Page images

money plank in the platform of 1896 a condition of his acceptance of the nomination in 1900. Be this ever said to his credit. Of the many noble things which he did in the four years between 1896 and 1900, no other act of his so much stamped him with greatness and gave him power over the people. If he had renounced the money plank it is true that he would have fallen into the hands of those who wanted to make him out a mere figurante of the day with an overweening ambition for place. But still those enemies, if disposed to be consistent, should have admitted that the plank made no difference, because the gold standard had become the settled law, and Mr. Bryan could not have changed it during his term if elected, owing to the complexion of the Senate. This was the unctuous self-gratulation of the organs of the republican party until Mr. Bryan compelled the re-affirmation of the platform of 1896. Now suddenly a great outcry was made that the gold standard would be threatened by his election, and that body of men who knew that Mr. McKinley's election meant imperialism, and who had opposed the imperial policy of his administration, faced about pretendedly because the money question was more important than the question of imperialism-the money question of whose settlement beyond Mr. Bryan's power, if elected, to disturb, they had rejoiced and boasted!

This is a cursory outline of the record which the republican party made between 1896 and 1900, and of the record which Mr. Bryan and his party made. No human power can add to or take away from either record. In time to come both records will be known

[ocr errors]

and compared, and every writing and fact necessary to their clear understanding will be brought to light. There will be no doubt at the seat of judgment which controls the verdicts of history in what manner those records shall be judged. For the open and secret deeds of those will be known who "blew out the moral lights around us," and left a great nation fashioned after the purest and most philosophic principles of idealism to flounder in darkness and mire.


After a century of insidious slander of democracy the American people as a mass are beginning to show a confused conception of the ideals of free institutions. To say that the people are too zealous of their own welfare to relinquish any substantial right is to utter a fine phrase and ignore the facts. They have already parted with substantial rights; they continue to part with them and new propositions to surrender others are met by united acquiescence and divided protest. The policy of giving state aid to the mercantilists and taxing all others to do it; of fondling the producer and smiting the consumer; of considering capital as something to be worshiped and labor as something quite common, quite as a matter of fact and quite subsidiary to capital, has brought its logical result at last. In spite of philosophy, in spite of its interpreters in the persons of our most distinguished statesmen; in spite of the examples and teachings of the fathers and the warnings of their faithful successors, and in spite of sad experiences of other people at other times; in spite of all that should have curbed the spirit so reactionary to the policy of a republic, the American people today find themselves bewildered over principles which no one assailed a generation ago.

For along with this repression and favoritism there has accumulated in the hands of a few great wealth

and great power. These influences instruct the young; they mould history and write it after it is moulded; they exalt and dethrone at will; they crown mediocrity and strike down merit; they have monopolized the means of intelligence; the girdles and the highways which circle the globe are theirs; the widow's oil and the farmer's salt are theirs; they have stolen all the weapons of caricature, satire and argument. And they have rapidly created a public sentiment which favors everything except the peccadilloes. The school histories, the accessible biographies are written with a view of prejudicing the young against popular institutions. Jefferson, Madison and Jackson are belittled in order to make room for the magnification of Hamilton and Marshall. With no patron saints but an astute bookkeeper and a complaisant judge they have enthroned themselves and demand attention. They fill the air with chattering panegyric over men who hated republican principles.

The important work of Jefferson, the most important ever performed by any statesman, which belongs not merely to the lower world of statecraft but has pierced into the rarer realm of philosophy, has been assaulted at its base for years, indoctrinating successive generations with a spirit of hatred for the memory of him whom the Olympus of judgment has placed above all Americans. And what is Jefferson charged with? Listen: Jefferson was not a warrior; he was a coward; he wrote anonymous letters; he did not walk straight; he did not look one in the eye. On the other hand Hamilton was a soldier; he was brave; he acknowledged his productions; he held his head erect;

his piercing glance abashed the most self-possessed. But it is not considered that he devised an anonymous system of indirect taxation, by which the earnings of one man can be transferred to the pockets of another man, pursuant to which the evils of today have largely come to pass. If Jefferson wrote the "Anas," Hamilton fathered the protective tariff which nearly everyone has discovered is a deception; if Jefferson did not walk erect, if he did not look his hearer in the eye, Hamilton planned to revolutionize the republic and to do it by subterfuge and chicane.

In this unequal struggle, unequal for fifty years at least, the ideals of democracy have ceased to present themselves clearly to the eyes of the American people. In the lust for wealth and power officials have forgotten that they are not in office for themselves, but for the people. General corruption has undermined faith in the administration of the law. This condition of feeling is very responsive to arguments of absolutism. How close we are to that now time alone can determine. But that there is a silent sentiment for it, especially in those portions of the country which fought democracy with the Hartford convention and by good luck expunged their infamy through this traduction already discussed, there can be no doubt.

What, then, of democracy do we hold fast to? Is it man's equality? But that is attacked, not by denying what it means, that all men have equal rights bebefore the law, but by saying that all men are not equal, because men differ in mental power and character, which it does not mean. Then it follows that every proposition of democracy must be again de

« PreviousContinue »