CHAPTER XLIII.

F

AT MINNEAPOLIS AND DULUTH.

OUR meetings were held in Minneapolis on Monday night, the first one at the Exposition Building, the hall in which the Republican National Convention was held in 1892. Below will be found a portion of the speech delivered on this occasion:

Minneapolis Speech-Exposition Building.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Before entering upon the discussion of any political question, I desire to express my appreciation of the kindly feeling which has prompted the gift presented to me in your presence. I am the more gratified because of the source irom which it comes. When I was in St. Louis a few weeks ago, the horseshoers presented to me a silver horseshoe which I promised to hang over the doors of the White House, if I am elected. Over in St. Paul last Saturday night the laboring men gave me a pen with a silver holder with the instruction that I should use them in signing the free coinage bill which will come to me if I am elected. And tonight the laboring men of this city have been thoughtful enough to provide me with this beautiful inkstand, which is a part of the necessary outfit. Now that I have a pen, penholder and inkstand, I only need the ink to be properly equipped for the work. As I remarked to the laboring men of St. Paul, I would not favor the free coinage of silver did I not believe that it would be for the best interests of those who toil. I have not belonged to that class known distinctively as workingmen, being a lawyer by profession, but I have been taught that the legal profession must have something to rest upon. Lawyers do not produce wealth, and unless wealth is first produced they will suffer. I believe that all the classes which rest upon the producers of wealth can only prosper permanently when the producers of wealth are prosperous, and, therefore, I am not unselfish when I desire such legislation as will enable the people to have more than enough to eat and drink and wear. I want them to have enough to be comfortable, because until they produce there is nothing to distribute, and if they simply produce without enjoying, the production of wealth will be so discouraged that production will finally cease.

I desire to say also before proceeding further that I appreciate the honor which has been done me tonight by these veterans of the war who have marched as a body guard. I would not receive the support of these soldiers if I thought their interests could not be intrusted to those who believe in an American financial policy. I am confident that the interest of those who fought thirty years ago that this Union might be one will be safe in the hands of those who are fighting today a great battle which will determine whether this nation, being one, is big enough to attend to its own business. I am informed that the Re

publicans have been circulating in this city an editorial which was once published in the Omaha World-Herald. I was editor of the Omaha World-Herald for nearly two years, but my editorial work began about two years after the publication of the editorial to which I refer. That editorial criticised pension legislation, but those who are circulating it know that it was published before I was at all connected with the paper, and that I was in no way responsible for it. If they have not known it heretofore, they know it now, and will not be free from criticism if they use it hereafter. The fact that they attempt to use an editorial which I did not write is proof that they have not found anything in my four years of Congressional life which they can use.

Let me call your attention to another matter. In my travels over the country I have received letters asking me to answer all kinds of questions. I do not always pay attention to these requests because I desire to make my own speech instead of having it outlined for me by men who do not have as much interest in our cause as I have, but I have received a letter today from so distinguished a citizen of Minneapolis that I think I am justified in making some reference to it. The letter is dated October 12 and signed by W. D. Washburn, who is, I believe, an ex-Senator from this State. In this letter he asks me many questions about my votes and speeches in the House of Representatives on the tariff bill. I answer these questions by respectfully referring him to the Congressional Record, but when he asks me to enter into a discussion of the tariff question I reply to him that there is a question before the American people of far greater importance. The tariff question can be settled at any time, but there is one question which must be settled now. If he wants me to discuss the tariff, I reply to him that if he will join me in putting a prohibitory duty on foreign financial policies I will then discuss the rest of the schedule with him. If he is not willing to discriminate against that foreign product by a prohibitory duty, then I suggest that he wait until the money question is settled by international agreement and afterward submit the tariff question to international agreement. I am not going to discuss the tariff question, because I desire to call your attention to the paramount issue of this campaign, declared to be so by three political parties, and considered so even by the Republicans, who are afraid to discuss it and are attempting to drag in the tariff question instead.

But there is a part of the letter which I think you ought to hear. It is good, and I am not willing to deny you any good thing. He says:

The audience will be composed, I presume, very largely of laboring men and wage earners, all of a high order. This class of people, like others, dominated by human selfishness so far as their own interests are concerned, naturally prefer to receive their wages in dollars worth one hundred cents, rather than in those worth only fifty-three cents.

I take for my text the words "like others, dominated by human selfishness so far as their own interests are concerned." Laboring men, I want to ask you why it is that every goldbug says you are selfish and that your vote will be influenced by selfish considerations, while he pretends to be a philanthropist and insists that he loves honest money simply because it will help other people. I want to know why it is that these goldbugs are so sure that everybody else will be influenced by selfish considerations and so positive that personal inter

ests cannot affect them. Why is it, my friends? I will tell you why. If a man believes that a proposed law is good for himself and also good for others, he will admit that it is good for himself; but if he thinks a law is good for himself and bad for others, he will not admit that it is good for him. Now, that is a rule which you can examine and apply in everyday life, and you will find that men never deny that a thing is good for them so long as they can show that others share the benefit. It is only when they believe that they prosper by the adversity of others that you find them denying the benefit to themselves.

There is one thing that I like about the advocates of free coinage, and that is that they do not pose as "holier than thou" people. Ask a silver man why he wants bimetallism, and he says that he wants it because it is good for him and he believes that it is good for others also. He knows that the gold standard destroys opportunity for work and increases the number of idle men, and he knows that idle men are a menace to his own employment. Ask a farmer why he wants bimetallism and he will tell you that he believes it is good for him and for others also. He tells you that he suffers from falling prices, and that he believes the only way to stop falling prices is to increase the volume of standard money, and he knows that that can only be done by restoring silver to its ancient position by the side of gold. Ask a business man why he wants bimetallism, and he will tell you that he believes bimetallism will be good for him and for others also. He will tell you that he makes a living out of those to whom he sells, not out of those from whom he borrows. He will tell you that he can sell more goods when people are able to buy, and that, therefore, he believes bimetallism will bring prosperity. But ask one of the great financiers why he is in favor of the gold standard. Will he say that it is because it is good for him? You never heard one of them say that. Some of them even say that free coinage will be good for them but that they do not want anything which will help them. They pretend to want the gold standard because it will be good for the laboring man. Yes, my friends, those financiers are so concerned about those who toil, that whenever one of them is troubled with sleeplessness, his physician never asks him the cause of the trouble but just tells him that his sleep will be restored if he will quit worrying about the laboring man. The financier says that he is in favor of the gold standard because it will help the farmer, the laborer, and the business man. When you tell him that the laboring men, the farmers and the business men are willing to risk bimetallism, he rises to the full height of his moral stature and exclaims:

But shall I let them hurt themselves?

No, he will cram the gold standard down their throats whether they want it or not, and he will justify his conduct on the ground that he loves them better than he loves himself. Do you believe it, my friends? I do not. I say that the financier is just as good as anybody else, but I deny that he is better. I am willing to admit that he is as unselfish as others, but I deny that he is more unselfish. I challenge you to find in six thousand years of recorded history a single page which proves that the owning and loaning of money purges mankind from the dross of selfishness.

Is Mr. Washburn, "like others, dominated by human selfishness?" Are all people dominated by human selfishness? If so, does it not explain why the heads of the trusts are against our ticket? But why don't they say that it is

because they are dominated by human selfishness and know that the election of the Chicago ticket will hurt the trusts? Why is it that the bond syndicates are against us? Is it because they are dominated by human selfishness? Why don't these men come out and openly declare that they are opposed to our platform because it interferes with their business of bleeding the government? But no, we are told that these financiers are unselfish, and that in spite of all the good that free coinage would bring to them, they have the moral courage to turn their backs upon their own welfare and plead for the welfare of the common people.

But there is another thing which I wish you would notice. I believe Mr. Washburn is a large employer of labor. Now if he is dominated by human selfishness, why is he worrying so much about the possibility of having to pay his employes in fifty-three cent dollars? If his employes are to be paid in cheap dollars, then Mr. Washburn will make a larger profit out of their labor, and he ought to rejoice over it if he, “like others, is dominated by human selfishness;" but no, he desires to pose before his employes as one who is willing to deny himself the advantage of paying in cheap dollars in order that the employes may not lose by free coinage. What reason have you to believe that he is less selfish than his employes? Now, my friends, I want to say to you that you cannot suffer if you are his employes, because any man who is interested enough in his employes to warn them of the evil effects of free coinage before the election, will love his employes well enough after the election to take care of them. If under free coinage the dollar will be a fifty-three cent dollar, then Mr. Washburn can get nearly twice as many of such dollars for his product, and he can, therefore, pay wages which will buy as much as the wages paid today and still make as much profit as he does now. If he loves you, therefore, he will not let you suffer, and if he does not love you well enough to protect you after the election, then you have reason to doubt the love which he pretends before the election, when he tries to make you vote as he votes.

We are in favor of bimetallism, and we support our claim by logic which cannot be overcome, and our opponents prove their inability to meet us on this question when they attempt to turn the discussion to some other question. Mr. Washburn complains of the Wilson bill. I arrived in town late this afternoon, and was handed an envelope containing an extract from a speech which Mr. Washburn delivered in the Senate of the United States on the 11th day of July, 1892. I have not had an opportunity to verify this speech by the Congressional Record. I make this explanation because I am careful not to do any one an injustice, and when I read this I will ask Mr. Washburn, if he is in the room, to say whether I am quoting him correctly. (After a pause.) He does not seem to be here. I will read this, and if when I am gone you learn that it is an incorrect quotation, I ask you to give it no further consideration. In this extract I find that Mr. Washburn gives the price of wheat beginning with the year 1865 and continuing to 1890, and in speaking of the price he uses these words:

The hopes of the producer have been turned to ashes, the grain dealer and miller and the business men have been disappointed. The balance of trade in favor of this country that everyone looked to with so much assurance, has been much below the general estimate, probably due to the depreciation of the prices in agriculture and fruit exports of $200,000,000. Gold is still leaving the country, and there is but little left

to support general business, and I think there is a general disappointment that with the tariff of 1890 we do not see better times.

If this quotation is correct, then Senator Washburn tells you that there was general disappointment that the tariff of 1890 was not followed by better times. And again he says:

The people of the country were startled, I certainly was, when the statement was made in one of the magazines a few weeks since, that one-half of the volume of wealth of this country is owned by thirty-six thousand persons.

And still again he says:

The millionaires, and the tens of millionaires, and the hundreds of millionaires have never created nor earned their wealth, and the royal road to wealth has been through illegitimate speculation, stock exchanges and grain gambling, railroad wrecking and trusts, and the whole volume of iniquities that have developed in the nefarious methods of the stock exchanges of this country.

Now then, my friends, this Senator has expressed his alarm over the fact that over half of the wealth of the country is owned by only thirty-six thousand persons, that the millionaires have neither created nor earned their wealth, and that the royal road to wealth has been through illegitimate speculations, stock and grain gambling, railroad wrecking, trusts, etc. Ought the Senator to be surprised if we are alarmed now at the same thing which scared him four years ago? And ought he not to be alarmed now when he finds that nearly every man whom he described there, and nearly every class which he denounced there, unite in supporting of the same ticket which he is supporting? If it is alarming that thirty-six thousand people own half the wealth of the country, is it not also alarming that these same people are uniting to control legislation in order that they may continue to dominate the politics of this country? Is it not alarming that all the great trusts of this country have gathered together behind the bulwark which the Republican party has thrown up, and have contributed to a corruption fund which has no parallel in the political history of this country? Is it not alarming that these combinations are seeking to control the election in order that they may get back out of the people more than they spent in trying to overcome the people?

Now, my friends, a cause is known, like an individual, by the company it keeps, and if you will only look for a moment at the company it is keeping, you will get a good idea of the gold standard. Show me those who have preyed upon the public, show me those who have used the instrumentalities of government for private gain, and I will show you the men who think my election will be dangerous to this country. I am not surprised that in Minnesota and elsewhere Republicans are leaving the Republican party when they find that it is drawing to it all those Democrats whom the Republicans in the past have been in the habit of denouncing. I am glad that we have the support of these Republicans. I am glad that, when some of our political leaders are deserting us, so many Republicans are coming forward to fill up the ranks and carry on this fight. The Republican who is near by in such a fight as this is better than the Democrat who is afar off.

The Republicans who are joining with us in this campaign have the consolation of knowing that in doing so they are not compelled to abandon the convictions which they have followed in times past. There is a wide difference between the Republicans who come to us and the Democrats who go