Page images
PDF
EPUB

had brilliantly preserved the public credit. Under all these circumstances, who would have supposed that out of the smouldering embers of an apparently suppressed fire there should suddenly break forth a new and almost resistless conflagration? It was Mr. Harvey's book that rekindled the fire; and when the silver leaders perceived the greatness of the opportunity, they did not fail to fan the flames, and the fuel was only too abundant everywhere.

The times have been very cruel for several years, and Western and Southern discontent and disheartenment wanted an argument, a creed, and a rallying cry. "Coin's Financial School furnished the argument; free silver sufficed for the creed, and "Sixteen to One" became the cry. For the moment, other panaceas were forgotten. "Sixteen to One" was on everybody's tongue. The argument in its essentials is a very simple one. Silver was lawful money of "ultimate redemption" up to 1873, and is held to have constitutional sanction. There was no proper reason for demonetising it in 1873, and such action was criminally wrong. The value of silver has kept relatively close to the value of staple products in general, and if the real truth were perceived every one would understand that, instead of the silver dollar having declined so that it is worth only fifty cents, the gold dollar has in fact appreciated until it is worth about two hundred

Money Value of 500 lbs., 1875 at $0.1547 per lb. $77.30.

Money Value of 500 lbs., 1880 at $0.1151 per lb. $57.55.

Money Value of 500 lbs.. 1885 at $0.1045 per lb. $52.25:

Money Value of 500 lbs., 1890 at $0.1107 per lb. $55 35.

Money Value of 500 lbs., 1894 at $0.0738 per ib. $36.90 THE PURCHASING POWER OF A BALE OF COTTON, 1870-1891, Illustrating the effect of the fall in prices.

cents. Thus the producer must raise twice as much wheat or corn or cotton to pay each dollar's indebtedness, because with silver demonetised the purchasing power of money has constantly increased. Such is the outline of the argument. The great mass of Southern and Western free silver men religiously believe that this is all true. They are persuaded that the re-opening of the mints to the free coinage of silver would be

a just and righteous act, and that it would very soon if not immediately bring about an equilibrium between gold and silver, the one metal advancing and the other declining in the bullion market until they should reach a fixed level at the ratio established by law.

To call these men repudiationists, anarchists, and other disagreeable names reflecting upon their motives and their honour, is either to trifle with the situation or else totally to misconstrue it. The men who carried the Chicago platform were self-respecting American citizens, who detest anarchy, abhor repudiation, and occupy their present attitude with the clearest consciences and strongest convictions that have swayed their political action at any time for many years. Let the facts be fairly faced and told. Against the earnestness. openness, and almost fanatical intensity of the free-silver majority, the calculating politicians were simply helpless. The silver men had gone to Chicago to control the convention in the interest of their cause, and not to wrangle about the rival claims of candidates. The great consideration with them was to make sure of the platform. After that they were willing to trust to the wisdom of the hour for a standardbearer. When we express these opinions of the marvellous representation at Chicago of a certain type of American citizenship lifted to the height of an almost matchless enthusiasm under the spell of an idea passionately entertained. it does not follow for a moment that we consider enthusiasm to be a safe guide in the field of monetary science.

[graphic]

The

As no one has published the Democratic Democratic programme in full in this country, I Platform. think it may be well for once to depart from my usual rule and make room for the text of this famous Campaign document :

DEMOCRACY'S PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED.

We, the democrats of the United States, in national convention assembled, do reaffirm our allegiance to those great essential principles of justice and liberty upon which our institutions are founded, and which the democratic party has advocated from Jefferson's time to our own-freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, the preservation of personal rights, the equality of all citizens before the law, and the faithful observance of constitutional limitations. During all these years the democratic party has resisted the tendency of selfish interests to the centralization of governmental power and steadfastly maintained the integrity of the dual scheme of government established by the founders of this republic of republics. Under its guidance and teachings the great principle of local self-government has found its best expression in the maintenance of the rights of the states and in its assertion of the necessity of confining the general government to the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution of the United States.

[graphic]

BIMETALLISM IS DEMANDED.

Recognising that the money question is paramount to all others at this time, we invite attention to the fact that the Federal constitution names silver and gold together as the noney metals of the United States, and that the first coinage law passed by Congress under the constitution made the silver dollar the monetary unit and admitted gold to free coinage at a ratio based upon the silver unit.

THE ACT OF '73 CONDEMNED.

We declare that the Act of 1873, demonetising silver without the knowledge or approval of the American people, has resulted in the appreciation of gold and a corresponding fall in the prices of commodities produced by the people; a heavy increase in the burden of taxation and of all debts, public and private, the enrichment of the money-lending class at home and abroad, prostration of industry and impoverishment of the people.

