CHAPTER XXXVI.

T

FROM PHILADELPHIA TO BROOKLYN.

UESDAY was devoted to a forenoon meeting at Chester, Pa., an afternoon meeting at Washington Park, N. J., and an evening meeting at Philadelphia. A drizzling rain interfered somewhat with the first meeting.

The New Jersey meeting was largely attended by truck farmers. Senator Tillman and Hon. John T. Wright, candidate for Congress, accompanied me on this occasion. The evening meeting at the Academy of Music was one of the memorable meetings of the campaign. The hall was filled at an early hour, and the streets adjacent were so crowded that it was difficult to reach the hall. In order to leave the hotel unnoticed we made our exit through the cellar, then went down a back alley and entered the hall at a rear door, but not without a great deal of difficulty. Chairman Garman, of the State committee, presided. Below will be found a portion of the speech:

Philadelphia Speech.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Fellow Citizens: The gold standard papers ask why I come to Pennsylvania. I have nothing to conceal; I will tell you why I come. I come, first, to secure, if possible, the electoral vote of the State of Pennsylvania. If you withhold that vote and we are defeated in this campaign, then I come upon another mission, and that is to tell the people of Pennsylvania that the agitation for free silver will never cease in this country until the gold standard is driven back to England.

You call it the "silver craze," and say that it is dying out. You may apply such epithets as you like, but the silver cause will not die, because truth never dies. You ask me why I know that this cause is right. I could give you many reasons, but one reason is sufficient—that every enemy of good government is against free silver. You can know a cause, as you know an individual, by the company it keeps, and our cause appeals to the masses of the people because the masses are interested in equal laws. Our cause is opposed by those who want to use the Government for profit, for gain; because we are opposed to the use of government for such purposes.

Your city is called Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. I come to proclaim to you the gospel that is described by the name of your city, and yet it is said that you will give 100,000 majority against such a doctrine. I want to preach financial independence in the city which saw the Declaration of

Independence signed. Do you say that this city, in which the forefathers gathered when they were willing to defy all foreign powers and declare their political independence, is afraid to favor financial independence? I shall not say that of the descendants of the forefathers of 100 years ago unless you say so in the ballot which you cast next November.

The issue raised now was raised then. There were people then who said that the colonies could not get along unless some foreign nation was looking after them. The people who 100 years ago declared in favor of foreign supremacy were people who had business dealings with foreign houses, and who, in this country, acted as the agents of the people who employed them over there. It is true today. You have your banks in this city today controlled by influences in London, and, my friends, I have no more respect for the American who takes "his patriotism from Lombard street today than they had 100 years ago for the tory who took his patriotism from the same place.

One of the papers said that I "lacked dignity." I have been looking into the matter, and have decided that I would rather have it said that I lack dignity than to have it said that I lack backbone to meet the enemies of the Government who work against its welfare in Wall street. What other Presidential candidates did they ever charge with lack of dignity? (A voice: "Lincoln.") Yes, my friends, they said it of Lincoln. (A voice: "Jackson.") Yes, they said it of Jackson. (A voice: "And Jefferson.") Yes, and of Jefferson; he was lacking in dignity, too. Now, I will tell you how dignified a man ought to be, because, you know, everybody has his idea of these things. I think a man ought to be just dignified enough-not too dignified-and not lacking in dignity. Now, it might be more dignified for me to stay at home and have people come to see me; but you know I said I was not going to promise to give anybody an office, and, therefore, a great many people who might go to see a candidate under some circumstances would not come to see me at all. And then, too, our people do not have money to spare. Why, our people are the people who want more money, and if they could travel all the way to Nebraska to see me, it might show that they have money enough now.

I do not like to be lacking in any of the essentials, but I cannot see that there is any lack of dignity shown if I come before the people and talk to them and tell them what I stand for and what I am opposed to.

They say I am begging for votes. Not at all. I never asked a man to vote for me. In fact, I have told some people to vote against me; that is more than some candidates do. I have said that if there was anybody who believed the maintenance of the gold standard absolutely essential, he ought not to vote for me at all.

If I can prevent the maintenance of the gold standard, you can rely upon my doing it upon the very first opportunity that the people will give me. My position on public questions is known, and I do not use the words "sound money" when I mean gold, either; and I do not use the words "honest money" when I talk about the most dishonest money that this country ever saw, a gold dollar that gets bigger all the time.

My platform sets forth certain propositions, and it states that the money question is the paramount issue; and then two other parties, to neither of which I ever belonged, declared in national convention that the money question is

paramount, and they nominated me; and every man who is supporting me is willing to say why he does so.

*

After describing the manner in which bonds were issued to obtain gold, and gold drawn out to pay for bonds, I said:

That is what they call financiering on Wall street. I believe that the only thing in the Bible which some of these financiers ever read is the passage which says that about 1800 years ago certain wise men came from the East. They seem to think that the wise men have been coming from that direction ever since. Speaking of that plank in our platform which condemns gold contracts, I said:

We have usury laws saying that a man cannot collect more than a certain rate of interest. The theory underlying the usury laws is found in the Book of Proverbs-that the borrower is servant to the lender. In these transactions men do not always stand upon an equal footing, and, therefore, the Government steps in to protect the weaker from having his rights trespassed upon.

If it is right to say that no man shall be permitted to collect more than a certain rate of interest, it is right for the Government to say when it has declared a certain kind of money to be legal tender, that no man shall write a contract saying that that law is a lie.

