Entered (G. W. B.) (Recorded W. S.)
Now I am not trying to mislead you when I say that a party who proposes to pay that bond according to contract is not a repudiator, nor am I misleading when I say that a party who attempts to prevent its payment according to contract is a repudiator. The bond, according to its own wording, is payable in coin of the standard value of July 14, 1870.
When we learn exactly what that coin is we will then, like Saul of Tarsus, see things in a new light. By the law that was in force on that date silver or gold could be coined into standard money and their standard value was their legal value. The Democratic party desires the privilege of coining the metals according to that law, and then paying the bonds with those coins according to that law. No repudiation there.
No, not a particle. (Cheers.) The Republicans do not want to coin silver and gold according to that law, and they do not want to allow the debts to be paid in gold or silver money according to that law.
There is repudiation there, yes lots of it; in fact, it is nothing but repudiation. (Great applause.) Do you want to hear about the anarchy part of this question? (Cries of yes! yes!) Very well, let us examine along that line. The Democrats say that the government can coin money and regulate its value and they will accept it in payment of a debt. No anarchy there; no, not a bit. (Laughter.) The Republicans admit that the government can coin money and regulate its value and make it a legal tender. But they openly declare that they won't take it in the payment of a debt unless they want to. There is anarchy there in abundance, yes in great abundance. (Great and continued applause.)
Let me ask the Republicans if it is not a little strange that a law savored with such element of anarchy and repudiation, should have been in full force in America from 1792 to 1873, a period of eighty-one years, and have pleased the people so well, that during all that time no political party ever openly advocated its repeal? Is it not, I ask, strange that George Washington, who fought so bravely for independence, should have signed a law for repudiation and anarchy? Strange, ah, very strange! is it not, that General Grant, when he discovered that he had unknowingly signed a bill for the repeal of the law that they now say would be repudiation, should have said he did not know that the law demonetized silver, and if he had known it he would have suffered his right arm to have been cut off before he would have signed the law.
My friends, not only do the Republicans advocate repudiation, but it also by proposing a scarce money system is advocating confiscation of the debtor's property, for with a large money basis, money is easier to get than with a small money basis. Careful thought will show that easy money means high prices, and when money is scarce and hard to get prices are low; it therefore follows that President Lincoln was correct when he said: "If a government contract a debt and then contract the money before the debt is paid, it is the most heinous crime a government can commit against its people."
We may boast long and strong of the great wisdom of our diplomats and the brilliancy of our statesmen, but whatever they may say will never overshadow the fact that in a people's government the people must vote understandingly, and when we thoroughly analyze this charge of repudiation and anarchy, we will see that it is the same old trick of the burglar crying stop thief to the honest man, while the rogue himself escapes.
Much is being said about our money being good abroad, and great fear is expressed by the banker's party that our silver money under bimetallism will only be worth fifty cents on the dollar in foreign countries. Now, my friends, let us use common sense, and we will easily solve the problem as to how to make our silver dollars good abroad, that feature of the question can be accomplished by following this plain easy method, namely, the next time a foreigner presents a bond of a few million dollars for payment, have Uncle Sam hand the gentleman the amount in silver dollars, then let the foreigner attend to making them good abroad. It will be to his interest to procure a law making the silver good in his own country. Now, I want to ask you in the name of common sense, would not you think the foreigner crazy if when we paid him in our silver, he would go to his own country and cry down the very money we had paid him? Oh, no, he would not do that; he would use his influence to have a law passed in favor of bimetallism in his own country.
But you may urge that he might not succeed in his effort, and he would have a lot of half value American dollars on hand that would not be good abroad. Very well, the worst thing that could possibly happen to us under circumstances of that kind would be when the foreigner found he could not pass the money abroad he would discover all of a sudden that the money is good in America, and as a matter of fact he would spend his money where it would be taken for goods. So we see that we would thus either force a recognition of our money abroad or else we would control the markets of the world. Then in reality we would pay our debts abroad in American produce at a fair price and keep our money at home, where it belongs, as a medium of exchange. And we would then realize the wisdom of the Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone when he said to the English Parliament that "so far as England was concerned bimetallism to them as a creditor country would compel them to pay more for American produce," but the grand old man in his frank and honest manner added, "so far as America is concerned, it would immediately give her control of the markets of the world."
