I am sorry to say I do not think I shall be able to be at Indianapolis. Let me tell you confidentially that I do not feel myself in a condition fit for appearance in public, or to undergo any strain. I need a little time to build myself up again for the work I shall have to do in the campaign. I think I shall remain in seclusion until after Herbert's burial. This will take place soon after the return of my son Carl from Europe. We expect him Thursday or Friday next week, just the time set for the Indianapolis meeting. I trust my non-appearance there will not be misunderstood by anybody under the circumstances. Now, as to the "suggestions" for the action of the Liberty Congress. I think they are on the whole judicious, unless you can unite or substantially unite the Congress upon the nomination of a third ticket. This, I think, would be the wisest course, for the present as well as for the future-for the present because it would, in my opinion, prevent a great many voters from drifting to McKinley and give us an absolutely aggressive position in the campaign, a thing of which the Administration party is most afraid, as its newspapers show; for the future, because it will, after the election, furnish a nucleus for a permanent organization which has long been needed -no matter how many or how few votes the third ticket may get. As to the platform, the recent Plaza Hotel meeting presided over by Mr. Osborne furnished a good synopsis. If it is thought that the Liberty Congress can be substantially united on a third nomination, then it might be practicable to have the members of the meeting of August 14th come into the Liberty Congress. However, the practicability of this will depend upon circumstances, a correct judgment of which can be formed only on the spot. I know, Mr. Boutwell and Mr. Erving Winslow are strongly opposed to the third-ticket plan. Mr. Winslow is writing very vivacious letters against it in which he says that most anti-imperialists are determined to vote for Bryan directly. It seems Mr. Winslow will not understand that the third ticket will not prevent any one who wants to vote for Bryan from doing so, while it will be apt to keep a great many people who will not vote for Bryan, from drifting over to McKinley. Mr. Boutwell thinks that the anti-imperialists will have more influence with Bryan, in case of his election, if he were supported directly without the intervention of a third ticket. As to that influence he would perhaps think differently had he had the experience that some of us have had. But if the Liberty Congress cannot be substantially united upon an independent nomination, the course suggested by you would seem to me on the whole a wise one except the advice to vote in case of stress for the Prohibition candidate, for very obvious reasons. Mr. Osborne was here yesterday. He thought that Thomas B. Reed would be the best independent nomination-just as I think. But if he declined to accept, which is almost sure, John B. Henderson for President and Senator Chaffee for Vice-President would be suitable. I think so, too. I shall confer with Henderson very soon. It seems to me of very great importance that we should have a National Committee and as many local committees as possible under whose auspices we can conduct our campaign. TO MOORFIELD STOREY BOLTON LANDING, LAKE GEORGE, N. Y., Your letter has just reached me. Bryan's speech is indeed excellent, but we must not forget that he will publish also a "letter of acceptance" in which, as he has announced, he will discuss "all the issues." As to imperialism, he cannot do better than he has done in his speech. As to the other issues he can do, and is not unlikely to do, a great deal of mischief. My opinion as to the desirability of an independent nomination remains the same. [J. B.] Henderson was here last Thursday and spent a whole day with me. As to the policy of nominating a third ticket, we were quite in accord after having read Bryan's speech. I regret to say that owing to the state of his health, which forbids any exertion or excitement, he will probably not be at Indianapolis and will not accept the independent nomination. We went over the list of available men and came to the conclusion that, unless Reed consents to serve, which is improbable, General William Birney of Washington might answer. He is the son of Mr. Birney who was the conscience candidate in the old anti-slavery times, an historical association which might be regarded as of some significance; and Henderson, who knows him well, vouches for him as a man of ability and high character and a good speaker. I have written to Burritt Smith and to Osborne about this. I say this as one who, I need not tell you, wants McKinley defeated as much as anybody. I say it also as an old campaigner who has had a good deal to do with the "doubtful vote" and who thinks that this is the best way to bring about what we wish to accomplish. Our friends should consider that there is a vast difference between a Gold-Democratic third ticket and a third ticket headed by an old Republican and appealing to Republican voters. Of course, I do not want to dictate. Nor do I wish my His reasons for desiring a third ticket. See letter of Aug. 7, 1900. name to be quoted in the public discussions of the Convention. But if you think it will be of any use in private consultation to communicate in a confidential way to others what I have written to you, you are, as we understand one another, at perfect liberty to do so. I am extremely sorry that I cannot be at Indianapolis. P.S. Let me add, that as I have written Burritt Smith, the choice between different courses of action which he has submitted to me and will no doubt submit to you, seems to me on the whole judicious, unless the Liberty Congress can be substantially united in making an independent nomination, which would seem to me the best course. Otherwise the Osborne people should be encouraged to make that nomination. Nor, if Birney's name is taken into consideration, should a first refusal on his part be at once taken as final. As you will remember, General Palmer in 1896 at last, in spite of his reluctance, permitted himself to be pressed into service. TO LYMAN J. GAGE' BOLTON LANDING, LAKE GEORGE, N. Y., The newspapers of August 26th published an interview with you in which you were quoted as saying that there is no doubt Mr. Bryan (if elected President) could order his Secretary of the Treasury to make payment in silver of all the public debt payable in coin, and for all current disbursements of the Government as well, which amount to from $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 per day; and that he would give such an order, too, is very certain, if he is in the same mind that he was in 1896. 1 An open letter to the Secretary of the Treasury. You went on to say that although Mr. Bryan "would have great difficulty in doing that at once," owing to the small silver resources of the Government, yet he might accomplish it in time, as the mere announcement of such a purpose "would stop the inflow of gold or at least very largely diminish payments in gold and correspondingly increase payments into the Treasury of silver and silver certificates"; that this would practically put the Government on a silver basis, ruin its credit and bring incalculable disaster upon the business interests of the country. Having for a great many years taken a deep and somewhat active interest in the establishment of a sound monetary system in the United States, I may without impropriety publicly address to you a few remarks in reply to your public statement. I emphatically deny, Mr. Secretary, that the danger set forth by you in your interviews really exists, and that any President will be able to do what you say might be done, unless the Republican party in control of the Government in both its Legislative and Executive branches prove itself utterly dishonest in its professed purpose to maintain the gold standard. This denial is not based upon the reasoning of those of your critics who seek to show by figures that a President, desiring ever so much to put the country upon a silver basis, would lack the means for doing so. On the contrary, for argument's sake, I will accept all you say on that point. But you omit to mention a fact of decisive importance. If the Executive, as you say, possesses the discretion of "paying silver in settlement of all interest on the public debt not specifically payable in gold, and of making its daily disbursements to its creditors in silver," it is owing to a flaw in the currency law passed at the last session of Congress a law which, as the spokesman of the Republican party promised, was to put the gold standard upon an |