SPEECHES OF 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 cryEven 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 nightFound 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 findPoor, wretched father and talk very kind;If they would stop him from drinking, thenI should be so very happy again.Is it too late, temperance men? Please tryOr 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.'
"'Out in the gloomy night, sadly I roam,I have no mother dear, no pleasant home;Nobody cares for me, no one would cryEven 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.
"'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 nightFound their dead faces all silent and white;Then with big tears slowly dropping I said,"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 findPoor, wretched father and talk very kind;If they would stop him from drinking, thenI should be so very happy again.Is it too late, temperance men? Please tryOr 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.'
"'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 closedamid 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.)
(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).
Now, my friends, let me read you a plank in a platform that contains the spirit upon which our forefathers freed the thirteen American colonies from England, the spirit on which their descendants maintained American liberty and builded from 3,000,000 population along the Atlantic shores in 1781, a nation of 70,000,000 grand Anglo-Americans, with their half a hundred states and territories extending from the rock bound coast of the pine tree state to the golden gates of California, stretching over a vast area of more than 3,000,000 square miles, with great cities, towns, villages and hamlets, with our colleges and universities that are equaled by none in Europe. I will now read you the money plank of the Chicago platform, which contains the spirit represented by the statute at New York, of liberty enlightening the world. It is as follows: "We demand a free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender equally with gold, for the payment of all debts public and private, and we favor such legislation as will in the future prevent the demonetization of any kind of legal tender money by private contract." While bimetallism is the theme this evening, you will excuse me for intruding on your time long enough to briefly comment on the spirit of that plank that shines prominently above all other issues in the Chicago platform—it is these simple words, "Without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation." I want to ask you, what would have been the result if our forefathers in 1776 had adopted any other spirit than this? Does not the answer immediately echo that we would be today English?
History tells us that while the British red coats with their muskets were invading the colonies, a handful of bold liberty loving men met at Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence. You may read that instrument and you will see that it declares for American liberty from an American point of view, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. When bold old non-international agreement John Hancock read that declaration, he made a speech to the multitude in front of Liberty hall, in which he implored them to throw aside trivial differences, and on the main question of independence, all good liberty loving people should hang together. Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must all hang together or we will all hang separate." In Franklin's witticism, I think I can see the solution of our present financial trouble—the good people of all parties must solve the problem, then we must all hang together or we will all hang separately to the tail of the old British lion, and while we voters are thus suspended, the cubs of that lion will devour the young Anglo-American eagles before they scarcely have time to scream for mercy.
Not only did that spirit of independence pervade in Philadelphia in 1776, but it was foremost at Bunker Hill. But Benedict Arnold and Major Andre seemed to have taken a different view, and the former fled to English assistance, the latter was executed because of his attempt to do likewise. But the spirit of independence, without waiting for the consent of any other nation, shone forth like a plumed knight or a mighty gladiator on the 19th day of October, 1781, at Yorktown, when the British gave up their swords and surrendered to the liberty loving fathers of America. Do you think Cornwallis would have surrendered to Washington if the Colonial Congress had declared that they would promote independence by international agreement, and until such agreement could be obtained, the existing will of King George must be maintained, and if Washington and his army had fought for English instead of American supremacy?
I want to say to you that it was not the international agreement spirit that won in the war of 1812 at New Orleans. General Jackson told his Kentucky riflemen to keep their powder dry and guns well loaded, and when they were close enough to see the white of the enemies' eyes to shoot directly between them. History tells us that the third volley charmed and the British surrendered to the American army once more without an international agreement.
In the blackest of the dark days of the late rebellion when the possible, and to a certain extent the seeming probable success of the confederacy was spreading like an appalling cloud over our country, we find it on record that the English were preparing their man-of-war and navy to assist the South when the illustrious Lincoln said, "Hands off," and it was so; suppose Mr. Lincoln had said to England, "Let us have an international agreement that you are not to interfere." Why, my friends, I believe England would have signed such an agreement the day after Mr. Lincoln had acknowledged the independence of the Southern States, and not before. We may as well know that the success of a Republican or Democratic form of government is envied by all the monarchies or empires where the people have less self-government. The gold standard monarchies or empires will never, knowingly, do anything to improve times in a republic and thus create among their subjects a desire to throw off the monarchial yoke of oppression.