OPPOSED TO A GOLD STANDARD.

We are unalterably opposed to monometallism, which has locked fast the prosperity of an industrial people in the

[blocks in formation]

We hold that tariff duties should be levied for purposes of revenue, such duties to be so adjusted as to operate equally throughout the country and not discriminate between classes or sections, and that taxation should be limited by the needs of the government, honestly and economically administered. We denounce as disturbing to business the republican threat to restore the McKinley law which has been twice condemned by the people in national elections, and which, enacted under the false plea of protection to home industry, proved a prolific breeder of trusts and monopolies, enriched the few at the expense of the many, restricted trade and deprived the producers of the great American staples of access to their natural markets. Until the money question is settled, we are opposed to any agitation for further changes in our tariff laws, except such as are necessary to make up the deficit in revenue caused by the adverse decision of the supreme court on the income tax. But for this decision by the supreme court there would be no deficit in the revenue. The law was passed by a democratic congress in strict pursuance of the uniform decisions of that court for nearly one hundred years-that court having under that decision sustained constitutional objections to its enactment which had 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 courts, 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.

PROTECTION OF AMERICAN LABOUR.

We hold that the most efficient way of protecting American labour is to prevent the importation of foreign pauper labour to compete with it in the home market, and that the value of the home market to our American farmers and artisans is greatly reduced by a vicious monetary system which depresses the prices of their products below the cost of production and thus deprives them of the means of purchasing the products of our home manufactories.

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF RAILROADS.

The absorption of wealth by the few, the consolidation of our leading railway systems and the formation of trusts and pools require a stricter control by the Federal Government of those arteries of commerce. We demand the enlargement of the powers of the interstate commerce commission and such restrictions and guarantees in the control of railroads as will protect the people from robbery and oppression.

TAXATION AND APPROPRIATIONS.

We denounce the profligate waste of the money wrung from the people by oppressive taxation and the lavish appropriations of recent Republican Congresses which have kept taxes high, while the labour that pays them is unemployed and the products of the people's toil are depressed till they no longer repay the cost of production. We demand a return to that simplicity and economy which befits a Democratic Government, and a reduction in the number of useless offices, the salaries of which drain the substance of the people.

FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.

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, and we especially object to government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form of oppression, by which Federal judges, in contempt of the laws of the States and rights of citizens, become at once legislators, judges and executioners; and we approve the Bill passed at the last Session of the United States Senate, and now pending in the House, relative to contempts in Federal courts, and providing for trials by jury in cert in cases of contempt. No discrimination should be indulged in by the Government of the United States in favour of any of its debtors. Wo approve of the refusal of the Fifty-Third Congress to pass the Pacific Railroad Funding Bill, and denounce the effort of the present Republican Congress to enact a similar measure. Recognising the just claims of deserving Union soldiers, we heartily indorse the rule of the present commissioner of pensions that no names shall be arbitrarily dropped from the pension roll, and the fact of enlistment and service should be deemed conclusive evidence against disease and disability before enlistment.

ADMISSION OF TERRITORIE

We favour the admission of the territories of New Mexico and Arizona into the Union as states, and we favour the early admission of all the territories having the necessary population and resources to entitle them to statehood, and while they remain territories we hold that the officials appointed to administer the government of any territory, together with the District of Columbia and Alaska, should be bonâ fide residents of the territory of the district in which their duties are to be performed. The democratic party believes in Home Rule and that all public lands of the United States should be appropriated to the establishment of free homes for American citizens. We recommend that the territory of Alaska be granted a delegate in Congress, and that the general land and timber laws of the United States be extended to said territory.

AGAINST THIRD TERM.

We declare it to be the unwritten law of this Republic, established by custom and usage of a hundred years, and sanctioned by the examples of the greatest and wisest of those who founded and have maintained our Government, that no man shall be eligible for a third term of the Presidential office. We extend our sympathy to the people of Cuba in their heroic struggle for liberty and independence. We are opposed to life tenure in the public service. We favour appointments based upon merit, fixed terms of office, and such an administration of the Civil Service laws as will afford equal opportunities to all citizens of ascertained fitness.

IMPROVEMENT OF WATERWAYS.

The Federal Government should care for and improve the Mississippi River and other great waterways of the Republic, so as to secure for the interior states easy and cheap transportation to tide water. When any waterway of the Republic is of sufficient importance to demand aid of the Government

such aid should be extended upon a definite plan of continuous work until permanent improvement is secured. Confiding in the justice of our cause, and the necessity of its success at the polls, we submit the foregoing declaration of principles and purposes to the considerate judgment of the American people. We invite the support of all citizens who approve them, and who desire to have them made effective through legislation for the relief of the people, and the restoration of the country's prosperity.

