at that place. At La Salle, I replied to some criticisms directed against me by ex-President Harrison and Mr. Ingalls, president of the Big Four railway system. My remarks will be found below:

La Salle Speech.

Two distinguished men have called me to account because of advice which I gave to railroad employes. In speaking of the attempt of the railroads to coerce their employes I said that in these hard times, when employment is so difficult to find, I did not want to advise laboring men to do anything which would lose them their employment, and added that they should wear Republican buttons if necessary, march in Republican parades if they were commanded to do so, and even contribute to the Republican campaign fund if that was required by their employers, but that they should vote according to their convictions on election day. Mr. Ingalls, the president of a railroad, in a speech at Cincinnati denounced me for advising employes to deceive their employers, and ex-President Harrison has charged me with teaching immorality in giving the advice which I have quoted.

Now, I desire to justify my position. The right to vote according to one's conscience is a law-given right. Coercion is a violation of law, and when I advise employes to vote as they please, even though they must wear Republican buttons and march in Republican parades, I am taking higher moral ground and giving more patriotic advice than those who countenance coercion and appeal to employes to vote the Republican ticket on election day merely because they have been compelled to wear Republican badges during the campaign.

When a man criticises me for advising employes to express their honest convictions at the ballot box, I ask what such people think of the Australian ballot. The Australian ballot is a secret ballot and we have adopted it in this country in order to protect American citizens in the right to vote according to conscience without being subjected to discharge or persecution. When Mr. Harrison and Mr. Ingalls condemn me for telling employes to vote as they please they virtually condemn the Australian ballot; in fact, they condemn all secret ballots and tell the citizen he ought to announce in advance how he is going to vote.

There are some who can announce their position in advance, and when a citizen is in a position to act with independence I am glad to see him do so; but when an employer violates the rights of his employes by demanding that they march in parades or wear certain badges, the employe has a right to take advantage of the secret ballot. I am willing to let the public sit in judgment upon the advice which I have given to employes if Mr. Ingalls and Mr. Harrison are willing to submit their advice to the public.

We found a large crowd assembled at-I was about to say Mr. Ladd's town-the name of Hon. C. K. Ladd being in my mind so closely connected with Kewanee.

Rock Island and Moline arranged for a joint meeting at the halfway point between the two cities. Vice-President Stevenson spoke

here with me, and then went with us to Quincy and spoke there that night.

At Monmouth the ladies had charge of the meeting, which was held at the Fair grounds. The morning papers of the previous day had published an interview with Bishop Worthington, of Omaha, and at the Monmouth meeting I referred to his sentiments, using the following language:

Monmouth Speech.

I want to call your attention to an interview which appears in a Chicago paper of yesterday. It is a dispatch from New York giving an interview with Bishop Worthington of Omaha. When it was suggested to the Bishop that the farmers throughout the country were not in as prosperous a condition as they had been in the past, Bishop Worthington said:

The trouble with the farmer, in my judgment, is that we have carried our free educational system too far. The farmers' sons, a great many of them, who have absolutely no ability to rise, get a taste of education and follow it up. They will never amount to anything, that is, many of them, and they become disqualified to follow in the walk of life that God intended they should, and drift into the cities. It is overeducation of those who are not qualified to receive it that fills our cities while the farms lie idle.

I hope it may prove that those words were not uttered by Bishop Worthington, because I hate to think that any man used words like those that I have read. To talk about the over-education of our farmers' sons and to attribute the difficulties which surround us today to that is, to my mind, one of the most cruel things that a man ever uttered. The idea of saying that there is over-education among our farmers' sons! Do you know what that language means? It means a reversal of the progress of civilization and a march towards the dark ages again. Now, can you tell me which one of the farmers' sons is going to prove a great man until you have educated them all? Are we to select a commission to go around and pick out the ones who are to be educated?