When we lament the fact that under our present financial system the rich are growing richer and the poor are becoming poorer day by day, we hear some one say, "that is true, but the law of the survival of the fittest is to blame for those facts." If you will pardon me for seemingly diverging from the subject I will say something in regard to the abuse of the law of the survival of the fittest. Yes, I admit that under any law, and under any conditions, those who are best suited to the conditions under which they live will get on better than those who are not so well suited by nature to combat for existence and prosperity. Nature has so laid its plans that, at or near the equator in the warm climate tropical fruits grow better than they do in Iceland, while the pine trees, true to nature, thrive best in cold regions. The Polar bear enjoys the snows of Alaska, but would suffocate in the tropical heat of Borneo or Sumatra. True to the law of the survival of the fittest, the elephant and ostrich thrive in sunny Africa, but would perish in Norway's winters. These things are true, because all nature is in perfect harmony with itself. When carefully considered, we find that the reason some things prosper in one place and perish in another is merely that they are fitted for the conditions in which they thrive and are unfitted for the vicious surrounding in which they perish. The lion and tiger prosper among vicious beasts, but the child and lamb survive better where love, mercy and righteousness reign.
Let us suppose that Christ and John L. Sullivan were contesting for the pugilistic championship under London prize ring rules, most assuredly Sullivan would win in the first round. But let us change the conditions and make the place of contest the pulpit of a Quaker church, and the subject: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the kingdom of heaven," don't you think Sullivan would be quite out of place and Christ would be the victor on that occasion?
Suppose a fine pasture, bountiful with grass and water should be well stocked with a few hundred sheep and lambs and lurking around in hidden nooks of the field were a dozen or more Norway wolves; the sheep and the wolves are in the same pasture, I want to ask you, my friend, what kind of stock do you think the farmer will have in that pasture in a few days if he says to himself the law of the survival of the fittest will protect those sheep if they are fit to live, and if they can't survive then I will shear the wolves for my winter's wool. My friends, if that farmer ever got any wool from those wolves he would have to get it from their stomachs; he couldn't shear it from their backs, because it don't grow on that class of animals. What would you think of the farmer's good wife if after the wolves had killed and sucked the warm blood of the last lamb she would in her supreme recognition of the law of the survival of the fittest take from her child's grave the tombstone that had carved thereon the image of a little lamb at rest under the weeping willow and place in its stead a statue of marble with the life-sized image of a wolf with the blood of a lamb streaming from his teeth? No, that would not be the act of a sane mother, nor would the farmer willingly leave the sheep in the pasture with no other protection but the wolves.
Under laws recognizing viciousness the most vicious will survive best.
Our country and her people are industrious and willing, but we are in debt, having promised to pay American dollars that by the vicious system of contracting the money under the gold standard which makes dollars harder and harder to get, which is only another way of expressing the fact that wages and produce will go lower year by year under the system of greed that is accompanying the gold standard in all countries. But one thing can help the masses of our people out of the bondage of debt, and that thing is higher prices for labor and produce.
Higher prices in America will follow either of two causes--foreign famine and war or bimetallism and an increased volume of money. The latter is within our control, the former method no one should desire.
Let us not disclaim against the wolves, for scientists tell us that the shepherd dog that so kindly protects the sheep is a direct descendant of the wolf, but he has been domesticated by the law of man. So we see that under the vicious law of the survival of the fittest the wolf as a master was a sheep destroyer, but under the civilized law of the survival of the fittest, the descendant of the vicious wolf as we know, the shepherd dog is a servant of the sheep. Gold is good money, but as a master it is a tyrant. Let us hitch it side by side with silver and paper money, put it all under direct control of the government, and the wealth of this nation will be our servant, but with gold in control our nation's wealth becomes a hard master.
The other day, while on the train, in conversation with a rich banker, the subject of the rich and poor came up. He said "there was nothing in the law that tended to make people rich or poor." His idea was that individual prosperity came from each man's ability as a financier.
"Why," said he, "don't you know that if the property was all equally divided among the people, the same people who now have it would get it again in a very short time?" I asked him if he was willing to change certain laws about the banking business, then divide the property and money of the United States equally among the people? He said "he did not want to have any such thing done." When I asked him to specifically name his objections to such a transaction, he replied "that it would not be fair to take what he made and give it to some one who had not made it." Then when I reminded him that he had said he would have it all back in a short time, he said that "if the law was changed about banking he would not have the same chance to get it back that he now had to keep it." I told him that I agreed with him on his last statement, but if I should agree with him in his first statement I could not see how the changed law and division of property would affect his ability, and if it did affect it, then I said the banking law must be a part of his ability. Then he replied that "banking laws were something that our congressmen would attend to." At this part of the conversation the train stopped and the banker bade me good-by and with a pleasant smile greeted a crowd that was waiting at the depot to escort him to the opera house, where he was to make a speech in favor of a law allowing the banks to issue all the money and retire the government from the banking business. The fellow was a candidate for congress.
As the train left the station I took from my valise a little book of statistics and found that 79 per cent of our Congressmen and 63 per cent of our Senators were either bankers or bank directors, then I thought his last remark was true, that our Congressmen would attend to the banking laws all right, especially from a banker's point of view. I then thought of a path up the mountain side that was so crooked a traveler going up would meet himself coming back.
Thanks for your attention.
SPEECH DELIVERED AT JACKSONVILLE, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 15, 1897, BY C. A.
BOGARDUS.
OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:--I am going to request my hearers this evening to be not possessed of party prejudice. If there is any one feature of the human mind that works more disaster to civilization and humanity, than another, that feature is political partyism made blind by prejudice. Prejudice blinds the eye to light and benumbs the mind until reason is shut out. The Bible says, "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
In examining any proposition we should not proceed to change reasons and facts to suit our thoughts, but rather remove all prejudice from our mind and then change our thoughts to agree with the facts. For my part I would that all voters and their wives and children would form themselves into a party of political truthseekers. When that is done humanity, justice and a pure government of all the people, by all the people and for all the people, will form the armor of our civilization.
But as long as blind partyism prevails men will get into heated political discussions that only widen the gulf of misunderstanding.
Misleading newspaper articles will make the gulf deeper, and the cunning hand of plutocracy and coercion will widen the waters of the gulf into a vast restless ocean, without even the signs of a rainbow to tell them that the great storm of poverty and human slavery to the money power, that knows no love, no mercy, no justice or Christianity, shall not continue forever and anon.
As we stand on a mountain crest and cast our eyes over the wide extent of country, it is the more prominent features that impress themselves on our vision. The lesser details, the waving field, the blooming bush, the evergreen moss, the singing bird and fragrant rose, which attract the attention and admiration of the immediate bystander, are lost to our view by the distance. But the range of forest-clad hills, the winding river, the crystal lake, the wide expanse of fertile plains and snow-capped mountain peaks, determine the landscape and claim our attention.
We of the United States are today surrounded by the Anglo-American civilization of the closing days of the 19th century. Let us from this height glance along the road of our nation's journey hither. We can at best only hope to notice the more prominent lines of advance. To carefully trace the growth of all the departments would not only greatly exceed the limited time at our command this evening, but would also confuse us by the multiplicity of subjects demanding our attention.
When God created man in his own image and placed him on earth, He gave man dominion over the earth and all the fullness thereof. There is an old maxim which teaches, that through respect for the giver, we should not give, barter or sell away a present. God gave the earth and all that is in it to mankind. May we not here ask, to what mankind was the earth given? And what is meant by man? It is plain to the student that by man is meant all mankind, for all time so long as he shall live, for we find in research of the scripture that "God is not God of the dead, but of the living." I want to ask you in the name of justice and humanity, should a great majority of mankind now, in the strongest and most highly civilized country, give the earth and its abundance to the money corporations, trusts and combines, that are in reality transforming our beloved republic into a "Den of Thieves;" or should we keep possession of the bountiful gift, that our children and the children of the generations to follow will inherit the land, that was so graciously presented to all mankind, by an all wise Providence?
One of the uppermost features in our civilization today is our national medium of exchange, called "money." Reasonable men of all parties agree that our money should be sound and honest, and limited only in amount by the necessities and requirements of the citizens of our country, in striving after a nobler and higher civilization in which the greatest good to the greatest number shall be the pinnacle of ultimate achievement.
In June of 1896, the representatives of a great party met in national convention in the city of St. Louis, Mo., and outlined a party platform in which we find a plank which says: "We are therefore opposed to the free coinage of silver, except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and until such agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved."
As we think of and discuss this or any other proposition, the question foremost in our mind should be: Is that proposition, if adopted, likely to promote the interest of an independent liberty loving, Democratic people, or will it, if adopted, work in an opposite direction?
In my judgment, a careful examination of that plank will reveal the fact that it is hypocritical in the extreme, and in itself makes by its own declaration, improbable the very thing it pretends to advocate and pledge itself to support, namely: Bimetallism, by an international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world.
There is no business man, farmer or politician who has ever successfully accomplished any undertaking by adopting the idea most prominent in this plank, which is declaring bimetallism to be right, and then saying that we cannot and will not do anything to procure it if the leading commercial nations of the world do not consent to it.
Let us examine this plank in detail, and see if the general proposition of waiting for our common enemy to assist us in helping ourselves is not ridiculous.
We notice that the party in drawing up this plank, says: "That they pledge themselves to promote bimetallism by agreement;" then in the next clause, say, "and until such an agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved."
Let me illustrate: Suppose this gentleman on my right having a horse fairly worth on the market $100, should say to the young man on my left that he desired to sell the animal. If the young man wished to buy he would ask the price of the horse. I ask, what would the owner receive for his steed, if he should reply, "Well, I ask $100, but if you will not give that much, I will take $25."
Now, my gold standard friends, do you not know that the purchaser would take advantage of the seller and only give $25 for the horse.
When the party at St. Louis pledged themselves to promote international bimetallism, and then asserted, "until such an agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved," they in effect, like the man with the horse, put their business in the other fellow's hands; for was not that clause simply another way of saying to the foreigner, if you will not give us bimetallism we will take the gold standard, although we prefer the bimetallic standard?
Fellow citizens, I ask you in the name of American independence, does it not appear as though there was a colored gentleman somewhere in the background? Let us examine further, and we will see that the colored man wears a British coat of arms, and has his American office on Williams street, New York city.
We will make no mistakes in our conclusion if we understand the facts, and to more clearly appreciate the full international effect, of the plank under examination, let us draw another picture from human nature.
We will imagine you people of Jacksonville to be a little sporty, and that you have in your midst a prize fighter of whom you are quite proud; we will suppose that Springfield has a character of the same kind, and the St. Louis Athletic club should offer $50,000 as a purse for a fistic contest between these two champions, $40,000 to be the reward of the winner and $10,000 to soothe the wounds of the defeated pugilist. We will suppose the fight is arranged and the men go into careful training, the time for the mill has at last arrived, the ring is complete, and all details perfect. A large audience has assembled and betting is liberally indulged in; of course Jacksonville sports back their home man. At the appointed hour the contestants enter the ring. Then you see your Jacksonville man is much the superior in appearance to the Springfield upstart. Your man being the quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is the more scientific. (America is quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is more scientific than any other nation on earth.) You feel sure your man will win the fight on short notice, in fact you almost pity the man from Springfield, to see that he must compete in a fistic combat with such a giant as the Jacksonville Gladiator. The referee announces that Marquis of Queensbury's rules are to govern, he looks at his watch and announces that in one minute the fight will be on, the fighters raise their hands to position. When just a few seconds of time still remains before the slugging is to commence, your Jacksonville man says to his opponent, hold on, if you don't run, I will. What, I ask you, would you think of your prize fighter then? Think of the United States training for a century for supremacy of American self-government over foreign monarchical governments, then when all things are completed for the final fight of the survival of the fittest, a great party saying to the monarchies of Europe, "we know bimetallism is right, but if you will not consent to it, then we will stick to the gold standard. If you don't run, we will." (Great laughter and applause.)
Party prejudice prevailed and through the misrepresentations of the papers and certain unscrupulous politicians the party making those representations carried the election. International bimetallic commissioners were sent to the foreign countries to procure this great international agreement, and did they get it? Facts answer no.
Let me again implore you to lay aside party prejudice and look matters squarely in the face, and we will immediately see, that not only did Mr. Wolcott and his party make a signal failure in procuring international bimetallism, but by the very terms of the St. Louis platform it was impossible for him to succeed in his alleged purpose.
Now, my friends, let us suppose Mr. Wolcott and his two associates are in England talking with the rich moneyed men for international bimetallism and Mr. Wolcott is dealing out sledge-hammer argument in favor of international bimetallism, using the same argument in England the Bryan Democrats used in the campaign of 1896 in the United States.
The financial men of England would then say to Mr. Wolcott, did you say that bimetallism in the United States meant 50-cent dollars? Mr.
Wolcott would answer, "Yes, I said that;" whereupon the Englishman would say, "Then international bimetallism would mean international 50-cent dollars." Question No. 2. Mr. Wolcott, did not you say bimetallism in the United States meant repudiation? Yes, would come from Mr. Wolcott. Then the Englishman would reply, "Would not international bimetallism mean international repudiation?" Question No.
3. "Mr. Wolcott, did you not tell the people of the United States that free silver over there meant anarchy and lost confidence?" Again Mr.
Wolcott is forced to admit that was just what he said here in 1896. In a triumphant air the Englishman would say international free silver would mean international anarchy and international lost confidence.
(Laughter and applause). If Mr. Wolcott should further continue the argument, what could the poor fellow say if the Englishman would draw the Republican platform of '96 on him and read the following: "And until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved." Johnny Bull would add, "You Americans served notice on us that all we had to do was to stick to the gold standard and you would also stick to it."
"Now, we money men of England think we can get more bushels of corn, oats, rye and barley, more days labor of you fellows for what you owe us under the gold standard than we could under international bimetallism. We know it is hard on you, but it is the making of us, and we will stick to the gold standard; and as you said you would stick to it if we did, all we can do for you, Mr. Wolcott, is to serve you a fine wine supper, and tell you to return to America and stick to the gold standard." (Great applause.)
My friends, the most ridiculous proceeding I ever heard of was the Republican party sending commissioners abroad to procure international bimetallism with that plank staring them in the face. I want to ask you if you do not think that if Mr. Wolcott would have taken a carload or two of the Republican literature of 1896 and handed out the pamphlets to the Englishmen, saying this is what we think of free silver in the United States, will you help us to have it by an international action?
Would not that kind of literature hurt the cause instead of helping it?
For my part, I have no objections to the President sending a Senator from Colorado to the foreign countries to advocate bimetallism, but I do insist that he sent the wrong senator. Most certainly Mr. Teller could have gone abroad with a little handful of free silver literature that was left over in the campaign of '96 and accomplished more, in a day's honest consistent work, for bimetallism, than could Senator Wolcott with the tons of gold standard pamphlets published by the Republican party. (Great applause.)
A noticeable fact is that one of the greatest job lots of political trickery and deception that was ever attempted in America has been practiced in the United States since the month of June, 1896.
Later in the season the so-called Gold-standard Democrats conventioned in Indianapolis; their money plank reads, "We assert the necessity of such intelligent currency reform as will confine the government to its legitimate functions, completely separated from the banking business, and afford to all sections of our country a safe, uniform and elastic bank currency, under government supervision, measured in volume by the need of business." Strange as it may seem, while Mr. Wolcott was abroad, pretendingly for the purpose of procuring bimetallism by international agreement, the President and Secretary of the Treasury were working up a scheme to have the gold standard adopted according to the tenor of the Indianapolis platform. When we consider 7,000,000 voted for international free silver, and 6,500,000 voted for independent free silver, we see the United States has 13,500,000 bimetallists; only 134,000, or less than one per cent, voted the Gold-standard Democratic ticket. Yet, my friends, we today find Mr.