made temporary chairman, and Senator Donald Cafferty, of Louisiana, was elected permanent chairman.

The platform reported by the committee was unanimously adopted on the following day; it stated that the declarations of the Chicago convention attacked individual freedom, the right of private contract, the independence of the judiciary, and the authority of the President to enforce federal laws, principles they could not accept; it denounced protection and its ally, free coinage of silver, as schemes for the personal profit of a few at the expense of the many; affirmed the historic Democratic doctrine of tariff for revenue only; insisted upon the maintenance of the gold standard, and the parity therewith of every dollar issued by the government, and are firmly opposed to the free and unlimited coinage of silver, and to the compulsory purchase of silver bullion. Advocated currency reform, commended the administration of President Cleveland, favored arbitration for the settlement of international disputes, liberal policy of pensions for deserving soldiers and sailors of the United States.

Condemned all efforts to defame or impair the confidence of the Supreme Court, favored the inviolability of contracts and the obligations of all good citizens to resist every illegal trust, combination, and attempt against the just rights of property and the good order of society, in which are bound up the happiness of our people.

Nominations for President were called for, and John M. Palmer, of Illinois, and E. S. Bragg, of Wisconsin, were placed in nomination. One ballot only was taken, which resulted as follows: Total vote, 882. John M. Palmer, 7572; E. S. Bragg, 1242.

Simon B. Buckner, of Kentucky, was nominated by acclamation for Vice-President, and at 4:32 p. m. the convention adjourned sine die.

CHAPTER XV.

THE ELECTION RETURNS.

When necessity no longer spurred me to exertion, I began to feel the effects of long continued labor and sought rest in bed. As soon as the polls were closed the representatives of the press, drawn by friendliness and enterprise, assembled in the library below to analyze the returns, while Mrs. Bryan brought the more important bulletins to my room-her face betraying their purport before I received them from her hand. As the evening progressed the indications pointed more and more strongly to defeat, and by eleven o'clock I realized that, while the returns from the country might change the result, the success of my opponent was more than probable. Confidence resolved itself into doubt, and doubt, in turn, gave place to resignation. While the compassionless current sped hither and thither, carrying its message of gladness to foe and its message of sadness to friend, there vanished from my mind the vision of a President in the White House, perplexed by the cares of state, and, in the contemplation of the picture of a citizen by his fireside, free from official responsibility, I fell asleep.

Later reports justified, in a measure, the expectation that the news from the country would be more favorable, but the changes were not sufficient to affect the result. During Wednesday and Thursday I was in communication with Chairman Jones, ready

to concede Mr. McKinley's election as soon as the National Committee received definite returns from the doubtful States. Thursday evening a telegram came from Chairman Jones announcing that suf ficient was known to make my defeat certain, and I at once sent the following telegram to Mr. McKinley:

Lincoln, Neb., November 5.

HON. Wм. MCKINLEY, Canton, Ohio: Senator Jones has just informed me that the returns indicate your election, and I hasten to extend my congratulations. We have submitted the issue to the American people and their will is law,

Mr. McKinley immediately wired:

W. J. BRYAN.

CANTON, OHIO, November 6.

HON. W. J. BRYAN, Lincoln, Neb.: I acknowledge the receipt of your courteous message of congratulations with thanks, and beg you will receive my best wishes for your health and happiness. WILLIAM MCKINLEY.

This exchange of messages was much commented upon at the time, though why it should be considered extraordinary I do not know. We were not fighting each other but stood as the representatives of different political ideas, between which the people were to choose. Our contest aroused no personal feeling upon the part of either, and I have no doubt that had I been elected he would as promptly have sent his congratulations. A courteous observance of the proprieties of such an occasion tends to eliminate the individual and enables opponents to contend sharply over the matters of principle, without disturbance of social relations. I look back with much satisfaction to the fact that the four political contests through which I have passed, two success

fully and two unsuccessfully, have been free from personalities.

It may be interesting to the reader to compare the election returns of 1896 with those of 1892. On another page will be found a map showing in colors the political complexion of the States in 1892, and in addition thereto a table giving both the popular and electoral vote of the States; also a map and table giving the same information in regard to 1896.

The combined Democratic and Populist vote in 1892 was 6,595, 285; my vote in 1896 was 6,511,073, showing that, leaving out of calculation the natural Increase in the vote, my vote only fell 84,212 short of the vote of the two parties combined.

In the following States, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, which gave me their electoral vote, my popular vote was 2,427, 172, being 829,712 more than the vote cast for Mr. Cleveland in 1892, in the States named, and 59,647 more than the vote cast tha year for both Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Weaver.

In the following States carried by Mr. McKinley, including the States which divided their electoral vote, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin, my popular vote was 4,019,294, being 56,069 in excess of the vote cast for Mr. Cleveland in 1892, and only 214,474 behind

the combined vote of Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Weaver.

Only in the following States did my vote fall below Mr. Cleveland's. Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Of the popular vote Mr. McKinley had a plurality of 596,749, which is less than the plurality given by the three States, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. A change of 962 votes from Mr. McKinley's column to mine in California would have given me the entire electoral vote of that State; in Oregon a change of 1,059 votes would have given me the electoral vote of that State; in Kentucky a change of 142 votes would have given me the entire electoral vote of that State; in Indiana a change of 9,002 votes would have given me the electoral vote of that State; in North Dakota a change of 2,826 votes would have given me the electoral vote of that State; in West Virginia a change of 5,445 votes would have given me the electoral vote of that State. Thus, a total change of 19,436 votes, distributed as suggested above in the States named, would have given me 48 more electoral votes, or a total of 224, a majority of 1. In those States above mentioned the total vote of 1892 was 1,449,622; in 1896 the total vote was 1,728,216, an increase of 278,594, or about 19.2 per cent., while the total increase in the nation was 1,865, 198, or nearly 13.4 per cent.

This calculation is made to show how narrow was the defeat of bimetallism and what is possible for