Ah! my friends, there is another reason why people have gone into the citites and left the farms. It is because your legislation has been causing the foreclosure of mortgages upon the farms. It is because your legislation has been making the farmer's life harder all the time; it is because the non-producing class have been producing the laws. The idea of laying the blame of the present distress to the farmer's door! The idea of suggesting as a remedy the closing of schools in order that the pupil may not become dissatisfied! Why, my friends, there will be dissatisfaction while the cause for dissatisfaction exists. Instead of attempting to prevent people realizing their position, why don't they try to improve the condition of the farmers of this country? I cannot understand how a man living upon a farm can be deluded with the idea that the gold standard has anything but misery and suffering for him. Haven't you independence enough to leave your party in order to save your homes and your families from the gold standard?

Politics is a matter of business, but there are times when politics involves more than business, and in this campaign, when we are to determine the financial policy of the nation for four years at least, and may be for a longer time, this question rises beyond the plane of a mere business question. This question

involves the welfare of our nation, it involves humanity, it involves civilization, because, mark my words, if the gold standard goes on and people continue to complain, the gold standard advocates, instead of trying to improve the condition of the people, will be recommending that you close your schools so that the people will not realize how much they are suffering.

Is it not strange that there can be anybody in this country so far removed from the masses of the people as to think that the masses of the people are being well cared for? No, it is not strange; it is as old as history. In all times, in all countries and under all conditions, those who are getting along well enough, as a rule, do not feel for those who are suffering, and, therefore, the well-to-do never reform an evil or bring relief from a bad condition.

I want you to remember this, that you cannot find in all the history of the past a single instance where people who profited by bad laws ever secured their repeal. You cannot find an instance where the people who have profited by a bad system ever secured a change of the system. Bad laws must be reformed by those who have suffered. Bad systems must be changed by those who have been suffering from them. I appeal to you who have felt the severity of a gold standard to achieve your own relief, because you have the means in your power. The opportunity will be presented at the ballot box.

At Monmouth I met Felix Regnier, Esq., who was the first member of the Illinois delegation to cast a vote for me at Chicago.

There were large meetings at Bushnell and Macomb, and three meetings at Quincy.

The trip to Jacksonville was made during the night. We had arranged to spend the Sabbath in the latter city so that we could rest among the friends we knew when that was our home. We stopped with Dr. H. K. Jones, and in company with some friends listened to a sermon by Rev. A. B. Morey, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, for several years our church home. Our enjoyment of the occasion was somewhat marred by the fact that several of the prominent members of the church decorated themselves with the yellow ribbon worn by the Republicans during the closing days of the campaign. We had attended church in many cities but this was the first time we had seen the political colors worn on Sunday.

By invitation of Dr. John E. Bradley, president, I visited my Alma Mater, Illinois College, and spoke to the students. The members of Sigma Pi, the society to which I belonged, formed in line on either side of the walk, and sang their society song as we passed from the building to our carriage. My remarks on this occasion will be found below:

Jacksonville Speech-At Illinois College.

Mr. President and Students: A man who forgets his mother loses the respect of all good people, and so a man who leaves college and forgets his Alma Mater can hardly expect to stand high in public esteem. It always

gives me great pleasure to come back to Illinois College, because I remember the days which I spent, two years in Whipple Academy, and four years in college, as among not only the most pleasant days of my life, but as among the most profitable days of my life.

I am always pleased to speak to college students, but it gives me special pleasure to speak to the students of this college. While a man in public life must expect to have his motives questioned and his purpose misunderstood, yet I hope that you will believe me when I tell you that my study of economic questions has been with the single desire to find out what solution is best for the majority of the people.

We have differences of opinion and it is proper that there should be charity shown toward each other, because none of us, you know, are infallible. We are all apt to make mistakes, but I believe that those who most desire to ascertain the truth and labor hardest to find out what is best will come nearest to arriving at a just conclusion. No one who desires to know the truth ever objects to hearing from one who differs from him. Truth does not grow in seclusion; it comes from the clash of ideas, from the comparison of views. Error is the only thing that fears discussion. Truth has a power within by which it propagates itself; and, after all, there is nothing omnipotent but truth. While we differ here as young men upon the various questions which arise, I know that you will agree with me when I say that in the long run that policy is going to be adopted which proves to be the best, and that those who attach themselves to a righteous cause are sure to triumph at last. I never speak to young men without feeling that I ought to impress upon them a lesson which has been impressed upon me, namely, that when a man believes that he is right he can afford to stand alone, and that he can afford to called anythingbecause a man's character is not determined by what people call him.

