what we want-no contingency of bad harvests to speculate upon. The supply will be regulated by the demand, and will reach that state which will be the best security against both gluts and famine. Therefore, for the farmer's sake, I plead for the immediate abolition of this law. A farmer never can have a fair and equitable understanding or adjustment with his landlord, whether as respects rent, tenure, or game, until this law is wholly removed out of his way. Let the repeal be gradual, and the landlord will say to the farmer, through the land agent, "Oh, the duty will be seven shillings next year; you have not had more than twelve months' experience of the workings of the system yet"; and the farmer goes away without any settlement having been come to. Another year passes over, and when the farmer presents himself, he is told, "Oh, the duty will be five shillings this year; I cannot yet tell what the effect will be; you must stop a while." The next year the same thing is repeated, and the end is that there is no adjustment of any kind between the landlord and tenant. But put it at

once on a natural footing, abolish all restrictions, and the landlord and tenant will be brought to a prompt settlement; they will be placed precisely on the same footing as you are in your manufactures.

Well, I have now spoken of what may be done. I have told you, too, what I should advocate; but I must say that, whatever is proposed by Sir Robert Peel, we, as free traders, have but one course to pursue. If he propose a total and immediate and unconditional repeal, we shall throw up our caps for Sir Robert Peel. If he propose anything else, then Mr. Villiers will be ready, as he has been on former occasions, to move his amendment for a total and immediate repeal of the corn laws. We are not responsible for what ministers may do; we are but responsible for the performance of our duty. We don't offer to do impossibilities; but we will do our utmost to carry out our principles. But, gentlemen, I tell you honestly, I think less of what this Parliament may do I care less for their opinions, less for the intentions of the prime minister and the Cabinet, than what may be the opinion of a meeting like this and of the people out of doors. This question will not be carried by ministers or by the present Parliament; it will be carried,

when it is carried, by the will of the nation. We will do nothing that can remove us a hair's breadth from the rock which we have stood upon with so much safety for the last seven years. All other parties have been on the quicksand, and floated about by every wave, by every tide, and by every wind-some floating to us; others, like fragments scattered over the ocean, without rudder or compass; while we are upon solid ground, and no temptation, whether of parties or of ministers, shall ever make us swerve a hair's breadth. I am anxious to hear now, at the last meeting before we go to Parliament-before we enter that arena to which all men's minds will be turned during the next week -I am anxious, not merely that we should all of us understand each other on this question, but that we should be considered as occupying as independent and isolated a position as we did at the first moment of the formation of this league. We have nothing to do with Whigs or Tories; we are stronger than either of them; if we stick to our principles, we can, if necessary, beat both. And I hope we perfectly understand now that we have not, in the advocacy of this great question, a single object in view but that which we have honestly avowed from the beginning. Our opponents may charge us with designs to do other things. No, gentlemen, I have never encouraged that. Some of my

friends have said, "When this work is done, you will have some influence in the country; you must do so and so." I said then, as I say now, "Every new political principle must have its special advocates, just as every new faith has its martyrs." It is a mistake to suppose that this organization can be turned to other purposes. It is a mistake to suppose that men, prominent in the advocacy of the principle of free trade, can with the same force and effect identify themselves with any other principle hereafter. It will be enough if the league accomplish the triumph of the principle we have before us. I have never taken a limited view of the object or scope of this great principle. I have never advocated this question very much as a trader.

But I have been accused of looking too much to material interests. Nevertheless, I can say that I have taken as large and great a view of the effects of this mighty principle as ever did any man who dreamt over it in his own study.

