Page images

latter place we were met by Mr. and Mrs. E. C. Perrine, and driven to their home at Upper Red Hook, about six miles back from the river, where we remained one week. Mrs. Perrine was Mrs. Bryan's teacher in the Academy at Jacksonville, and the warm friendship which grew up between them was continued after the teacher had returned to New York and the pupil had gone to her Nebraska home. When we were casting about for a place of rest, this home naturally suggested itself, and upon arrival we found it even better suited to our purpose than we had anticipated. Mr. and Mrs. Perrine left nothing undone to make our stay enjoyable.

Upper Red Hook is a very small village, consisting of a hotel, a postoffice, a store, two or three churches, and a few residences. A spirit of restfulness pervades the town and the country roads furnish well-shaded drives. There was a reception the evening of our arrival, attended by the neighbors for miles around. When my fondness for green corn became known, the farmers generously supplied our table, and justice compels me to add that the quality was fully equal to the Nebraska article.

There were some lakes near by where we made rather an unsuccessful attempt at fishing. As an illustration of the manner in which a candidate's action is watched by both friendly and unfriendly eyes, I here record the fact that as soon as the papers announced the catching of a fish, I was at once warned by numerous letters not to fish any more during the campaign, lest I should offend those who had become prejudiced against presidential fishing.

One afternoon was devoted to a drive down the river to Rhinecliffe and a visit to Governor Morton's farm. The overseer kindly took us through the grounds, showed the ninety-acre cornfield, the wonder of that portion of the State, gave us a sample of creamery butter, inducted us into the mysteries of incubators and spring poultry, and at last took us through the Governor's famous barn and pointed out the most noted of his herd. On our return we stopped for supper at Rhinebeck, where we found a crowd assembled and a band ready to give us a serenade. My speech at Rhinebeck was as follows:

Rhinebeck Speech.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I think I can go further even than the chairman of this impromptu meeting. He says that to be the President of the United States is to be greater than to be a Roman, or a king. But few can be President, and I rejoice that I live in a land where to be a citizen is greater than to be a king. I rejoice that I live in a land where those

[ocr errors]

who exercise authority derive that authority from the consent of the governed and do not rule by the right divine.

In this land, whether we live along the Hudson, or on the Western . prairies, we stand upon a common plane and we participate in a government which represents us all. We may belong to different parties, but I trust I may be able to express the desire of each of you, as well as of myself, when I say that we ought to belong at all times to that party which, in our judgment, will enable us best to serve our country.

Parties are instruments, not ends. They are the means we use to secure that which we believe to be best for us, for our families, and for our fellows. Issues arise from time to time, and it is the duty of every citizen who loves his country, and who appreciates the responsibilities which rest upon him, to study each issue as it arises.

I am not here tonight to make you a political speech. I am in your midst to rest. But I cannot withstand the temptation at this time to beg that you will study, if you have not done so before, that issue which in this campaign is paramount. I know that among our neighbors in the East there are many who have regarded our position upon the money question as entirely wrong, and they speak of the silver sentiment as a sort of disease.

I want to beg of you, my friends, to believe that we, who advocate the restoration of the money of the Constitution, are not seeking that policy because we believe that it is going to give us an advantage over somebody else. We have studied the question as best we could, and we honestly believe that there can be no permanent, no general prosperity in this country until we stop the conspiracy of those who would make gold the only standard of the world and make all other things depend upon that alone.

We believe that while the struggle for gold goes on other things must become cheap; that as we increase the demand for that one thing, gold, we must decrease the price of all those things which are exchanged for gold, and we believe that this falling of prices, compelled by legislation, is destructive of the energies, the industries and the hope of the toiling masses of the United States and of the world. I beg of you, when you are considering this question, to remember that this is a great nation, and that it is made up of 70,000,000 people, each the equal of the other.

I have visited some of your beautiful villas along the Hudson. I have been charmed with their beauty, but when you study this question, remember that those, who, instead of occupying these magnificent places, must toil all day under the summer sun, have just as much interest in the money question as anybody else. Remember, that this question cannot be viewed from the standpoint of any class of people.

It reaches every man, woman and child in the land, and you should make your view broad enough to comprehend them all, because I believe I speak the truth when I say that the prosperity of the well-to-do rests upon the prosperity of those who toil, and that you cannot have a financial policy which brings distress to those who create wealth, without, in the end, reaching those who rest upon these toilers. And, more than that, you cannot have a policy which brings prosperity to the masses without the prosperity proving of benefit to all mankind.

I beg that in your consideration of this question, you will study the interests of all, and not merely the interests of those who may be permanently benefited by the rise in the value of the dollar, and, when you have made up your mind, I desire each of you to feel that you have the right to express your own view. The ballot was not given in order that one man should vote for many, or that one man should compel others to vote with him, or purchase their votes.

It was given in order that each man might make his ballot represent a free man's will, and, when each one, studying as he will and voting as he likes, expresses himself we take a majority, and then we all support the one who is elected and hold up his hands while he administers for us the government, whether we agree with his views or not.

Saturday afternoon we visited Madalin and there I made my first campaign speech, a portion of which is given below:

Madalin Speech.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: We are entering upon a campaign which is a remarkable one in many respects. Heretofore, at least during the last twenty-five or thirty years, each party has gone into the campaign practically solid, presenting a united front against the opposing party. But in this campaign there has been practically a bolt from every convention which has been held. What does this mean? It means that convictions are deeper this year than they have been heretofore.

It means that people are not so willing now as they have been to allow the platform of a party to control their action. Men are thinking this year with more of earnestness and intensity than they have in recent years, and the results of this thinking will be manifested when the time comes to register the will of this great nation, and between that time and this hour we expect to present to those who must act upon the questions the issues of this campaign.

When our party at Chicago wrote the platform which it did, we knew that it would offend some people. No party can take a plain, strong, emphatic position upon any question without offending somebody. We declared in that platform what we believed to be right. We declared there the policies which we believed to be best for the American people, and when we did it we knew that it would alienate some.

Let me read one of the planks of that platform:

We are opposed to the issuing of interest bearing bonds of the United States in time of peace, and condemn the trafficking with banking syndicates which, in exchange for bonds, and at an enormous profit to themselves, supply the Federal Treasury with gold to maintain the policy of gold monometallism.

That is one of the planks. That was not put in there to attract the love of those who have grown rich out of the Government's extremities. We did not expect those who have a passage way from the Federal Treasury to their offices to join with us in closing up the passage way. We did not expect those who are making a profit out of a gold standard and out of the embarrassment which it brings to the Treasury to join with us in putting an end to the gold

[ocr errors]

standard. Why, if we had expected it, we would have expected it in the face of all the history of the past.

Do you remember the Good Book tells us that some 1800 years ago a man named Demetrius complained of the preaching of the Gospel. Why? He said, "It destroys the business in which we are engaged. We are making images for the worship of Diana, and these people say that they be not gods that are made with hands."

But Demetrius was much like men who have lived since his day. When he had made up his mind that the preaching of the Gospel interfered with his business he didn't go out and say to the world, "Our business is being injured and we are mad." What did he say? He said, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians."

We have some today who are very much like Demetrius. They know that the restoration of bimetallism destroys the business in which they have been engaged.

But when they make public speeches they don't say that the Democratic party is wrong because it interferes with their business. What do they say? They say "Great is sound money; great is an honest dollar."

I say this platform was not written to attract their votes. It was written because we want to destroy the business in which they are engaged. But, my friends, if those who have made a profit out of the Government's financial policy array themselves against the Democratic party, may or may we not expect those who believe that we are right to come to our rescue and fill up the ranks that are being thus depleted?

If we must part company with those who believe in a government of syndicates, by syndicates and for syndicates, may we not appeal with confidence to those who believe that "a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not perish from the earth?"

If these men who pride themselves upon their prominence in the business world and who glory in the title of business men are going to make a business out of politics, and are going to use their ballots to increase their incomes, I beg you to consider whether the great toiling masses of this nation have not a right to make a business out of politics once and protect their homes and their families.

I have not been in the State of New York long. I have not met many of your people. And yet in the short time that I have been here I have met enough Republicans who have told me that they were going to vote our ticket to make up for every prominent Democrat that has deserted us. And we welcome the coming guests as we speed those who are parting.

Now, my friends, this is a practical question. It is a question which you must consider for yourselves.

The gentleman who has preceded me has very properly told you that you are competent to settle this question for yourselves. The founders of our Government never imagined that a time would come when there would be only a few people in this country who would be competent to settle a great public question. If they had they would have written in the Constitution that on most questions everybody could vote, but that on the money question only the

financiers could vote. It is hollow mockery to grant to the people a right in your Constitution and then deny them the privilege of exercising the right.

People Can Be Trusted.

I assert that the people of the United States, those who produce wealth as well as those who exchange it, have sufficient patriotism and sufficient intelligence to sit in judgment upon every question which has arisen or which will arise, no matter how long our Government may endure. The great political questions are in their final analysis great moral questions, and it requires no extended experience in the handling of money to enable a man to tell right from wrong.

And, more than this, this money question will not be settled until the great common people act upon it. No question is settled until the masses settle it. Abraham Lincoln said that the Lord must have loved the common people, because He made so many of them. He was right about it.

The common people are the only people who have ever supported a reform that had for its object the benefit of the human race.

I do not mean to say that there have not been exceptions to the rule. I do not mean to say that you have not found among the masses at all times those who are ready to betray those who toiled with them if they could see some chance of personal elevation.

Nor do I mean to say that those who have got beyond the ranks of the common people are entirely unmindful of the claims of brotherhood upon them. But I say as a general rule that the common people here and everywhere have been the support and the only great support of every measure of reform.

Now you have a right to take this question, examine it, and form your own opinion, and the ballot is given to you in order that you may express your own opinion when you come to vote, and not be required to accept somebody else's opinion.

And I am going to call your attention to just a few things this afternoon for you to consider when you are trying to make up your minds what you should do.

Our opponents are all divided as to the policy which should be pursued. You take the gold standard Democrats. Some of them say they ought to come out openly and indorse the Republican candidate, so as to be sure and elect him. Others say, "No, that would be dangerous, because unless we have a candidate of our own there will be a great many Democrats who will be foolish enough to vote the Democratic ticket."

And there they are divided. They all want the same object. They all want to elect the Republican candidate, because they believe that Democracy is better exemplified through Republicanism than through Democracy.

But I say they are divided as to the means of getting at it, and some say that they can elect the Republican candidate better by having a candidae of their own to fool Democrats with than they can by openly supporting the Republican ticket.

Not only are they divided there, but they are divided all the way through when they come to argument. Why, some of them will start out to show that the gold standard is a good thing, and after one of their speakers gets well along

« PreviousContinue »