I remember that it was here, as a young man, that I began the study of political economy, and it was under that great leader whom we had in this college for so many years, Dr. Sturtevant, that I first became interested in the great public question of that day. I remember his teachings as I listened to him, at that time, and for many years I could find no better arguments in the discussion of the question then before the public than his book presented. And when another great question came before the people and began to engage public thought, I wondered whether he had covered that question in his book, and whether his great mind had applied itself to the fundamental principles which underlie the question which now so arouses the thoughts of the people.

When I began to examine I found that in that book-I do not know whether you use it now or not, but you did when I was in college-"Economics, or the Science of Wealth," I found, I say, that in that book he had stated the great fundamental principle which underlies the money question. Now, in this campaign we are trying to find out what is the best kind of money. Some say that one kind of standard will give the best kind of dollar; others say that another kind of standard will give the best kind of dollar. You must have something by which you can judge those standards, and I think that Prefessor Sturtevant has suggested the means by which you can arrive at the truth on this subject. You will find that he says: "This function of money becomes

very important in the case of time contracts. If one contracts to pay one hundred bushels of wheat in twelve months, the next harvest may be a very bad one, and he may therefore be under the necessity of paying one hundred bushels when a bushel is worth twice as much as when the contract was made. This makes the transaction inequitable, and such a liability will make men averse to all time contracts, and throw a great impediment in the way of the working of the natural law of exchange."

The doctor recognizes that when a man has made a contract he ought to be paid in the same quantity or value that the contract had when it was made; and he goes on to argue that if you attempt to make contracts in any kind of commodity, the fluctuations in value will make the contract inequitable, and then he turns to gold and silver and says: "In the two metals, gold and silver, we have substances which possess to a degree quite wonderful the essential quality of money-universal desirableness. They sustain such a relation to human taste and use that they have been universally desired all along the world's history, from the earliest antiquity of which we have any authentic record. Nor is there any reason to suppose that in the future, however distant, they are to be supplanted from that place in human regard which they have always occupied."

And a little further along he says, "Gold and silver, considered as a standard of value, are an ocean flowing around the whole economic world, and very large additions at two or three points are immediately distributed to every part, like water which is poured into the ocean from a single river, and can have no appreciable effect on its level." I was glad, when I began to study the money question, to find that Dr. Sturtevant recognized that the great thing desirable in a dollar is stability, and I can find no better illustration than the one I first read you, where he speaks of its being inequitable, to compel a man to deliver one hundred bushels of wheat when wheat has doubled in value.

You know the whole contention in this contest in which we are engaged is as to which kind of standard gives you the best dollar. There are some people who talk about honest dollars, without exactly defining what they mean by that, so that you have to take their conclusions instead of being able to form your own conclusions. We believe that gold and silver used together give a more stable dollar, a more equitable currency, a more just standard than could be obtained from the use of one, with the other eliminated from use; and the very argument which Dr. Sturtevant makes there, that a short crop of wheat will make wheat rise in value, applies to money; because if there is a short crop of money, money rises in value.

Now, the crops are determined usually by the weather and by various things which man may not control, but the volume of money is determined by law, which man does control. And so, if you by law make your crop of money short, you raise the value of the dollar; and if you raise the value of the dollar you produce the same injustice to the man who owes a dollar, that Mr. Sturtevant calls attention to in the case of wheat that doubles in value.

I want you young men to realize that, when you have received great advantages, great responsibilities go with those advantages. You have no right, as citizens in a land like this, to keep in darkness upon any public question; nor have you a right to listen to any persuasions except the persuasions