H3 "
In Hsarty Accord
Witt Platform.
SHALL THE PEOPLE RULE
That Is ths
i
uussnon.
! -
REPUBLICANS RESPONSIBLE
ill Present Abuses a Result of
Their Acts, and They Are Im
potent to Correct Them.
Mr. Clayton and Gentlemen of the
Notification Committee: 1 can not ac
cept the nomination which you official
ly tender, without first acknowledging
my deep indebtedness to the Democrat
ic party for the extraordinary honor
which it has conferred upon me. Hav
ing twice before been a candidate for
the presidency, in campaigns which
ended in defeat, a third nomination, the
result of the free and voluntary act of
the voters of "the party, can only be ex
plained by a substantial and undis
puted growth iu the principles stud pol
icies for which I, with a multitr.de of
others, have contended. As those prin
ciples policies have given me what
ever political strength I posset's, the
action of the convention not only re
Hews my faith ia them, but strengthens
my attachment to them.
A Platform Is Binding.
I shall, in the near future, prepare a
more formal reply to your notification,
and, iu that letter of acceptance, will
deal with the platform in detail, it is
sufficient, at this time, to assure you
that I am iu hearty accord with both
the letter .uul the spirit of the plat
form. I endorse it iu whole and in
part, and shall, if elected, regard its
declarations as binding upon me. And,
I may add, a platform is binding as to
what it omits as well as to what it
contains. According to the democratic
idea, the people think for themselves
and select officials to carry ont their
wishes. The voters are the sovereigns;
the officials are the servants, employed
for a fixed time and at a stated salary
to do what the sovereigns want done,
and to do it la the way the sovereigns
"want it done. Platforms are entirely
In harmony with this democratic idea.
A platform announces the party's po
sition on the questions which are at is
syc; and an official is not at liberty to
use the authority vested in him to
uige personal views which have not
been submitted to the voters for their
'approval. If one is nominated upon a
platform which Is not satisfactory to
Jiira. he must, if candid, either decline
the nomination, or, in accepting it, pro
pose an amended platform in lieu of
the one adopted by the convention. Xo
such situation, however, confronts your
candidate, for the platform upon which
I was nominated not only contains
nothing from which I dissent, but it
specifically outlines all the remedial
legislation which we can hope to se
cure during the next four years.
Republican Challenge Accepted.
The distinguished statesman who re
ceived the Republican nomination for
president said. In his notification
ppeech: "The strength of the Republican
cause in the campaign at hand is the
fact that we represent the policies es
sential to the reform of known abuses,
to the continuance cf liberty and true
prosperity, and that we are determined,
las our platform unequivocally declares,
to maintain them and carry them on"
In the name of the Democratic party,
I accept the challenge, and charge that
the Republican party is responsible for
all the abuses which now exist in the
federal government, and that it is im
potent to accomplish the reforms which
are imperatively needed. Further, I
can not concur in the statement that
the Kepubli.-nn platform unequivocally
leclares for the reforms that are nec
essary: on the contrary, I affirm that it
ipenly and notoriously disappoints the
hopes and "xpectations of reformers,
whether those reformers be Republic
ans or Democrats. So far did the Re
publican convention fall short of Its
duty that the Republican candidate felt
It necessary to add to his platform tu
several important particulars, thus re
buking the leaders of the party, upon
whose co-operation he must rely for
the enactment of remedial legislation.
As I shall, in separate speeches, dis
cuss the leading questions at issue, I
shall at this time confine myself to the
paramount question, and to the far
reaching purpose of our party, as tbi.t
purpose is set forth in the perform.
Shall the People Rule?
Our platform declares that the over-
shadowing lmsu LIcu manifest Itself
iu nil the questions uuv under discus
sion, is "Shall tlie people rule? No
matter which way we turn: no matter
to what subject we address ourselves.
1 the same question confronts us: Shi: II
the people control their own govern
ment, and use that government for the
protection of their rights and for the
promotion of their welfare? or Khali
tlie representatives of predatory wealth
prey upon a del egoless puLlic. while
the OiTeuders secure immunity from
subservient oGicIuls whom they raise
to power by unscrupulous methods?
This Is the issue raised by the "known
abuses" to which Mr. Taft refers.
President's
Indictment Against tht
y'
In a message sent to congress last
January. President Roosevelt said:
"The attacks by these great corpora
tions ou the administration's actions
have been given a wide circulation
throughout the country, in the news
papers and otherwise, by those writers
aud speakers who, consciously or un
consciously, act as the. representatives
of predatory wealth of the wealth ac
cumulated on a giant scale by all forms
of iniquity, ranging from the oppres
sion of wage earners to unfair and un
wholesome methods of crushing out
competition, and to defrauding the
public by stock-Jobbing and the manip
ulation of securities. Certain wealthy
men of this stamp, whose conduct
should be abhorrent to every man of
ordinarily decent conscience, and who
commit the hideous wrong of teaching
our young men that-phenomenal busi
ness success must ordinarily be based
on dishonesty, have, during the last
few mouths, made It apparent that
they have banded together to work for
a re-action. Their endeavor Is to
overthrow and discredit nil who hon
estly administer the law, to prevent
any additional legislation which would
check and restrain them, and to secure.
If possible-, a freedom from all re
straint which will permit every un
scrupulous wrong-doef to do what he
wishes unchecked, provided he has
enough money." What an arraignment
of the predatory Interests!
Is the president's indictment true?
And, if true, against whom .-as the
indictment directed? Not against the
Democratic party.
Mr. Taft Endorses the Indictment.
Mr. Taft says that these evils have
crept in during the last ten years. lie
declares that, during this time, some
"prominent and influential members
of the community, spurred by finaii' i.il
success and in thoir hurry for greater
wealth, became unmindful of the com
mon rules of business honesty and
fidelity, and of the limitations imposed
by law rpon thoir actions'." and that
"the revelations of the breaches of
trusts, the disclosures as to rcbr.tcs
and discriminations by railroads, the
accumulating evidence cf the viola
tions of the anti-trust laws, by a num
ber of corporations, and the over-issue
of stocks and bo nils of interstate rail
roads for the unlawful enriching of di
rectors and for the purpose of concen
trating the control of the railroads un
der one management," all these, he
charges, "quickened the conscience of
the people and brought on a moral
awakening."
During all this time. I beg to remind
you. Republican officials presided in the
executive department, filled the cab
inet, dominated the senate, controlled
the house of representatives and occu
pied most of the federal judgeships.
Four years ago the Republican plat
form boastfully declared that since
ISOO-with the exception of two years
the Republican party had been in con
trol of part or of all the branches of
the federal government; that for two
years only was the Democratic party In
a position to either enact or repeal a
law. Having drawn the salaries; hav
ing enjoyed the honors: having secured
the prestige, let the Republican party
accept the responsibilitj'!
Republican Party Responsible.
Why were these "known abuses"
permitted to develop? Why have they
not been corrected? If existing laws
are sufficient, why have they not been
enforced?, All of the executive ma
chinery of the fed2ral government is
in the hands of the Republican party.
Are new laws necessary? Why have
they not been enacted? With a Re
publican president to recommend, with
a Republican senate and house to carry
out his recommendations, why does the
Republican candidate plead for further
time in which to do what should have
been done long ago? Can Mr. Taft
promise to be more strenuous in the
prosecution cf wrong-doers than the
present ejsocutive? Can he ask for a
larger majority in the senate than his
party now has? Does he need more
Republicans in the house of represent
atives or a speaker with more unlim
ited authority.
Why No Tariff Reform?
The president's close friends have
been promising for several years that
be would attack the iniquities of the
tariff. We have had irtiniation that
Mr Taft was restive under the de
mands of the highly protected in
dustries. And yet the influence of the
manufacturers, who have for twenty
five years contributed to the Republican
campaign fund, aud who in return
have framed the tariff schedules, has
bem sufficient to prevent tariff reform.
As the present campaign approached,
botli the president and Mr. Taft de
clared in favor of tariff revision, but
set the date of revision after the elec
tion. But the pressure brought to bear
by the protected Interests has been
great enough to prevent any attempt at
tariff reform before the election; and
the reduction promised after the elec
tion is so 'dged about with qualify
ing phrases that no one can estimate
with accur y the sum total of tariff
reform to I e expected ia case of Re
publican success. If the past can lie
taken as a :ide, the Republican prrty
will le so .ligated by campaign con-
trlbuflons from CLe beneficiaries of pro
tection, as to muke that party power
loss to brine to the country any ma
terial relief from the present tariff
burdens.
Why No Anti-truct Legislation?
A few years ago the Republican lead
ers la the house of representatives
.V,.e cocrt.t.d Ly j,ubIic oplllloa ,uto
, Kl,r,j0rt of au .Ult;.lrust law which
, u, cnUorsenieut of (,K. ,)res!dMlt,
. t WJuate refllsed even to con.
xl.ivr the measure, and since that time
no effort has been made by the domi
nant party to secure remedial legisla
tion upon this subject
Why No Railroad Legislation?
' r t ........
meree Commission has been asking for
j nn enlargement of Us powers, that it
might prevent rebates and discrimina
tions, but a Republican senate and a
Republican house of representatives
were unmoved by Its entreaties. In
1900 the Republican national conven
tion was urged to endorse the demand
for railway legislation, but Its platform
was silent on the subject. Even in
1904 the convention gave no pledge to
remedy these abuses. When the presi
dent finally asked for legislation he
drew his inspiration from three Demo
cratic oatioual Dlat forms and he re
ceived more coiuial support from the
Democrats than from the Republicans.
The Republicans in the senate deliber
ately defeated several amendments of
ferred by Senator La Fxdlette and sup
ported by the Democrats amendments
embodying legislation asked by the In
terstate Commerce Commission. One
of these amendments authorized the
Ascertainment oT the value of rail
roads. This amendment was not only
defeated by the senate, but it was over
whelmingly rejected by the receut Re
publican national convention, and the
Republican candidate has sought to res
cue his party from the disastrous re
sults of this act by expressing him
self, in a qualified way, iu favor of
ascertaining the value of the railroads.
Over-issue of Stocks and Bonds.
Mr. Taft complains of the over-issue
of stocks and bond;? of railroads, "for
the unlawful enriching of directors
and for the purpose of concentrating
the control of the railroads under one
management," and the complaint is
well founded. But, with a president to
point out the evil, and a Republican
congress to correct it, we find uothing
done for the protection of the public.
Why? My honorable opponent has, by
his confession, relieved me of the ne
cessity of furnishing proof; he admits
the condition and he can not avoid the
logical conclusion that must be drawn
from the admission. There is no doabt
whatever that a large majority of the
voters of the Republican party recog
nize the deplorable situation which Mr.
Taft describes; they recognize that the
masses have had but little influence
upon legislation or upon the ad
ministration of the government, and
they are beginning to understand
the cause. For a generation the Re
publican party has drawn its cam
paign funds from the beneficiaries of
special legislation. Privileges have
been pledged aud granted in return for
mouey contributed to debauch elec
tions. What can be expected when of
ficial authority is turned over to the
representatives of those who first fur
nish the sinews of war and then reim
burse themselves out of the pockets of
the taxpa3-ers?
Fasting In Wilderness Necessary.
So long as the Republican party re
mains in power, it is powerless to re
generate itself. It can not attack
wrong-doing in high places without dis
gracing many of its prominent mem
bers, and it, therefore, uses opiates in
stead of the surgeon's knife. Its male
factors construe each Republican vic
tory as an endorsement of their con
duct and threaten the party with de
feat if they are interfered with. Not
until that party passes through a pe
riod of fasting in the wilderness, will
the Republican leaders learn to study
public questions from the standpoint
of the masses. Just as with individ
uals, "the cares of this world and the
deceitfulness of riches choke the truth,"
so in politics, when party leaders serve
far away from home and are not in
constant contact with the voters, con
tinued party success blinds their eyes
to the needs of the people and makes
them deaf to, the cry of distress.
Publicity as to Campaign Contribu
tions. An effort has been made to secure
legislation requiring publicity as to
campaign contributions and expendi
tures; but the Republican leaders, even
in the face of au indignant public, re
fused to consent to a law which would
compel honesty in elections. When the
matter was brought up in the receut
Republican national convention, the
plank was repudiated by a vote of 8S0
to 94. Here, too, Mr. Taft has been
driven to apologize for his convention
and to declare himself in favor of a
publicity law; and yet, if you will read
what he says upon this subject, you
will find that his promise falls far short
of the requirements of the situation.
He says:
"If I am elected president, I shall
urge upon congress, with every hope of
success, that a law be passed requiring
the filing. In a federal office, of a state
ment of the contributions received by
fommittees and candidates in elections
for members of congress, and In such
other elections as are constitutionally
within the control of congress."
1 shall not embarrass him by asking
him upon what he bases his hope of
success; it is certainly not on any en
couragement he has received from Re
publican leaders. It is sufficient to say
that i! his hopes were realized if, in
f I ite of the adverse action of his con
vention, he should succeed In securing
the enactment of the very law which
he favors, it would give but partial re
lief. He has read the Democratic plat
form; not only his language, but his
evident alarm, indicates that o nas
read It carefully. He even had before
him the action of the Democratic na
tional committee In interpreting and
applying that platform: and yet, he
fails to say that he favors the publica
tion of tlie contributions before the
election. Of course, it satisfies a nat
ural curiosity to find out how au elec
tion has been purchased, even wheu
the knowledge comes too late to be of
service, but why should the people Ik
kept in darkness until the election Is
past? Why should the locking of the
door be delayed until the horse is gone?
An Election a Public Affair.
An election Is a public affair. The
people, exercising the right to select
their officials and to decide upon the
policies to be pursued, proceed to their
several polling places on election day
and register their will. What excuse
can be given for secrecy as to the in
fluences at work? If a man, pecun
iarily interested in "concentrating the
control of the railroads in one manage
ment," subscribes a large sum to aid In
carrying the election, why should his
part in the campaign be concealed un
til he has put the officials under obli
gation to him? If a trust magnate
contributes $100,000 to elect political
friends to office, with a view to pre
venting hostile legislation, why should
that fact be concealed until his friends
are securely seated In their official po
sitions? This Is not a new questlou; It Is a
question which has been agitated a
question which the Republican leuders
fully understand a question which the
Republican candidate has studied, and
yet he refuses to declare himself in fa
vor of the legislation absolutely neces
sary, namely, legislation requiring pub
lication before the election.
Democratic Party Promises Publicity.
How can the people hope to rule, if
they are uot able to learn until after
he election what the nredatorv inter
ests are doing? The Democratic party
meets the issue honestly and coura
geously. It says:
"We pledge the Democratic party to
the enactment of a law prohibiting any
corporation from contributing to a
campaign fund, and any individual
from contributing an amount above a
reasonable maximum, and providing
for the publication, before election, of
all such contributions above a reason
able minimum."
The Democratic national committee
immediately proceeded to interpret and
apply this plank, announcing that no
contributions would be received from
corporations, that no individual would
be allowed to contribute more than
S-'lO.Oon. and that all contributions
above '$100 would be made public be
fore the election those received before
October l." to be made public on or
before thnt day, those received after
ward to le made public on the day
when received, and no such contribu
tions to be accepted within three days
of the election. The expenditures are
to be published afier election. Here
is a plan which is complete and effec
tive. Popular Election of Senators.
Xext to the corrupt use of money.
tlie present method of electing United 1
States senators is most responsible for
the obstruction of reforms For one
hundred years after the adoption of
the constitution, the demand for the
popular election of senators, while find
ing increased expression, did not be
come a dominant sentiment. A con
stitutional amendment had from time
to time been suggested and the matter
had been more or less discussed in a
few of the states, but the movement
had not reached a point where it mani
fested itself throusrh congressional ac
tion. In the Fifty -second congress,
however, a resolution was reported
from a house committee proposing the
necessary constitution;!! amendment,
and this resolution passed the house
of representatives by a vote which
was practically unanimous. In the
Fifty-third congress a similar resolu
tion was reported to, and adopted by,
the house of representatives Both
the Fifty-second and Fifty-third con
gresses were Democratic. The Repub
licans gained control of the house as
a result of the election of 1894 and in
the Fifty-fourth congress the proposi
tion died in committee. As time went
on. however, the sentiment grew among
the people, until it forced a Republican
congress to follow the example set by
the Democrats, and then another and
another Republican congress acted fa
vorably. State after state has endorsed
this reform, until nearly two-thirds of
the states have recorded themselves in
its favor. The United States senate,
however, impudently and arrogantly
obstructs the passage of the resolution,
notwithstanding the fact that the vot
ers of the United States, by an over
whelming majority, demand it. And
this refusal is the more significant
when it is remembered that a number
of senators owe their election to great
corporate interests. Three Democratic
national platforms the platforms of
1900. 1904 and 1903 specifically call
for a change in the constitution which
will put the election of senators in the
hands of the voters, and the proposi
tion has been endorsed by a number
of the smaller .parties, but no Repub
lican national convention has been
willing to champion the cause of the
people ou this subject The subject
was ignored by the Republican national
convention In 1900; it was ignored in
1904. and the proposition was explicit
ly repudiated in 1908. for the recent
Republican national convention, by a
vote of SCO to 114. rejected the plank
endorsing the popular election of sena
torsand this was done in the conven
tion which nominated Mr. Taft. few
delegates from his own state voting for
the plank.
Personal Inclination Net Sufficient.
In his notification speech, the Repub
lican candidate, speaking of the elec
tion of senators ty the people, says:
"Personally. I am inclined to favor it.
but It is hardly a party question."
What is necessary to muke this a party
question? When the Democratic con
vention endorses a proposition by a
unanimous vote, and the Republican
convention rejects the proposition by a
vote of seven to one. does It not be
come an Issue between the parties?
Mr. Taft can not remove the question
from the arena of politics by express
ing a personal inclination toward the
Democratic position. For several
years he has been connected with
the administration. What has he ever
said or done to bring this question be
fore the public? What enthusiasm
has he shown in the reformation of
the senate? What Influence could he
exert iu behalf of a reform which his
party has openly and notoriously con
demned in lis convention, and to which
he is attached only by a belated ex
pression of personal inclination?
The Gateway to Other Reforms.
"Shall the people rule?" Every
remedial measure of a national char
acter must run the gauntlet of the
senate. The president may personally
Incline toward a reform; the house
may consent to it; but as long as the
senate obstructs the reform, the peo
ple must wait. Tlie president may
Leed a popular demand; the house may
yield to public opinion; but as long as
the senate is defiant, the rule of the
people is defeated. The Democratic
platform very properly describes the
popular election of senators as "the
gateway to other national reforms."
Shall we open the gate, or shall we
allow the exploiting interests to bar
the way by the control of this branch
of the federal legislature? Through
n Democratic victory, and through a
Democratic victory only, can the peo
ple secure the popular election o,f sen
ators. The smaller parties ore unable
to secure this reform; the Republican
party, under its present leadership, is
resolutely opposed to it; the Democratic
party stands for It and has boldly de
manded It. If I am elected to the
presidency, those who are elected upon
the ticket with me will be. like my
self, pledged to this reform, and I
shall convene congress In extraordi
nary session immediately after inau
guration, and ask. among other things,
for the fulfillment of this platform
pledge. .
House Rules Despotic.
The third Instrumentality employed
. to defeat the will of the people is
found in the rules of the house of rep
resentatives. Our platform points out
that "the house of representatives was
designed b3' the fathers of the consti
tution, to be the popuiar branch of our
government, responsive to the public
will," and adds:
"The Iwuse of representatives, as
controlled in recent years by the Re
publican party, has ceased to be a de
liberative and legislative body, respon
sive to the will of a majority of the
members, but has come under the ab
solute domination of the speaker, who
has entire control of its deliberations,
and powers of legislation.
"We have observed with amazement
the popular branch of our federal gov
ernment helpless to obtain either the
consideration or enactment of meas
ures desired by a majority of its mem
bers "
This arraignment is fully justified.
Tlie reform Republicans iu the house
of representatives, when in the minor
ity in their own party, are as helpless
to obtain a hearing or to secure a vote
upon a measure as are the Democrats.
In the recent session of the present
congress, there was a considerable ele
ment in the Republican party favorable
to remedial legislation; but a few lead
ers, iu control of the organization,
despotically suppressed these mem
bers, and thus forced a real majority
ia the house to sulimit to a well organ
ized minority. The Republican national
convention, instead of rebuking this
attack upon popular government, eulo
gized congress and nominated as the
Republican candidate for vice president
one of the men who shared in the re
sponsibility for the coercion of the
houe. Our party demands that "the
house of representatives shall again
become a deliberative body, controlled
by a majority of the people's repre
sentatives, and not by tlie speaker,"
and is pledged to adopt "such rules
and regulations to govern the house
of representatives as will enable a ma
jority of its members to direct its de
liberations aud control legislation."
"SLnili the people rule?" They can
not do so unless they can coutrol the
house of representatives, an 1 through
their representatives in tlie house, give
expression to thoir purposes and their
desires. The Republican party is
committed to t he methods now In
vogue in the house of representatives;
the Democratic party Is pledged to
such a revision of the rules as will
bring the popular branch of the federal
government Into harmony with the
ideas of those who framed our consti
tution aud founded our government.
Other Issues Will Be Discussed Later.
"Shall the people rule?" I repeat. Is
declared by our platform to be the
overshadowing question, and as the
campaign progresses. I shall take occa
sion to discuss this question as it man
ifests Itself in other issues; for whether
we consider the tariff question the
trust question, tho raiiroad question,
the banking question, the labor ques
tion, the question of imporiuiisru. the
development of our waterways, or any
other of the numerous problems which
press for solution, we shall find that
the real question involved in each is.
whether the government shall re-main
a mere business asset of favor seeking
corporations or be an Instrument in
the hands of the people for the ad
vancement of the common weal.
Democratic Party Has Earned Con
fidence. If the voters are fati-n. with the
record of the Republi. -an parry and
with its management of pub.k- affairs
we can not reasonably ask for m
change In administration; If, bowerer,
the voters feel that tne people.
whole, have too little influence in shap
ing the policies of the government; If
they feel that great combinations of
capital have encroached upon the
rights of the masses, and employed tur
instrumeutallties of government to se
cure an unfair share of the total wealth
produced, then we have a right to ex
pect a verdict against the Itepubllcara
party and In favor of the Democratic
party: for our party has risked defeat
aye. suffered defeat iu its effort to
arouse the conscience of the public and
to bring about that very awakeuiaj to
which Mr. Taft has referred.
Only those are worthy to be entrust
ed with leadership In a great cause
who are willing to die for it, and the
Democratic party has proven its worthi
ness by Its refusal to purchase victory
by delivering the people into tho hand
of those who have despoiled tbem. I a
this contest between Democracy on tb
one side and plutocracy on the other,
the Democratic party has taken Its po
sition on the side of equal rights, and
invites the opposition of those who use-
politics to secure special privileges and
governmental favoritism. Gauging tha
progress of the nutioa, not by the hap
piness or wealth or, refinement of a.
few, but "by the prosperity and aJ-
vancement of the average man." the
Democrat Ic party charges the Repub
lican party with being the promoter of
present abuses, the opponent of neC93
sary remedies and the only bulwark of
private monopoly. The Democratic par
ty affirms that In this campaign it Is
the only party, having a prospect of
success, which stands for Justice in
government and for equity in the divi
sion of the fruits of industry. '
Democratic Party Defender of Honest:
Wealth. -
We may expect those who nave com--
mitted larceny by law and purchased
immunity with their political influence.
to attempt to raise false Issues, and to
employ "the livery of Heaven" to con-
coal their evil purposes, but they can
no longer deceive. The Democratic
party is not the enemy of any legiti
mate industry or of honest accumula
tions. It is, on the contrary, a friend
of industry and the steadfast protector
of that wealth which represents a serv
ice to society. The Democratic party
docs not seek to annihilate all corpora
tions: it simply asserts that as the gov
ernment creates corporations, it must
retain the power to regulate and to
control them, and that it should cot
permit any corporation to convert itself
into a monopoly. Surely we should
have the co-operation of all legitimate
corporations in onr effort to protect
business and industry from the odium
which lawless combinations of capital
ii. if unchecked, cast upon them.
Only by tho separation of tho eood
from the bad can the good be made
secure.
Net Revolution, but Reformation.
The Democratic party seeks not revo
lution but reformation, and I need
hardly remind the student of history
that cures are mildest when applied at
once: that remedies Increase in severity
ns their application Is postponed. I'.lood
poisoning may be stopped by tlie loss
of a finger today: It may cost an arm
tomorrow or a life the next day. So
poison in the body politic can not be
removed too soon, for the evils pro
duced by it Increase with the lapse of
time. That there are abuses which
need to be remedied, even the Repub
lican candidate admits; that his party
is unable to remedy thern. lias been
fu'Iy demonstrated during the last tea
years. I have such confidence Iu the
Intelligence as well as the patriotism
of the people, that I can not doubt their
readiness to accept the reasonable re
forms which our party proposes, rather
than permit the continued growth of
existing abuses to hurry the country oa
to remedies more radical and more
drastic.
Our Party's Ideal.
The platform of our party closes with
a brief statement of the party's ideal.
It favors "such an administration of
tlie government as wiii insure, as far
as human wisdom can. that each eitl
7on shali draw from society a reward
commensurate with his contribution to
the welfare of society."
Governments are good in proportion
as they assure to each member of so
ciety, so far as governments can. a re
turn commensurate with individual
merit.
TVie Divine Law cf Rewards.
There is a Diviue law of rewards.
When the Creator gave us the earth,
with its fruitful soil, the sunshine with
its warmth, and the rains with their
moisture. Fie proclaimed, as clearly as
if His voice had thundered from the
clouds, "do work, aud according to
your industry and your intelligence, so
shall be your reward." Only where
might has overthrown, cunning under
mined or government suspended thi3
law, has a different law prevailed. To
conform the government to this law
ought to be the ambitiou of the states
man; and no party can have a higher
mission than to make it a reality wher
ever governments can legitimately op
erate. Justice to All.
Roco'-uizirig that I am indebted for
my nomination to the rank and file of
our party, and that my election must
come, if it comes at all, from the un
purchased and unpurchasable suffrages
of the American people. I promise, If
entrusted with the responsibilities of
this high office, to consecrate whatever
ability I have to the cse purpose of
making this, in fact, a govern ment In
which the people rule a government
which wiil do justice to all. and offer
ro every one the highest possible stim
ulus to great and persistent effort, by
assuring to each the enjoyment of hia
just share of the proceeds of his toil,
no matter in what part of the vineyarj
he labors, or to what occupation, pro
fession or calling be devotes himself.