The It is not necessary to quote Mr. Republican McKinley's platform at the same length

Foreign

Policy. as Mr. Bryan's. The Republican party stands in the old ways, whereas the Democrats have made a plunge which, for good or for evil, revolutionises the bearings of political parties for the rest of the century. It will suffice to quote the following summary, from Dr. Shaw's last month's Progress, of the clauses in the Republican programme dealing with the Foreign Policy of the Republic:--

The Republican party now stands committed to the following propositions, which for brevity we condense, while retaining in general the phraseology of the platform:

1. The Hawaiian Islands should be controlled by the Unite States, and no foreign power should be permitted to interfere with them.

2. The Nicaragua Canal should be built, owned and operated by the United States.

3. By the purchase of the Danish Islands we should secure a much needed naval station in the East Indies.

[blocks in formation]

Democrats' whom ought to have been better informed Conversion. as for instance the Spectator, which talks about Mr. Bryan's metaphor about the cross of gold

ARTHUR SEWALL, Democratic Nominee for Vice-President.

4. American citizens and American property in Armenia and elsewhere in Turkey must be absolutely protected at all hazards, and at any cost.

5. The United States has the right, in reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine, to respond to the appeals of any American state for friendly intervention in case of European encroachment.

6. We hopefully look forward to the eventual withdrawal of the European powers from this hemisphere

7. [Touching the annexation of Canada], the ultimate union of all the English-speaking part of the continent by the full consent of its inhabitants is hopefully anticipated.

8. The government of Spain has lost control of Cuba, is unable to protect the property or lives of resident American citizens, and cannot comply with treaty obligations; and

Mr.

as if the Populist and silver party had never discovered their martyrdom before Bryan's speech-seem to regard this sudden ebullition of democratic discontent as a bolt from the blue. As a matter of fact, as any one might have seen who took the trouble to follow the movement which culminated in Coxey's abortive march on Washington, the whole of the West has long been seething with discontent. The great strike against Pullman, which brought Governor Altgeld into sharp opposition Federal authorities, the direct pre

[graphic]

was

to

the

cursor of the nomina tion of Mr. Bryan for the Presidency. At the Chicago Convention Governor Altgeld was almost supreme, and the platform of the Convention bears on its most distinctive clauses the impress of his mind. Mr. McKinley's lieutenant is said to have remarked when the news reached him of the nomination of Mr. Bryan, "It would have been more logical to have nominated Coxey ;" and there is no doubt but that Coxey was a kind of John the Baptist to Mr. Bryan, when, with the leaders of the other Petitions in Boots, they tramped across the country as pioneers, preparing

the way for what may this year prove to be a triumphal march of an aroused Democracy to take possession of the White House. To those who desire light upon the milieu from which Mr. Bryan's nomination sprang, there is nothing that will be likely to be so suggestive and so helpful as the little book on "Chicago To-day," which I published in 1894, giving an account of the Labour War in the United States.

The Chances of the

The Populist and the Silver parties have both united in nominating Mr. Bryan as Contest. their presidential candidate. The Populist party refused to nominate Mr. Sewall, who is the Democratic nominee for Vice-President. Mr. Sewall is a ship-builder of the extreme north-east coast of New England, and is reputed to be a millionaire. For financial reasons it was necessary to bracket him with Mr. Bryan, but the Populist convention would not be induced to recognise the cogency of considerations which are sufficiently obvious to the Party manager. They nominated their own Vice-President, but their Populist vote will be cast solid for Mr. Bryan. At the last election, the Populists

SENATOR H. M. TELLER.

The Leader of the Silver Republi anз.

are said to have polled nearly a million votes. Their adhesion to the Democratic ticket may be more than counterbalanced by the sec ession of those moneyed men who have hitherto been faithful to the Democratic cause. There will be heavy secessions, especially in the East, which will probably more than counterbalance the adhesion of the Populists, and of the few Silver Republicans like Mr. Teller, who refuse to follow Mr. McKinley. The Democratic party has now definitely cast in its lot with the party of progress. Leaving on one side the currency heresies, they will have now definitely committed themselves to the advocacy of many practical reforms which hitherto have been regarded in the United States as beyond the pale of practical politics. It is worth noting that the National Review, which is a Liberal Unionist organ, finds the Democratic programme less violent than our own Newcastle programme.

The most gratifying item of progress AngloAmerican that has to be noted in the course of Arbitration. last month is the advance made towards the establishment of an agreement between Great Britain and the United States on the subject of a permanent Court of Arbitration. As the Bishop of Durham wrote me on the 20th ult., "The progress of the cause has been wonderful, great beyond my most sanguine hope, and we shall reach, I believe, some definite result. If England and America are agreed, the peace of the world is practically secured." Without going so far as that, for the area outside the English-speaking world is sufficiently large to afford ample room and verge enough for the wars of rival nations, we may at least thank God and take courage at the gratifying result which appears to be at last within our reach. Lord Salisbury, taking a course very unusual to him, published the dispatches relating to negotiations still in progress, saying that the Government would find it useful to know the trend of public opinion on the subject. I publish elsewhere a digest of Mr. Morley's careful analysis of the official dispatches, for Mr. Morley expresses the views which are entertained by almost all Englishmen. Lord Salisbury will not go far wrong if he accepts Mr. Morley as the mouthpiece of public opinion on this

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

frontier; the second is the much larger question of the establishment of a Board of Arbitration between the two nations. It is well that the two questions can be discussed together, because the small and comparatively unimportant controversy with Venezuela affords a practical object-lesson or illustration of the kind of difficulties that would have to be provided for in the institution of a permanent tribunal. Lord Salisbury and Mr. Olney, after making various efforts to arrive at a definite understanding about the Venezuelan arbitration, succeeded in getting very near to each other, as will be seen by a comparison of their latest proposals. Lord Salisbury proposed—(1) that a joint commission, composed of two Americans and two Englishmen, should be appointed, who would report upon the facts of the disputed territory; (2) when their report was obtained, a Tribunal of Arbitration of three should be nominated, one by Great Britain, the other by Venezuela, and the third by the two so nominated. This tribunal should finally adjudicate upon the frontier, but it would not be permitted to cede any territory bona fide occupied either by British subjects on one side, or Venezuelans on the other, on the first of January, 1887. This provision he inserted in order to preclude the possibility of the tribunal ceding to Venezuela territories claimed by the latter which have hitherto held to be part and parcel of the British Colony. If the matter stopped here it would have been difficult to see how an arrangement could be arrived at, for the whole difficulty has from the first turned upon these settled districts which Lord Salisbury insists should be excluded from the award of the Tribunal. Fortunately it does not stop there, for Lord Salisbury, ceding in substance everything that he wishes to reserve in form, suggests that the Tribunal could be empowered to submit any recommendation with regard to the settled districts which seems to it calculated to satisfy the equitable rights of the parties. This would be a recommendation and not an award; "but," Lord Salisbury added significantly, "I need not point out to you that, although the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal will not have a final effect, it will, unless it be manifestly unfair, offer a presumption against which the protesting Government will practically find it difficult to contend." In other words, Lord Salisbury offers in set terms to accept in advance any decision that may be arrived at by the Arbitral Tribunal upon all questions excepting the settled districts, and further gives an unmistakable intimation that he is prepared to

accept any recommendation they may make about the settled districts, providing they call it a recommendation and not an award.

or

Mr. Olney's Criticisms.

Mr. Olney's reply brings the question a stage nearer settlement. He points out that it is absurd to have a Commission on the facts constituted of four members without authorising them to appoint a fifth which would enable the Commission to report one way To this it may the other decisively. be assumed Lord Salisbury will not object. Mr. Olney also insists that the Commission of Facts should have power to report on the settled districts. And this may be taken also as ceded by Lord Salisbury, or otherwise how could the Arbitral Tribunal, which only deals with the report of the Commission of Facts, make any recommendation as to the settled districts if that Commission had made no report thereupon? Finally, as to the territory bona fide occupied on one side or the other, he proposed that the Arbitral Tribunal should be allowed to deal with this branch of the question, not by recommendation, but by a definite award, "provided that in fixing the boundary line such weight and effect shall be given to the occupation of the territory of one party by the citizens of the other party, as reason, justice, the rules of international law, and the equities of the particular case may appear to require." To this Lord Salisbury has not yet replied, but it is obvious that no serious obstacle now remains between the two negotiating Cabinets. It was laid down by the Tsar of Russia, who arbitrated a dispute between France and Holland in regions closely contiguous to Venezuela only four years ago, that when a disputed frontier was fixed, the settlement should be effected without prejudice to the bona fide interests of the settlers. This precedent may or may not form part of international law, but it would undoubtedly have to be taken into account by the Arbitral Tribunal in giving effect to Mr. Olney's proviso. The Proposed Leaving the Venezuelan question, therePermanent fore, as one on which the Governments are within sight of an agreement, we next turn to the much more important question of the permanent tribunal which it is proposed to constitute. Lord Salisbury drew up a draft treaty, under which Britain and the United States should each appoint two or more permanent judicial officers. On the appearance of any difficulty between the two Powers which, in the judgment of either of them, cannot be settled by negotiation, each of them shall designate one of the said officers

Tribunal.

« PreviousContinue »