coinage of silver means individual dishonesty, commercial disaster and national dishonor, and if they believe what they say, they ought not to support the ticket, because their duty to their country is higher than their duty to their party organization. If, on the other hand, the convention nominates a gold standard Democrat on a platform indorsing the gold standard, gold bonds, and national bank currency, should the nominee be supported by those who believe the gold standard to be a conspiracy of the capitalistic classes against the producers of wealth-a crime against mankind? Who says that they should? If to continue Mr. Cleveland's financial policy is to declare war against the common people, what friend of the common people would be willing to enlist in such a warfare, even at the command of his party?

There is no compromise between monometallism and bimetallism; there is no middle ground between the issue of all paper money by the government and the issue of all paper money by the banks. There may have been a time when compromise was possible, but the question is now before the people and it must be settled one way or the other. If the question was an unimportant one it might be settled within the party and the decision acquiesced in; but it is a question that touches every man, woman and child in the nation, a question of right or wrong, a question of justice or injustice, a question of freedom or slavery. Will the advise its readers to silence their conscience, close their ears to cries of distress and their eyes to a misery greater than "war, pestilence, and famine" have wrought, and vote the ticket straight if the goldbugs control the convention?

It does not dare to give that advice if it has any interest in the welfare of its readers. The Democratic party cannot serve God and Mammon; it cannot serve plutocracy and at the same time defend the rights of the masses. If it yields to the plutocracy it ought to lose, and it will lose the support of the masses; if it espouses the cause of the people it cannot expect either contributions or votes from the capitalistic classes and from the great corporations. If the gold standard Democrats control the national convention they will determine the policy of the Democratic party on all questions. Will they give the people relief from corporate aggression and from the oppression of trusts? Will they make this a government "of the people, by the people and for the people?" The knows that the gold standard Democrats, instead of affording the people needed relief, would simply carry on the Government according to Republican ideas. When the Democratic party has gone down fighting for the right it has felt certain of resurrection, but what assurance has it of rising again if it goes down fighting against the interest of the masses? When the spirit of Jefferson leaves the Democratic party it will be a corpse.

If abandonment of party is ever justifiable the voter must determine for himself when the time for abandonment arrives. When should he decide? The proper time, if not the only time, is after the party has adopted its platform and named its candidate. Until that time he does not know whether he can rely upon it to secure the government which he regards as good and the legislation which he considers necessary. Does participation in a primary or convention bind the voter to support a policy which he considers ruinous? If he tries, through his party organization to save his country and fails, must he then take a hand in its destruction? If a great question arises, must he assume that

his party will go wrong, and therefore leave it before it acts, or should he try to hold his party to the right course? If a question of supreme importance arises which threatens to divide the party, have not the majority a right to retain the party name and organization? And how can the majority be determined unless all members of the party have a right to take part in the decision? In some of the Western States the goldbugs have insisted that silver Democrats should pledge themselves to support the nominee before taking part in the selection of delegates. If a pledge is to be required, it should be required of those who select delegates as well as of those who act as delegates; but what organization has a right to require such a pledge?

A county organization might require a pledge of those who are going to vote upon a county ticket, and a State organization might require a pledge of those who are going to vote upon a State ticket, but only a national organization can require a pledge of those who are going to vote upon national candidates and national questions. It would be manifestly unfair for Democrats of Missouri to be required to give a pledge to support the nominee of a national convention unless the same pledge is required of the Democrats of Massachusetts. Why should the Democrats of the West and South agree to support the nominee of a national convention unless the Democrats of the northeastern States enter into the same agreement. Has any Eastern State pledged its Democrats to vote for a free silver candidate if nominated? Of course not; and yet if election returns are worth anything, they prove that Eastern Democrats are more apt to bolt than the Democrats of the South. The Eastern papers announce with great emphasis that a free silver Democrat cannot carry an Eastern State. Is that not a declaration that Eastern Democrats, after taking part in the selection of a candidate, will vote against him if they do not like him? The Democratic party has selected its candidate from New York for twenty years for the purpose of securing the electoral vote of New York, and yet some Western Democrats insist that the Democrats of the West and South are in duty bound to support the nominee, regardless of his position on the money question, even though the nominee may, if elected, destroy the value of their products, mortgage their homes to foreign capitalists and lower the standard of civilization.

The World-Herald repudiates such a doctrine and demands the same liberty, the same independence, the same political rights, for the Democrats of the South and West that our Eastern brethren have at all times enjoyed. Will the

enforce against its own readers a doctrine which it has no power to enforce against the goldbug Democrats of the East? Or will it recognize the right of all Democrats to a voice in the deliberations of the party, with the reserved right to abandon the party whenever the party abandons the cause of the people?

CHAPTER IV.

S

SEIGNIORAGE, CURRENCY AND GOLD BONDS.

OME weeks elapsed after the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Act before there was any further discussion of financial legislation, but in February the seigniorage bill was brought before the House and passed. I voted for the measure and made a speech in support of it.

Notwithstanding the seigniorage bill had a considerable majority in both Houses, and a still larger majority among the Democratic Representatives in the House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure and thus thwarted the first effort put forth to relieve the people from the financial conditions which, already bad, were aggravated by the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman law. Quite a number of the public men who supported unconditional repeal were anxious to secure the passage of the seigniorage bill in order to put themselves in better position before their constituents.

The last session of the Fifty-third Congress witnessed a renewal of the discussion of monetary topics. President Cleveland presented to Congress a plan for reforming the currency and Mr. Springer of Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, introduced the Administration measure. This bill had for its object the withdrawal of a portion of the greenbacks and Treasury notes and the extension of the national bank system. I opposed it in a speech of considerable length.

The bill failed of passage and the President then recommended the retirement of the greenbacks and Treasury notes with an issue of gold bonds. Mr. Springer prepared and brought forward a measure carrying qut the recommendation. Mr. Reed, on the part of the Republicans, proposed a substitute which authorized the issue of low rate bonds. payable in coin. I offered the following amendment to Mr. Reed's substitute:

Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as surrendering the right of the Government of the United States to pay all coin bonds outstanding in gold or silver coin at the option of the Government, as declared by the following joint resolution, adopted in 1878 by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, to wit: