, and paupers make rags. Rags make paper, paper makes money (great cheer and laughter).