of peace, and it deserts any nation in time of war, and never is a friend when a friend is needed.

Many reasons might be given to show why the policy which we advocate is democratic. In the first place, our policy has the endorsement of the Democratic National Convention, and that is sufficient to determine what democracy is today. There must be majority rule or minority rule, and democracy has always meant the rule of the majority, and a majority of the Democrats of the nation, acting with more freedom and directness than in any convention before, have declared that the free and unlimited coinage of silver at 16 to 1 without waiting for any other nation is democratic.

But there is another thing that convinces us that our position is democratic. Every undemocratic influence in the country is arrayed against us. Every man who has profited by special legislation, every trust that seeks to impose upon the people, every syndicate that fattens upon public adversity, and every corporation that thinks that it is greater than the Government which created it— all these are opposed to us, and give us assurance that we are doing good work for the people.

Again, if you will look at those who have opposed democracy in the past, you will learn that our position is correct. Let me read you what Thomas Jefferson said in 1800 of the combination which was then opposing democracy. In writing to a friend who had gone abroad, he said:

The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left. In place of the noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican party has sprung up whose avowed purpose it is to draw us over to the substance as they have already done to the form of British government. While the main body of our citizens remain true to republican institutions, against us are the executive, the federal judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the Government, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, all British merchants and Americans trading on British capital, all speculators and bond brokers, and with them the banks and dealers in public funds and United States bonds-contrivances invented for the purpose of corruption, and for assimilating to the rotten as well as to the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever if I were to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies-men who were once Solomons in council and Samsons in the field. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting perils, but we shall preserve it.

My friends, these are the words in which Jefferson described the opposition to the Democratic party in 1800-just ninety-six years ago. It is the same opposition that we have to meet now. Show me a man who goes to Europe oftener than he crosses the Mississippi river, and I will show you a man who thinks that this country cannot do anything unless England helps to do it. Show me a man who thinks that this nation cannot be survived unless it trades on British capital; show me a man who thinks that our financial system ought to have for its object the borrowing of money from abroad, and I will show you a man who would make the people of this country bow their necks to foreign oppression and accept whatever financial policy our creditors desire to force upon us.

It seems that there were apostates in those days also, and it seems that they were Solomons in council and Samsons in the field. Why, you would suppose that Jefferson was describing the present condition, because every man who leaves the Democratic party this year is willing to make affidavit

that he is a Solomon in council and that he has been a Samson in the field. But Jefferson said that the Government would be preserved in spite of them. He said that the liberties of the people would be preserved in spite of them, and, my friends, I believe that the same can be said now. We can lose those leaders who have been-not argued out but-pulled out of the Democratic party by great corporate interests, and yet the Democratic party will survive to battle for the people. For every Democrat who is drawn away from his moorings by some sub-marine cable, we will gain some Republicans who still believe that this nation ought to have its own business attended to by its own people.

We have commenced a warfare against the gold standard, and we expect to continue that warfare until there will not be a man in this country who will dare to raise his voice in favor of the gold standard. We believe in bimetallism; it has been the policy of this country in the past. All parties have declared for it time and again. The American people are today wedded to bimetallism by tradition and interest, and the party which refuses to support bimetallism will find itself divorced from all the offices in the United States.

Our opponents tell us that if we have free coinage we will go to the standard of Mexico. Why do they not say that if we maintain the gold standard we will approach the condition of Turkey, which has a gold standard? I understand that the Armenians have recently been called anarchists by those who are in authority in Turkey, and I suppose from that that they are in favor of bimetallism and have raised their voices against the gold standard in Turkey. They call us anarchists over here because we are opposed to allowing foreign nations to make a financial policy and then force it upon us whether we like it or not. As I looked into the faces of the members of the various clubs that escorted me from the depot to the hotel and into the faces of the people who lined the streets, I wondered, if these were anarchists, how the patriots of this country would look if we could get them together in one place and gaze upon them. If those who are assembled here today and in similar meetings throughout the country are really enemies of this country, I would like to know how this country is to be saved from its enemics. The men who insist on doing our legislating in time of peace as a rule never fight any battles in time of war.

We are in favor of the money of the Constitution. It was good enough in 1884. Our national platform declared that year in favor of honest moneyand it did not stop there as the advocates of so-called honest money do today, but went on and defined what honest money was. That platform declared that the Democratic party favored "honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution." That platform was good enough to elect a President and Vice-President on in 1884. In 1888 the Democratic platform reiterated the platform of 1884. The platform of 1892 said:

We hold to the use of gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both gold and silver without discriminating against metal or charge for mintage.

Some qualifying words were then added which were intended as steps down so that the man who ran upon the platform could go off of it as soon as he was elected. But that platform did not declare for a gold standard. That platform recognized the principle of bimetallism and demanded that gold and silver

should be treated exactly alike as the money metals of this country, and yet, my friends, the financiers have succeeded in the past in inserting an ambiguous phrase so that the men elected on the platform could refuse to carry out its spirit.

The next meeting in size was at Tomlinson Hall, in the evening, the house being crowded. To the traveling men, who assembled in the corridors of the hotel, and insisted upon a few remarks, I said:

Indianapolis Speech-To the Traveling Men.

Gentlemen: I appreciate the invitation extended by the traveling men to say a word to them, and I appreciate the honor of an introduction to the traveling men by a traveling man who became a supporter of mine after he had read the letter of acceptance of the Republican candidate. I value the support of traveling men for two reasons. In the first place, as a class they average high in intelligence-no class of people has a higher average of intelligence-and when I have the support of traveling men they cannot say that my cause appeals to unthinking people. The traveling men think. Their minds are active and it is only another proof that bimetallism commends itself to those who will reason, who will study and who will investigate. I am glad to have their support for another reason. They are not only intelligent, but they are active. There are two kinds of supporters, those who vote for you and those who not only vote but work for you; and while we are grateful to those who give their votes, we are still more grateful to those who, not satisfied with simply voting, go out as missionaries to bring others into line.

I am sure that we can have no more effective assistance in this campaign than that of the traveling men. They travel over this country and they do not cost campaign committees anything for expenses or literature. And they can talk faster, longer, and louder than all the other people combined. I say I am glad to have them on our side and I am not going to say that the traveling men are entirely unselfish in supporting bimetallism. In fact, I am one of those who believe that it is much easier for a man to be patriotic when he can at the same time help his own interests and the interests of his family and the interests of those about him. I believe that men have a right in the discussion of public questions to apply those questions to their own condition and see how a policy proposed will affect them in their business. These traveling men are right when they determine that the only way to help the business of the traveling man is to enable the people to buy the goods which traveling men have to sell. The gold standard enables a few people to buy more than they would be able to buy under bimetallism, but it makes the great mass of the people less able to buy than they would be under bimetallism. If a man sells shoes he knows that it is a great deal better to sell shoes to the millions who will be able to wear them under a just financial policy than to confine his sales to the few hundreds who will be able to wear them under a gold standard. As it is with shoes so it is with clothing, and so it is with all the goods which are sold. If you increase the power of the people to consume, you increase their power to buy, and when you do so you lay the only foundation upon which