They talk about gold as if it were divine. It is, in the sense that it is their god. But it is not divine; it is matter. Instead of being a real god, and a thing to be worshiped, we are told that, when the children of Israel made it into a calf, and began to worship it, it displeased God, and he ground the calf into powder.

An outdoor meeting was held some blocks away, but the crowd was so large as to be unmanageable. The Item, one of the best silver papers in the East, was largely instrumental in making the Philadelphia meeting a success. Hon. Wharton Barker assisted the Democrats in arranging this meeting, and I may add here that his paper, The American, supported the ticket with great earnestness and intelligence. I met here Mr. John J. Maloney, City Chairman Curley and others, with whom I first became acquainted at a Jackson Day banquet some years before.

National Committeeman Johnson Cornish, of New Jersey, a colleague in Congress, met us at Philadelphia, and took charge of the party through his State the next day. Senator Daly was also one of the party. On another page will be found a snap-shot taken at Phillipsburg, where a large number of railroad men were collected. One of the largest crowds of the day was found at Washington, the home of Mr. Cornish. Here I met ex-Congressman Fowler, who was one of the few Eastern silver men in the House, and exCongressman Dunn. Washington is quite a manufacturing place, and

I found that many of the employes were working only a portion of the time, which led me to suggest that under the gold standard, the laboring men worked half time and the farmers worked double time-the laboring men not finding employment for the whole time, and the farmers being compelled to work overtime in order to keep up with taxes and interest. We passed through Morristown, where we met one of the most fashionable audiences encountered on the trip; evidences of wealth were apparent on every hand. The train only stopped for a moment, and my speech was brief:

Morristown Speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen: In a city like this, where there are so many evidences of plenty of money, I do not know whether you understand or feel the need of more money. But I want you to remember that all the wealth of this country is first derived from those who toil, and that you cannot destroy the prosperity of those who produce the wealth without undermining the foundation upon which all society rests.

Remember that a financial system that commends itself to the wealthy only is a curse to any land.

Remember that until wealth is produced it cannot be divided, and that if you make it unprofitable for people to invest their money in enterprises you lessen the production of wealth.

At Orange, Mr. Thomas A. Edison took a picture of the crowd and moving train; the views secured have since been exhibited throughout the country by means of the vitascope.

Passing through Newark and Hoboken we reached Brooklyn before dark. Here I was the guest of Mr. Willis J. Abbot, of the New York Journal, whose splendid editorial work during the campaign would have endeared him to me, even if he had not been an old-time friend. The first meeting was held in the Academy of Music, and the audience was full of enthusiasm. I quote from the speech delivered here:

Brooklyn Speech.

Before addressing myself to the money question I desire to say something in regard to the planks of our platform which have been assailed by the enemy. I only speak of them because persons high in Republican councils have called attention to them and sought to twist them into a meaning never intended, and to give them an interpretation which they will not bear. Let me read to you the plank of the Democratic platform against which so much abuse has been leveled.

We denounce arbitrary interference by Federal authorities in local affairs as a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and a crime against free institutions.

That is the part which they say is bad. When did that become bad? Let

me read you a plank of another platform, and see how this plank which I am about to read compares with the one which I have just read:

That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the State, and especially the right of each State, to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power upon which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

Do you know from what platform that plank is taken? (A voice-"Abraham Lincoln's.") Yes, it is from Abraham Lincoln's platform. That is a plank in the platform of the Republican party in 1860. And when you compare our plank with that, you will find that ours is mild in language. Abraham Lincoln ran for President on that platform; he was elected President on that platform, and in his inaugural address he quoted that plank in full and gave it his approval. Now, my friends, if our platform is wrong, I want these Republicans to repudiate Abraham Lincoln, and if they take Abraham Lincoln from the Republican party they take from it its most sacred memory.

Now, let me call your attention to another thing which they complain of. They say we criticise the Supreme court. Let me read you what we say on this subject:

But for this decision by the Supreme Court (speaking of the decision on the income tax), there would be no deficit in the revenue under the law passed by a Democratic Congress in strict pursuance of the uniform decisions of that court T nearly one hundred years, that court having in that decision sustained Constitutional objections to its enactment which had previously been overruled by the ablest judges who have ever sat on that bench. We declare that it is the duty of Congress to use all the Constitutional power which remains after that decision, or which may come from its reversal by the court as it may hereafter be constituted, so that the burdens of taxation may be equally and impartially laid, to the end that wealth may bear its due proportion of the expenses of the government.

We call attention to the fact that the court overruled the decision of a

hundred years. That is a fact. Have we not a right to mention a fact? We declare that Congress should use all the Constitutional power which remains. Let them insist, if they will, that having taken away a part, we dare not use what is left.

We demand that Congress shall use such power as may come from a reversal by the court as it may hereafter be constituted.

Has no court hereafter a right to reverse the decision of this court? If not, what right had his court to reverse former decisions? The Supreme court changes from time to time. Judges die or resign, and new judges take their places. Is it not possible, my friends, that future judges may adhere to the precedents of a hundred years, instead of adhering to a decision rendered by a majority of one? When did our opponents find that a decision of the Supreme Court was so sacred? This decision would not have been rendered but for the fact that the men who had to pay the income tax attacked the decision of the Supreme Court, and asked this court to overturn a former decision. Every time a lawyer goes into court and asks for a reversal of a decision of the courtand it is not an infrequent thing-he attacks the correctness of the decision which he desires to have reversed. Let me read to you what the Republican platform said about a decision of the Supreme Court in 1860: