tion will exist while there is cause for dissatisfaction. Do you tell me that the gold standard can be made permanent? I must change my opinion of the Almighty's love before I can believe that he intended the great majority of the human race to toil while a few grow fat by despoiling them. Do you tell me that civilization must result in driving the extremes of society farther apart? No, it cannot be so. When we talk about the common people-and by them we mean the great mass of people who do not assume a superiority over others -we are called demagogues, and yet, my friends, the common people have given to the world all that it has of good. The common people have brought to society all that is valuable. Every reform has come up from the people, it has never come down from the well-to-do of society.

If you ask me why, I point to a wiser than any human teacher. When the Nazarene gave to His disciples the parable of the sower, and spoke of the seed that fell where the thorns sprang up and choked it, He explained that He meant that the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choked the truth. It has always been so. The cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches have always choked the truth. The truth has not come from those who did not suffer, it has not come from those who were above want; the great movements for the benefit of society have come from those who needed to have society improved and their needs have been the stimulus to their actions.

Do not despise these people who complain of their condition. The Bible tells us that when Christ preached, those who devoured widows' houses would have turned Him away, but that the common people heard Him gladly. And yet, my friends, it is the common people who today are accused of being incapable of self-government. I assert that the common people of this nation are the only ones who will defend Democratic institutions. It is the common people who appreciate our form of government; it is the common people who produce the wealth of the nation in time of peace, and it is the common people, and they alone, who in time of war are willing to offer their lives in their nation's defense. Do not ignore them; do not doubt their capacity for self-government; do not question their good intent; do not say that they have no cause for complaint when they ask for relief. Our opponents declare that we are opposed to the enforcement of law. We who stand upon the Chicago platform and who declare in favor of arbitration instead of force are the lovers of peace and order. We believe that the principles of justice administered in our courts can also be administered by boards of arbitration, and we believe that those who have a just cause ought to be willing to submit that cause to impartial arbitrators and abide the result. It is only error that shuns the court and seeks to substitute might for right.

I only came to speak to you for a moment, but the presence of so many and the interest manifested by you have caused me to talk longer than I intended. I beg you to realize that we are passing through a crisis in human affairs. This is no small contest. We have arrayed on either side the great forces of society. Against us are those influences which are considered strong and potentialmoney, the corporations and the high positions in politics and society, but on our side I believe, my friends, is simple justice. We are opposed to the trusts. We want our sons to be permitted to enter life with an even chance without becoming favorites of some great monopoly. We want our children and our children's children to have a right to their place in the race of life without fear

of being crowded out by those great aggregations of wealth which are trampling upon the rights of individuals. We want this nation to be what our forefathers intended it to be. Jefferson was a better Republican than any Republican who stands upon the Republican platform and desires to transfer into the hands of foreign nations the right to legislate over matters of domestic importance. And, my friends, Lincoln was a better Democrat than any Democrat who has left the Democratic party in this campaign to cast in his lot with our opponents. And why? Because upon the fundamental principles Jefferson and Lincoln stood together. They believed in the people; they believed in our form of government, and they believed that this form of government was intended to be perpetuated for the benefit of all the people and not for the benefit of a few alone. We have a great fight on hand now to determine whether the people have a right to govern themselves, and it is not strange that in this fight we see men who voted for Lincoln taking the place of men who have been Democrats until this campaign.

I am not here to tell you upon which side your influence should be cast, but I do appeal to you to recognize the crisis through which we are passing, to recognize the issues at stake, to recognize the tremendous consequences which may follow, and then to throw your influence upon the side that you think is right. I am willing to trust the judgment of the American people; I am willing to trust the conscience of the people because they have always been sufficient in the past and I have no doubt that in this great crisis, whether it is settled now or hereafter, the judgment and the conscience of our people will be sufficient to guide us aright, to make our government better, to make our people happier, and to bring to all the people that joy and prosperity which the gold standard has confined to so small a portion.

I thank you again and again for the honor that you did me in inviting me to address you and for the courtesy which you have shown me.

The third and fourth meetings were out of doors, and the speeches were brief. While in Minneapolis a brief reception was given at the West, and a portion of the time spent at the home of my old college friend Hon. S. B. Howard.

Tuesday morning found us on our way to Duluth by way of Sauk Rapids, Staples, Brainerd and West Superior.

The Duluth meeting was presided over by Congressman Charles A. Towne, who was a candidate for re-election on the fusion ticket in that district.

I found that Mr. Towne had a strong support among his neighbors in the city made famous by Proctor Knott's speech.

At Duluth, also, there was a ladies' meeting, fully as large as the one at Minneapolis, but owing to our late arrival and early departure, I spoke but a few minutes at this meeting.

Hon. John Lind, whom I had learned to admire when we served. together in Congress, was the fusion candidate for Governor, and I was much gratified to note the harmony which existed in Minnesota between the three divisions of the silver forces.

CHAPTER XLIV.

U

THROUGH THE TWO PENINSULAS.

PON our arrival in Duluth we found the Michigan committee in waiting. It consisted of Daniel J. Campau, Esq., chairman of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee; ex-Congressman Justin R. Whiting and wife, Hon. Charles R. Sligh and wife, and ex-Congressman Tim Tarsney. Mr. Whiting, candidate for Lieutenant-Governor in the campaign just closed, was a colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, and his wife was one of Mrs. Bryan's most intimate friends while we were in Washington. Mr. Sligh was the fusion candidate for Governor last fall.

The party left Duluth Tuesday night and spent four days in the State of Michigan. The principal speeches made Wednesday were delivered at Iron Mountain, Ishpeming and Marquette, with shorter stops at a number of smaller places. Going from Marquette to St. Ignace in the night, we crossed the Straits of Mackinac and held an early morning meeting at Mackinaw City. The largest meetings held Thursday were at Traverse City, Big Rapids and Grand Rapids. At the first place mentioned the presiding officer was Hon. James Roberts, a classmate of my father at McKendree College. Three speeches were delivered at Grand Rapids, the first at an outdoor meeting in Campau Square, the second at a meeting attended by women only, and the third, to a mixed audience, the largest of the evening. Below will be found the speech to the ladies:

Grand Rapids Speech-To the Ladies.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies-I had intended to say "and Gentlemen," but I think there are hardly enough gentlemen in the audience to deserve mention. I saw in the evening paper that after a certain hour the gentlemen were to be admitted. I do not know whether that hour has arrived yet or not, but it seems that the gentlemen are not here.

I desire to talk to you just a little while about the silver question, and I desire, if I can, to help you to understand what bimetallism means and what the gold standard means in order that you may decide on which side of the question you ought to stand. In a great contest like this, we must be on one side or the other-there is no middle ground. If the gold standard is right we ought to be for it; if the gold standard is wrong we ought to be against it. But, my friends, you need not hope that everybody will think the same way

upon the money question even after investigation. There is a valid reason for these differences of opinion; they spring largely from difference of interest. I do not want you to think that I am putting politics on a low plane when I tell you that a person's interests will affect that person's judgment on any political question. Let me illustrate: I used to live at Jacksonville, Ill., and while I lived there, there was an election and the question to be determined was whether cows should run at large. It was an exciting election. People would gather upon the streets and discuss the subject and you would frequently hear an argument like this: One person would say, "The cows ought to be allowed to run at large. The grass is going to waste in the streets; it is better for the city to have the cows run at large and eat the grass up." You would find that he had a cow. Then another would say, "The cows ought to be shut up. You cannot leave your gate open at night without danger that the cows will get in and ruin your garden. It is better for the city to have the cows shut up." And you would find that he did not have any cow. When the vote was counted it was found that each voter was largely influenced by the question, whether he kept a cow or not. Now if you have ever passed through an election where that question was submitted to the people you will recognize what I say to be true, that the cost of keeping a cow will largely determine the vote of a person upon the question. If that is true in small things it is also true in large things; some people want the gold standard because they, so to speak, have cows running at large. It is bad enough to have them feeding their cows upon the public domain, but they are not satisfied with that. They want to feed their cows upon private pastures as well.

When a person takes a position upon any question you have a right to examine and see what that person's business is and what his interests are.

I desire to admit in the very beginning that there are some people who would be temporarily benefited by the gold standard. Let me suppose a case. If a person's property is entirely invested in government bonds which run for a long time, such a person would be benefited by a gold standard. Why? Because the bonds draw a fixed rate of interest and that interest is payable quarterly. As the dollars rise in value the interest, remaining the same in dollars, buys more and more and therefore the person who receives the interest is benefited each year-that is, his interest will buy more of the things which he desires, or, if he does not desire to buy more, he is able to save more out of his interest each year and add it to his capital. I say that such a person will be temporarily benefited. But mark you, I say temporarily benefited. And why? Because while the person may be benefited by the gold standard that person's children may be cursed by the same thing which has blessed him. We cannot afford to engraft upon government a bad financial system even though we get a temporary benefit from it. The best thing that parents can leave to their children is a just government which robs nobody for the benefit of others. Now, in the discussion of the money question we can prove our case in many ways. We can apply well known principles to this question and by the application of those principles we can make the subject clear. But if this is not sufficient, we can prove our case by authority. There is not a position which we take in this campaign which we are not able to support by authority from the most eminent Republicans in this country.

You will remember that a few years ago there was a great deal of talk about a character in fiction-I do not know whether I ought to call it a character or two characters-but it was Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. You will remember that the same person appeared at different times in the different characters. At one time the man was a good man, benevolent, kindly disposed; at another time the same person was a bad man and even sought to take human life. We have the character of Jekyll and Hyde illustrated well when we come to discuss the silver question, because we can cite you to a number of men who have been both Jekyll and Hyde on the money question. We can point to a number of men who have been kindly disposed and interested in the public welfare at one time and who at another time have been supporting a financial system which, according to Mr. Carlisle, means more of misery to the human race than all the wars, pestilences and famines that have ever occurred in the history of the world.

Let me call your attention to two or three persons who have spoken on both sides of the money question. Our opponents have been able to bring into the campaign all the movable guns in the country. They have enlisted on their side and are sending out a great many pieces of large artillery, and one of the ablest speakers whom they have sent out is Col. Ingersoll. Mr. Ingersoll brings to the money question his great ability as an orator and is now using his chief weapon, ridicule, against silver. Let me show you what he once said on the other side of the question, and, my friends, he will have to talk a long while before he can answer what he has said on our side. I think it is fair to assume that we still have with us all those who, although they may have turned, have not yet been able to answer themselves. Here is what Mr. Ingersoll said in a speech made some years ago to the farmers-it is printed in a pamphlet issued by Mr. Baldwin, 184 Madison street, Chicago. In that speech Mr. Ingersoll said:

For my part I do not ask any interference on the part of the Government except to undo the wrong it has done. I do not ask that money be made out of nothing. I do not ask for the prosperity born of paper, but I do ask for the remonetization of silver; silver was demonetized by fraud. It was an imposition upon every solvent man, a fraud upon every honest debtor in the United States. It assassinated labor. It was done in the interest of avarice and greed and should be undone by honest men. The farmers should vote only for such men as are able and willing to guard and advance the interests of labor.

That is what he said when he spoke to the farmers some years ago. What he said was true then and is true now. Silver was excluded from the mints by a law which was never discussed by the American people. No wonder the American people have demanded the remonetization of silver, and yet, my friends, that act, passed secretly and in the dark, has been upon the statute books ever since. The people have remonstrated to some extent but they have never been able to undo that wrong. Why? Because sometimes we have had the House of Representatives for silver and sometimes the Senate of the United States, but we have never been able to get both House and Senate at the same time; and if we had succeeded in getting both House and Senate, the President has always been against us and the Secretary of the Treasury has always received his inspiration from Wall Street rather than from the people. For twenty years the people have tried to undo this wrong which Mr. Ingersoll described with so much vividness.