I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the free trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe, drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race and creed and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace. I have looked even farther. I have speculated, and probably dreamt, in the dim future—aye, a thousand years hence I have speculated on what the effect of the triumph of this principle may be. I believe that the effect will be to change the face of the world, so as to introduce a system of government entirely distinct from that which now prevails. I believe that the desire and the motive for large and mighty empires-for gigantic armies and great navies-for those materials which are used for the destruction of life and the desolation of the rewards of labor-will die away; I believe that such things will cease to be necessary, or to be used, when man becomes one family and freely exchanges the fruits of his labor with his brother man. I believe that, if we could be allowed to reappear on this sublunary scene, we should see, at a far distant period, the governing system of this world revert to something like the municipal system; and I believe that the speculative philosopher of a thousand years hence will date the greatest revolution that ever happened in the world's history from the triumph of the principle which we have met here to advocate. I believe these things; but, whatever may have been my dreams and speculations, I have never obtruded them upon others. I have never acted upon personal or interested motives in this question; I seek no alliance with parties or favor from parties and I will take none; but having the feeling I have of the sacredness of the principle, I say that I can never agree to tamper with it. I at least will never be suspected of doing otherwise than pursuing it disinterestedly, honestly, and resolutely.

WILLIAM BOURKE COCKRAN

AN ANSWER TO WILLIAM J. BRYAN

[William Bourke Cockran, an Irish-American lawyer and orator, was born in the west of Ireland in 1854. He received his education partly in his native country and partly in France, and when in his seventeenth year came to the United States. His rise to prominence from his admission to the bar has been rapid. He was a member of the lower House of Congress for four years. Subsequently his affiliation with Tammany Hall was relaxed, and upon the adoption of the "sixteen to one" platform by the Democratic party in 1896 he advocated the election of William McKinley as President, but in 1902 a change in local conditions brought him once more into touch with the Tammany organization. The following speech was delivered at the Madison Square Garden in New York City, during the presidential campaign of 1896, which resulted in the election of William McKinley.]

WITH

7ITH the inspiring strains of the national song still ringing in our ears, who can doubt the issue of this campaign? The issue has been well stated by your presiding officer. Stripped, as he says, of all verbal disguises, it is an issue of common honesty, an issue between the honest discharge and the dishonest repudiation of public and private obligations. It is a question as to whether the powers of the government shall be used to protect honest industry or to tempt the citizen to dishonesty.

On this question honest men cannot differ. It is one of morals and justice. It involves the existence of social order. It is the contest for civilization itself. If it be disheartening to Democrats and to lovers of free institutions to find an issue of this character projecting into a presidential campaign, this meeting furnishes us with an inspiring truth of how that issue will be met by the people. A Democratic convention may renounce the Democratic faith, but the Democracy remains faithful to the Democratic principles.

Democratic leaders may betray a convention to the Populists, but they cannot seduce the footsteps of Democratic. voters from the pathway of honor and justice. A candidate bearing the mandate of a Democratic convention may in this hall open a canvass leveled against the foundations of social order, but he beholds the Democratic masses confronting him organized for defense.

Fellow Democrats, let us not disguise from ourselves the fact that we bear in this contest a serious and grave and solemn burden of duty. We must raise our hands against the nominee of our party, and we must do it to preserve the future of that party itself. We must oppose the nominee of the Chicago convention, and we know full well that the success of our opposition will mean our own exclusion from public life, but we will be consoled and gratified by the reflection that it will prove that the American people cannot be divided into parties on a question of simple morals or common honesty. We would look in vain. through the speech delivered here one week ago to find a true statement of the issue involved in this canvass. Indeed, I believe it is doubtful if the candidate himself quite understands the nature of the faith which he professes. I say this not in criticism of his ability, but in justice to his morality. I believe that if he himself understood the inevitable consequences of the doctrines he preaches, his own hands would be the very first to tear down the platform on which he stands. But there was one statement in that speech which was very free from ambiguity, pregnant with hope and confidence to the lovers of order. He professes his unquestioned belief in the honesty of the American masses, and he quoted Abraham Lincoln in support of the faith that was in him. Well, I don't believe that the faith of Abraham Lincoln was ever more significantly justified than in the appearance which Mr. Bryan presented upon this platform, in the change that has come over the spirit. and the tone of Populistic eloquence since the Chicago convention.

We must all remember that lurid rhetoric which glowed as fiercely in the Western skies as that sunlight which through the past week foretold the torrid heat of the ensuing day; and here upon this platform we find that same