I know that much has been said against the American republic becoming entangled with the European powers, but I fear that many in treating on this line do not show the real menace of such an entanglement. We all know that the laws of the empires and monarchies are in the interest of the moneyed classes, and we are proud to say that in America our laws are for the masses.
Let me tell you by way of comparison why we should keep out of an international agreement entanglement on the money question. I will use the tariff as an illustration. I care not what your politics may be, you will all agree with me that there was one redeeming feature in the McKinley bill. That some good feature was in the Wilson-Gormon act, and the same quality of goodness today shines forth in the present Dingley tariff law. Do you ask what that feature is? I answer it is this: That law was passed by the independent action of the American Congress. If we do not like it we can repeal it, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.
Our Government bonds are all payable in coins of the United States of the standard weight and value of July 14, 1870; that weight was 23.22 grains of gold or 371.25 grains of silver to the dollar. The value of those coins was that they were a legal tender in the payment of debts.
If we have an international agreement for bimetallism we can not have it all our own way—the foreigner would be entitled to a voice. Suppose we would fix the ratio at any other than the ratio of July 14th, 1870. Then our dollars would no longer be of the weight that the bonds call for and the foreigner would have the best of us, for our own coins would not be a legal tender in payment of our bonds. Now suppose we wanted to repeal that law, could we repeal it by international agreement? Well, I guess not. The foreigners would never consent to the repeal of a law that was to their advantage. Therein lies the real menace of an international agreement even if we could get it. The only way we could ever get rid of that agreement would be just to back squarely out, then we might properly be called repudiators.
We often hear it said that the congress of 1792 used great care to put just a dollar's worth of silver in a silver dollar and dollar's worth of gold in the gold dollar. Now while it is true that according to the law of April 12, 1792, a dollar's worth of silver was put in the silver dollar, the amount of silver became worth a dollar as a creature of law, and it is not true that the silver dollar became worth a dollar because of the value of the silver contained in it. That congress made the dollar just as God made man. God said, "Let us make man," and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. God did not study and bother his mind about taking a man's worth of dust to make a man. No, he took some dust of the ground and formed therefrom a man and by his own authority breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and man thus became a living soul. God then gave man legal authority over the living creatures of the earth and also gave him authority to replenish the earth. Man's rights came from the power of God.
The constitution says congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. So congress made the dollar as God made man, and the American congress formed the dollar of the silver and gold of the earth, put the eagle on one side of the coin and breathed into that coin the legal tender law, and the bimetallic dollar became a living soul of prosperity for eighty-one years as long as the silver and gold were allowed to fly side by side; but when in 1873 the wings were clipped from the silver and the legal tender breath shut off, then the gold had to do all the work; it being too weak to do so, adversity came.
They tell us that law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes in value. Let us for a moment form ourselves into a party of truthseekers and look up the record as to that proposition. The law of April 2nd, 1792, said 371.75 grains of silver could be freely coined into one dollar, or two halves, or four quarters, or ten dimes, each to be a legal tender at its face value, if not worn, for any amount; that law also said 24.75 grains of gold could be coined into coins of the value of the dollar; of course you understand the gold was in higher denominations than the dollar. Now let us watch carefully as to whether or not the law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes. In 1834 the law said 23.20 grains of gold when coined in American money constituted a dollar. Let me see, the gold has changed all at once and the law regulates the amount of gold that goes in a dollar. In 1837, the law requires 23.22 grains of gold to the dollar, another change. In 1853 the law says that no longer shall it require 371.75 grains of silver to make a dollar's worth of fractional coins, but that 342.22 grains of silver would make two halves, four quarters or ten dimes, and they should be a legal tender in the payment of debts for $5. In '73 the coinage of the standard silver dollar was stopped by law, and silver fell in price. In 1878 the Bland-Allison act allowed the coinage of the standard silver dollar. In 1890 the Sherman act called for more silver coinage and the price of silver immediately advanced. In 1893 the coinage of silver was again stopped and the price of silver dropped, hence we see that the law does regulate values, and that gold does change in value so far even as the dollar is concerned. A teacher once told Benjamin Franklin that a boy told him, if he would take a tub weighing 100 pounds and put 500 pounds of water in it, which only about half filled the tub, the tub and water would weigh 600 pounds, but if he would put a live fish weighing 100 pounds in the tub, the tub, water and fish would not weigh more than 600 pounds. Can you explain that curious contradiction of the law of gravity, asked the teacher of Franklin. Whereupon Mr. Franklin requested his interrogator to call at his office next day. Franklin procured a tub weighing 100 pounds, put in it 500 pounds of water, and the weight was 600 pounds, just as the boy had told the teacher; then Mr. Franklin added a 100-pound live fish and the total weight was 700 pounds. The next day the teacher called on Franklin for his solution of the great problem, whereupon Franklin replied, there was but one solution to the question. "What is that?" anxiously inquired the visitor. "Why," replied Franklin, "the boy lied."
My friends, when they tell us the law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes, and when we examine the records and see that gold does change and that law does regulate value, we say there is but one answer to them, and that is just as Franklin answered the teacher about the boy.
We hear it said by the Republicans that free silver would drive gold out of the country; our Democratic friends tell us that free silver will not drive gold out of the country. So we see on that point people seem to differ in opinion. For my part I believe that free silver either will drive the gold out or else it will not. I want to ask the Republicans to acknowledge for the sake of argument that silver would not drive the gold out. Now, let us examine the question if silver don't drive the gold out, and we have a block of gold large enough to make into $100, and a block of silver sufficiently large to make into a like amount, if the gold-standard Democratic idea prevails, all the money we could coin would be the $100 from the gold, for silver could not be coined, but if bimetallism prevailed we could coin $100 from the gold and $100 from the silver, making $200, that is, if the silver does not drive out the gold. But the Republicans may urge that free silver would drive out the gold by the gold going at a premium over silver, then we would coin the block of silver into 100 legal tender dollars and the gold would be exchanged for a block of silver say 25 per cent larger than the block that drove it out, and we would coin that block into 125 legal tender dollars, adding it to the silver that stayed at home, making 225 dollars, just $25 more than we would have if the gold did not advance to a premium. But they tell us that would be coining the cheapest metal. Now, honor bright, you Republicans cannot complain of that for the reason I will presently explain. We often hear it urged that during the eighty-one years of bimetallism in the United States only about 8,000,000 silver dollars were coined, and that subsequently to 1873 more than 400,000,000 have been coined. True, there were only about 8,000,000 dollar pieces made of the silver metal, but there were more than $8,000,000 made because of the silver, for as France had a ratio of 15½ to 1 against our ratio of 16 to 1 our gold stayed at home and the silver was at a 3 per cent premium over the gold according to the French ratio, then a $100 block of gold drove a $100 block of silver to France, and drove from France to America a block of gold large enough to make $103. So we had our gold made into $100, and the gold that came from France in exchange for silver made into $103, making a total of $203, whereas we could only have had $200 if one metal had not gone at a premium. History, arithmetic and common sense prove the correctness of this proposition.
Abraham Lincoln once said he did not know much about the tariff question, but he thought he knew enough to know that if we bought $20 worth of steel rails of a foreigner the foreigner would have the money and we would have the rails; but if we made the rails in America and bought them of an American, America would have the money and the rails, too. Now, my Republican friends, don't you believe that? I do. I may not know much about the money question, but I think I know enough to know that if under the gold standard we borrow $20,000,000 of a foreigner, when we pay it back the foreigner will have the money and the interest, too, but if we coin the silver, which is an American product, into legal tender dollars, borrow $20,000,000 of an American, when we pay it back it kind of seems to me somehow that America will have the money and the interest, too. What say you, Lincoln Republicans? But another objection is that we would have a great commerce destroying flood of silver in this country. Let us examine that proposition as seekers after the truth. Here comes Mr. Foreigner with a carload or two of silver, the United States mints coin it into legal tender American dollars and hands it back to Mr. Foreigner. Now, Mr. Foreigner will either take that silver money away with him or else he will leave it here. If he takes it away it will not flood this country, will it? Well, if he leaves it here he will either give it to us or buy something with it. Now, if he gives it to us, will not you Republicans be willing to take your share? Won't you Democrats willingly receive your share? And, I ask, is there a gold standard banker in all America who would not, with just a tiny wee bit of persuading, be willing to take the shares of both Republicans and Democrats? Now, if Mr. Foreigner should buy something with this great flood of silver we can see the wisdom of Mr. Gladstone when he said, "If America should adopt bimetallism they would within six weeks control the markets of the world."
A favorite expression of our Republican friends is, that because Mexico does not maintain a parity between gold and silver under bimetallism, the United States cannot. When a man tells us that we should pity him. If we examine that question by comparison we will see the party making such a statement is either not sincere, or else he is not posted on the relative strength of the United States and Mexico. Records show that Mexico has 700,000 square miles of land, more than one-half of which is nearly or quite barren desert or waste land, leaving only about 350,000 miles of arable land, 4,981 miles of railway, 27,861 miles of telegraph line and a population of 10,000,000 Indians and Spaniards. The United States has 3,460,000 square miles, over two-thirds of which is arable land, and very productive of the staple articles consumed by the most enlightened nations of the world. We have 170,000 miles of railway, 780,000 miles of telegraph line, and a population of 72,000,000 Anglo-Americans; thus we see we have over ten times as much arable land exclusive of Alaska, thirty-four times as much railway, twenty-nine times as much telegraph line, and over seven times the population of Mexico. In size, wealth, commerce and science, Mexico is not to be compared with the United States.
When we compare Mexico with the United States, we are comparing it with the most gigantic country of the nineteenth century. You can form the United States into eighteen states each as large as Spain, or thirty-one states as large as Italy, or sixty-two states as large as England and Wales. What a mighty confederation of land, water, commerce, wealth and people is the United States when we come to think of it. Why, friends, we can take five of the six first-class countries of Europe—France, Great Britain and Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy, then add Mexico—let some mighty smith forge them all together into one vast empire, and you can lay them all down in the United States, west of the Hudson river, twice.
Wittingly has it been said that the United States has the natural basis for the greatest continuous government ever established by man. Mexico has less than 100 miles of inland navigation, while the United States has over 35,000 miles. Steam boats can go up the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers over 2,500 miles from the Gulf, thus carrying our seaboard into the very heart of our continent. As to our resources, the crop of 1879, after feeding our population, furnished for export 283,000,000 bushels of grain. This vast crop was raised on 164,215 square miles, or less than one-twelfth of our arable land. It is estimated that if all our arable land was under the plow, it would feed a population of 1,000,000,000 people, and furnish for export 1,000,000,000 bushels of grain food for export. But what can we say of the people of Mexico and the United States? The difference in our population is not alone the difference between 10,000,000 in Mexico and 72,000,000 in the United States, but the difference between 10,000,000 Indians and Spaniards and 72,000,000 Anglo-Americans.
Mexicans and Indians are but semi-civilized, and the Spaniards are, generally speaking, a sluggardly, non-advancing people, while the Anglo-Americans of the United States are the most highly civilized people on the earth, wide awake and progressive in science, literature and mechanical inventions. At a recent exposition in Paris where the foremost nations of the world were exhibiting for premiums five gold medals were given for the greatest inventions or discoveries, and how many came to the United States? Only five; that is all. Now to say that because Mexico cannot maintain a parity between gold and silver, America cannot, is just about like saying that a Kentucky race horse cannot beat an English horse because a Mexican donkey cannot do so. My friends, our ability to maintain a parity between gold and silver is our ability to absorb money in our daily and yearly business. Give our country the increased volume of money that bimetallism will give us instead of the necessary contracted volume that the gold standard leaves us, and we will have a genuine lasting wave of prosperity moving westward from New England, starting the shops at increased wages. That wave will meet with joy the western prosperity wave that sets in motion the mining and agricultural interests of a patient and patriotic people, the eastern and western wave will shake hands with the southern cotton growers and northern wheat raisers. From the four quarters of our nation prosperity will spring up from an American point of view without waiting for the aid or consent of any other country, and without international agreement. Then will a mighty people standing for humanity and general prosperity, shout aloud, "We lead, let others follow." I thank you for your attention. Good night.