"I do not know why you should do this thing. The gentleman has told us that for twenty-five years-the eloquent gentleman from Alabama-that for twenty-five years they have been giving it to New York. Very well. It is true that we have been more than honored and favored beyond our deserts. We are grateful in the name of the common democracy for your generous action, but remember this, and let it ring like the notes of the coronation hymn through your hearts and brains, that although you gave us the candidate New York gave you the only democratic president we have had. Do not strike this blow at our love now. Indiana has been named for a place upon your temporary organization. Indiana has been accepted. Other states have been named by the choice of gentlemen who shall participate in this temporary organization. You consent to accept them, but you turn against him and you strike a big democrat, whom every democrat loves, I believe. You single him out for humiliation and sacrifice, and you present in its name a gentleman we love, revere and honor, and yet he fought four years ago upon the platform of a democratic national convention, and he fought by the utterance of one of the most elegant speeches to which I ever listened, for David B. Hill as the rightful.

"This man seconded the nomination of David B. Hill for the office of president of these United States for four years, who now seems to believe that he is unworthy to occupy that position. Ah, gentlemen, gentlemen. 'Methinks you do protest too much or not at all.' You have gone far enough. If you do not desire to approve of the expression of the national committee then reject all of this report and name other officers, the secretaries, the sergeant-at-arms and other officers who are upon that list. The significance of this is that you abandon all precedent by your action. You select one man out of this entire list upon whom to heap this indignity. I make no threats. I shall regret any such action by this convention. It is not a question of what we will do. We are democrats, desiring to march with our party, to do what we can toward making its perpetuity and its ascendency successful, but don't humiliate us; don't seek to inflict what seeems to be a mark of punishment upon us, and, especially, if you must select a victim to drag to the altar, throwing the creed of your past and custom you have followed away, at least select a victim not so hallowed to the people, not so beloved by the democracy, and not so necessary to its success as the one you have selected to-nay.

The action of the convention, after the debate was immediate and arbitrary. A ballot was taken, and the Silverites exhibited a preponderating force in the convention. The name of the Hon. John W. Daniel, of Virginia, was by this vote substituted for that of Hon. David B. Hill, of New York, as designating the temporary chair.

man of the convention. The vote stood: Yeas, 556; Nays, 349.

It was recognized by the forces opposed to the Free Silverites that they were a minority in the convention and a minority which must inevitably be overridden. They began after the session, which ended with little more accomplished, to organize themselves into a definite force, which might or might not vote, but which was opposed to the ideas of the majority.

Senator Hill's speech was followed by one from Senator Vilas, of Wisconsin, who pleaded eloquently in the same cause, but the convention, though interested, was not convinced. Ex-Governor W. E. Russell, of Massachusetts, pleaded uselessly in the same strain. Then followed the Hon. W. J. Bryan, of Nebraska, a prominent leader of the Silverite forces, who at this stage of the convention's progress had already come to be looked upon as a formidable contingency when the vote upon the Presidential nomination should come. He was received with a storm of applause. His address is here given:

CHAPTER XI.

CHICAGO PLATFORM SPEECH.

SPEECH CONCLUDING DEBATE ON THE CHICAGO PLATFORM.

I would

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a contest between persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty-the cause of humanity.

When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution offered in condemnation of the administration. We object to bringing this question down to the level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest over a principle.

Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had the right to control the action of the party on this paramount issue; and concluding with the request that the believers in the tree coinage of silver in the Democratic party should organize, take charge of, and control the policy of the Democratic party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would crystallize into a platform the declaration which they had made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the Crusaders who fol. lowed Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory until they are now assembled, not to dis. cuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rend. ered by the plain people of this country. In this contest brother has been arrayed against brother, father against son.

The warmest ties of love, acquaintance, and association have been disregarded, old leaders have been cast aside when they have refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon representatives of the people.

We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York (Senator Hill), but we know that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side.

The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor Russell) spoke of the State of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not one present in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the State of Massachusetts, but we stand here representing people who are the equals, before the law, of the greatest citizens in the State of Massachusetts. When you (turning to the gold delegates) come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your

course.

We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day-who begins in the spring and toils all summer-and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world. We come to speak for this broader class of business men.

Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose-the pioneers away out there (pointing to the West), who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds-out there where they have erected school

houses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead-these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a Robespierre. My friends, in this land of the free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized wealth.

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not criticised; we have simply called attention to what you already know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time; it did not become unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford