THE AMERICAN
THE AM tlC AN
Cbeapest Pap ..America.
Q1 Vur fntnat to
ubaorib 9 or
THE AMERICAN.
5O0 to Jan. I, I87.
A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER. "AMERICA FPU AMERICANS" Wt hold that all men iw Americans who Swear Allegiance to the United Stato without a mental reservation. I'lUCE FIVE CENTS
Volume V OMAHA, NEBRASKA, FRIDAY. JULY 17, 1S9C. Nombib 29
A ROM IRISH FIZZLE.
The Much Advertised Meet
ing of the Irish Military
Union Not a Success.
Largo Fart or the Population of Bridge
port, Conn., Sot Aware That Their
City Was the Meeting Place of
the English Haters.
Well, it was not the success prom
ised. Bridgeport did not go wild over
the military display, nor will Lord
Salisbury ask Secretary of State Olney
for an explanation. The friendly re
lations existing between the United
States and Great Britain will not be
perceptibly strained by the grand en
campment at Avon Park of the Irish
American Military Union, supple
mented by a polish artillery company
from Newark to give a military aspect
to the gathering. The affair had been
written up for months in advance a la
Barnum to whet the appetite of expec
tation, and to teach the effete Ameri
can population a proper respect for the
Inherent military genius of the Irish
race. It-is now all over, and notwith
standing the assiduous labors of the
pencil.pushers in a political campaign,
hardly one in ten of the citizens of
Bridgeport were aware that Camp Phil
Sheridan ever existed, and seem to
care less.
Perhaps it would have fared better
had some time other than the natal
day of American Independence been
selected. Therejls nothing particular
which associates the Hibernians with
that historic occasion except that Pat
rick Henry took part therein, and Pat
rick never, as far as heard from, laid
any particular claim to being a Hi
bernian in any sensejof the word. He
left that to future generations of Pat
ricks. He; was more interested during
his time indrivlng the Patricks in the
British army out of the Colonies to
their fcomesacross the water than in
flattering thelr;egotlsm by telling them
that lnj fightlngjagainst the patriots
that theywere 'doing heroic servloe in
the cause -of civil and religious liberty.
He seems 'to have lefjt this to a future
generation of orators, who think more
of votes thanthey do of the truth, and
where American self-respect is not
shocked in kissing the Blarney Stone
at the invitation of the modern Pat
ricks. Theigreat mass of the citizens
of Bridgeport took more pleasure in
reviewing the bicycle parade and cele
brating the day on their "own hook"
than in having the Hibernian thrust
upon their notice on this occasion, and
they were right. It is hardly in good
taste for the Hibernian to attempt to
monopolize a day which his progenitors
were not in sympathy with. It is not
unnatural that he -should do so as it is
his nature toclaim the earth and that
Adam was a Celt, any more than that
the United1 States would never have
had any existence had it not been for
the Celtic population who had immi
grated toj the Colonies, that it would
have beenj-wiped out p' existence In
1812 but for Celtic heroism, and that it
would have gone up in a baloon in 1861
but for themilltary and patrlotlo in
stincts of "the .Hibernian population.
Has not every Btumpospeaker in search
of an Irish votebeen flattering their
vanity on these topics until they now
actually (believe such to be the fact,
and when, ifjthey read history, which
does not sustainithe orator, they know
that it is an A.iP. A. lie and an emana
tion of bigotry and intolerance. It is
not improbable that in a generation or
two hence there will be less of HI
bernianism and (more of Americanism
in the descendants of the Celts in the
United States, o They will have more
respect for the truths of history than
for the fictions K)f stump orators. They
will then know that the Irish popula
tion did not rush impetuously Into the
union army, to "fight ior the nagur" at
the firstltcall, nor at the second call of
"Uncle Abe" Wputdown the rebellion.
On the contrary, the great bulk of the
race werefnotonly lukewarm, but more
of them were not backward in expres-
sing their sympathy for the rebel
cause and'inplaclng every obstacle at
their command In the way of the other
side. There were exceptions, it is
true, but there was not enough patriot
Ism among them In this state to fill a
regiment notwithstanding Governor
Buckingham's earnest efforts to enlist
them in the service of the state, even
to appealing to their Hlbernianism
The efforts of Colonel Cahill to recruit
a Hibernian regiment in the state
promised to become a failure. Gover
nor Buckingham and the adjutant-
general of the state gave him every aid
pon ible, but recruiting lagged and the
Irishman held aloof. Captain Fitzzlb
bon, who had gone to the front with a
company on the first call and served
three months, and on the discharge of
his company at the end of their enroll
ment immediately recruited another
company, which was Incorporated in
the 6tu regiment, was recalled from his
command at the front by the governor
to aid Colonel Cahill by exerting his
Influence to assist in recruiting an
Irish regiment. He was commissioned
lieutenant-colonel of the regiment, but
while he had hitherto found no diffi
culty in raising recruits, the Irish did
not rush Impetuously to fill what was
intended to be a purely Hibernian
regiment. They preferred casting
votes against the administration to
shooting bullets at their late political
colleagues, and to get the company off
his hands as a last resort Captain Frye's
company attached to the 8th regiment
was transferred to the 9lh, and the
captain was consoled by being ap
pointed Its major. This was the only
attempt to recruit an Irish regiment
made in this state. There were excep
tions, honorable exceptions. There
were Irishmen who enlisted, did faith
ful duty as soldiers, and fought bravely
side by side with their comrades who
had also enlisted and did their duty as
faithfully and fought as bravely, and
who had never seen Ireland. All honor
to them, but then there is no record of
these exceptions arrogating to them
selves the full credit of putting down
the rebellion, or that if it had not been
for their services the confederacy
would have been a success. It 1b the
other class of their countrymen, the
men who had conscientious scruples
against "fighting for the nagur" and
against their late political colleagues
who, they claimed, were fighting for
their rights, who are now prating
about the great services rendered by
the Irish to the United States. We
would not detract in the least from the
credit due the former class, but we do
say that they were the exceptions so
far as the Irish race in the country was
concerned. They had imbibed the
spirit of Americanism and cast aside
their race proclivities. They enlisted
as Americans, fought as Americans,
and not as Irlsbjnen, because the Irish
were.Vnotla 1$.'.!, .They were, reserv
ing themselves to free Ireland by way
of Chicago. Bridgeport Independent
Leader.
Rome and the Republican Party.
Nearly two weeks ago we sent out
four letters to delegates to the Repub
lican National Convention to men who
were on the resolutions committee
asking them for an explanation of the
report that Archbishop Ireland and R.
C. Kerens had "fixed" the platform in
the interests of the papal church. We
have received but one reply, as follows:
, July 2, 1896. Eiitor of The
Citizen: In reply to yours of the 25th
June allow me to say: I was a member
of the committee on resolutions la the
Republican National Convention. The
resolution to which you refer that op
posing the granting of public funds to
sectarian institutions was in the first
draft of the Republican platform, but
was finally omitted not, as some of the
pape: s say, through any Influence of
Thomas H. Carter, for Mr. Carter's in
fluence was absolutely ml; but through
the influence of R. C. Kerens, Edward
Lauterbach, and several gentlemen
who are known to be Protestants, but
who were anxious not to antagonize
the Roman Catholics. Mr. McKlnley
was In no way responsible he saw and
approved of the first draft, but was not
consulted in regard to omitting the sec
tarian funds clause. This was done as
a matter of political caution; but it
could have been prevented, probably,
In one of two ways, viz.:
If the patriotic orders had sent their
best men to St. Louis. These orders
were represented by men who are
known to be cheap adventurers at
least, these were the men (with the ex-
ceptlon of Linton) who did the most of
the talking, and they did it in such a
blustering, bullying manner, as to dis
gust those who otherwise would have
favored them. I speak now of the
lobbyists of the men who were not
delegates or alternates.
2nd. It could have been prevented
had your case been argued by one or
two strong men on the resolutions com-
mittee; but nothing was said in its
favor it was allowed to go by default.
The opposition put forth their best ef
forts; your side did nothing.
Any other measure would have suf-
fered the same fate in the committee
whether concerning tariff, coinage, or
anything else if there had been only
opposition and no defence. Planks have
not only to be born, but to be nursed as
well. Your sectarian appropriations
plank was born, and then left as a
foundling at the door of the committee
without nurse, without care. Is it
any wonder It died? However many
men there may have been on the com
mittee who favored It, none of them
felt called upon to father it or sponsor
it, as each bad all be could attend to
outside of this.
But here Is the fact: There were
only four men on the whole committee
who favored it. Not one man from the
south, not one from New England, and
but two from the central states, and
tw3 from the Pacific, had any interest
in the matter. These men are poli
ticians, simply that and nothing more,
and they care little about what they
term "sumptuary legislation."
Mr. McKlnley is not to blame; the
party is not to blame; toe managers of
the patriotic orders are to blame or
rather, to be pitied for not having as
their managers men competent to cope
with such political tricksters as Kerens.
You were outwitted that is all.
Archbishop Ireland may have been
concerned In the matter, but if so, we
heard nothing about it. Kerens made
a large majority believe such a plank
would harm the party, and the minority
was outvoted.
If you desire to win the next time,
begin at the caucuses and send the
right men to the convention. It is use
less to attempt this sort of work at the
eleventh hour or, rather, twelfth
hour.
Personally, I wish the proposed plank
had been Inserted; but you may take
this as a fixed truth that platforms
amount to nothing; they are made to
be neglected and forgotten. If you
elect patriotic men to the senate and
house, your work will be successful; if
you do not, of what avail would be a
favorable platform? Remember that
Republican politicians work on the
same principle as do the storekeepers:
"Protestants will trade with us any
way; but we have to cater to the Ro
man Catholics."
Where can you do any better? With
the Democrats? With the Populists?
I think not.
Do not allow treasonable men In your
own ranks to split your organization
by trick or trade. Stand by the party
which has done so much for American
ism in the recent congress.
The above, as we have said, is the
only reply we have received. The
question arises: Who is to blame? If
Allen oi Maine, or Lodge of Massachu
setts, or Fessenden of Connecticut,
voted to kill the patriotic plank re
ferred to, will It help the matter to de
feat McKlnley and throw the election
into the hands of the Romanist party
the Democrats? Would that help on
the patriotic work?
We confess that we are disgusted
with politics and political parties, and
we are perplexed as to the wise course
to pursuo. We believe in McKlnley,
for we are convinced that what our
correspondent says Is true. He is an
intelligent Protestant American. But
some of his managers seem disposed to
lose the substance in grasping at the
shadow. They disgust three million
American voters by their mean cater
ing to a few hundred Irish Roman
Catholics who may or may not vote
their ticket.
We await further developments Im
portant information having been prom
ised us. Boston Citizen.
Illustrated the Manner.
Archbishop Ireland, one of Rome's
leading prelates in this country, in a
recent speech directed against the
American Protective Association, il
lustrated the manner in which Rome is
accustomed to ignore both history and
the intelligence of the American peo
ple by the following utterance: "The
liberties, the Democracy, the spirit of
progress, which are the glories of
America, are the outcome of the deep
est principles of the Catholic church.
Liberty and progress came into the
world with her." The intrinsic value
of this may be seen by placing beside
it this statement from Bancroft's His
tory of the United States, Vol. V.,
page 295:
"The British gained numerous re
cruits from immigrants. Cultivated
men of the Romish church gave hearty
support to the cause of independence;
but the great mass of its members, who
were then but about one In seventy-five
of the population of the United States
and were chiefly newcomers in the
middle states, followed the influence of
the Jesuits, in whose hands the direc
tion of the Catholics of the United
States still remained, and who cher
ished hatred of France for her share in
the overthrow of their order. In Phila
delphia Howe had been able to form a
regiment oi Roman Catholics."
This early opposition of the Catho
lics to American independence reflects,
of course, much less upon the char
acter of the Catholic people than upon
their condition of mental and moral
subserviency to the will of their su
periors, who were well versed In "the
deepest principles of the Catholic
church." The evil work of the papacy
is not due to the character of the mass
and Its adherents, but to the nature of
Its principles. American Sentinel
The Fallacy of Free and Un
limited Coinage Fully
Set Forth.
The Silver Mm the Real MonomeUlhiU
A I'Un te Enrich the Mine
Owner Without Benefit
to Others.
As we have given space to free sil
ver articles we shall be consistent
and allow the other side to have a fair
and impartial hearing. The first arti
ole will be an address by Hon. John L.
Webster of Omaha, taken from the
Ktbraska State Journal of Oct. 29, 1895.
The address was delivored at Nebraska
City Oct. 27, and Is well worth read
ing. The State Journal prefaced Mr.
Webster's speech with this parapraph:
Undoubtedly the best exposition of
the silver question heard here this
campaign was made in the address de
livered at the Republican meeting last
evening by Hon. John L. Webster of
Omaha. In its clear, convincing loglo
It Is worthy of place as a text-book on
the finance Issue. The following em
braces some of the points made by Mr,
Webster:
The free and unlimited coinage of
silver in the ratio of 16 to 1 Is a de
lusion and a snare. It Involves a fal
lacy which has been threshed out in
all civilized countries of the world
years and years ago. Wherever It has
been Investigated and put to trial In
the commercial world It has been re
pudiated. Judgment based on practi
cal experience has repudiated and con
demned it. There were skilled men In
finance and In monetary matters when
it was condemned in Europe. There
were as wise men in finance and In
monetary affairs when it was con
demned in this country as there are
to-day, The men who are advanolng
the policy of the free and unlimited
coinage of silver in the ratio of 16 to 1
In this campaign are not advocating a
hew doctrlne.Taoither are they proph
ets of greater wisdom than the proph
ets of a century ago, whose prophecies
failed.
Viewed In the light of experience,
there Is no more reason why we should
place confidence in these advocates of
silver than that we should place confi
dence In the Donnelly theory that the
works of Shakespeare were written by
Bacon, or that the religion of the Mor
mon church is the true religion of the
world. Both Donnelly and Brigham
Young had followers for a time, yet the
good and settled sense of the country
adheres to the idea that William
Shakespeare and not Bacon was the
author of that classical literature, and
that the Bible and not the book of
Mormons contains the doctrine of the
true religion.
Free silver men talk of gold and
silver coinage of the constitution, but
perhaps the majority of these men
never read the provisions of the con
stitution upon the subject of money.
The constitution says nothing about
either gold or silver. It says nothing
about what shall be the ratio between
gold and silver as money. It says
nothing about the unlimited coinage
of either metal.
The constitution simply confers upon
congress the power "to coin money"
and to "regulate the value thereof."
The question as to whether gold or sil
ver shall be the money of the country
and the regulation of the value of one
to the other, and the quantity thereof
to be coined, are matters left to regula
tion by congress. This is, therefore,
not a constitutional question. It is a
question of expediency.
The Nebraska champion of free sil
ver says: "We believe in the unlim
ited coinage of silver because we have
an unlimited coinage of gold."
He might as well say that, whereas,
we have a limited coinage of silver we
should hava a limited coinage of gold
There would be as much argument in
one statement as in the other. Neither
statement argues anything or proves
anything.
This silver champion further says:
"We believe in the treatment of gold
and silver exactly alike." Why so?
If his statement is logical, then whereas
we have demonetized silver, as he
claims, we should therefore demone
tize gold. That would be treating gold
and silver both alike. So we propound
the query, does he believe in the de
monetization of gold? We do not be
lieve there is a free silver advocate
who would have courage sufficient to
advance such a doctrine. A mere
statement of the case shows the fallacy
of such arguments.
It Is true that if a man brings gold
to a mint to be coined, he Is not asked,
where did you get this gold? The gold
may have come from Australia, or from
Mexico, or from Colorado, and yet be
freely coined. Why? Because that
gold, whether brought from any of the
countries named has the same intrinsic
value as a commodity whether coined
or not coined. How is it with sliver?
Just the reverse.
Silver does not have the Intrinsic
value as a commodity, that It Is de
clared to have by the stamp put upon
it at the mint. Silver men ask sixty
cents for silver as a commodity that
coined at the mint and stamped be
comes a dollar, and then ask that It
shall pass current as a dollar when Its
bullion value la but sixty cents. A
mere statement of the case shows that
silver money would be depreciated
money.
It is an attempt to force upon the
country two kinds of money of unequal
value, and then it asks that the parity
between the two metals shall be main
tained. To maintain the parity of two
metals as money which are of unequal
value, is a problem which the history
of finance has demonstrated cannot be
solved, except to a limited degree.
The most sanguine free silver mon
admit the truth of the last statement,
but undertake to avoid the effect of the
statement by saying that the United
States would not be flooded by an un
limited amount of silver. They say
that silver would not come from France
for the reason that the French silver
coin is worth three cents more than
the American silver coin, and there
fore that France could not afford to
bring Its silver to America. There Is
a fallacy in this statement. France
does not have the free and unlimited
coinage of silver, and has not had for
many years, for the same reasons that
induced this country to put a limit
upon the amount of silver coined.
Silver in France as a commodity has
the same market value as silver as a
commodity has in the United States.
Let us state the converse of the propo
sition. If silver In France has the in
trinsic value of gold at the ratio of 16
to 1, why do not the silver mine owners
take their silver to France and hava it
ooined into French pieces,, and thus
make It exchangeable for gold at Its
value? It is simply because the French
government knows as well as this gov
ernment knows, It would be unwise to
again permit the free and unlimited
coinage of silver at the ratio of
154 to 1.
The result Is self-evident that the
surplus silver of France as an element
of merchandise would come to the
United States to be coined as money,
with the hope of having its exchange
able value Increased nearly 100 per
cent. If the coining of silver metal
Into dollars would eo enhance its real
value as to put it on a parity with gold,
why is not the Mexican dollar ex
changeable for gold. Why do not all
the sliver mine owners take their sil
ver to Mexico and have It coined.
Mexico has the free and unlimited
coinage of silver, and yet the truth is
that in that country the silver dollar is
not exchangeable at par with the gold
dollar. When the Mexican silver dol
lar is brought Into the United States,
its exchangeable value is about fifty
cents. The Mexican gold dollar, how
ever, is exchangeable at par with the
gold dollar of the United States or the
gold money of Europe. All this is be
cause gold has an intrinsic value, equal
to its coined value while silver has
not.
In further answer to the question,
where would silver come from, to cre
ate a surplus amount, we answer that
It would come from every country
where sliver is mined. All Australian
silver would come to our mints. All
Mexican silver would come to Ameri
can mints. All the silver from all the
countries of the world would come to
the American mints. If the theory of
silver men be true, that the free and
unlimited coinage of silver would so
enhance its minted value above its
commodity value, so as to put it on a
parity with gold, we are thus brought
to this startling proposition: There Is
160,000,000 ounces of silver mined every
year. That silver has a commodity
value of $125,000,000, and its coined
value according to the ratio now ex
Istlng in the United States would be
$22.5,000,000. There would be a clear
profit to the owners of commodity sil
ver of $J 00,000,000 per year.
Silver men are in the habit of say
ing that they are bimetalllsts. Is it
not a self-evident proposition that
with the annual coinage of so ch
silver, at so great a depreciated valua
tion, the same could not be exchanged
for gold? The owners of silver could
not go to the United States treasury
and exchange It for gold, for there is
not sufficient gold to make the ex
change. The moment that the ex
change ofygoldj for silver cannot be
made on account of the groat differ
ence in the values of the two kinds of
money, the silver being worth but
sixty cents, while the gold Is worth
loO oenta, the owner of the gold dollar
will refuse to exchange for the silver
dollar. Gold would be at a premium,
just as la the days after the war, when
we bad a larger quantity of green
backs than could be exchanged for
gold, gold was at a premium; It was
hoarded or drawn out of circulation
and paper currency becamo the money
of the day. Thus it-would be with the
free and unlimited coinage of silver.
Gold would dlsappaar, and silver would
be the only money of the country.
We would have but one klnda-of mutal
money in use and that would be silver.
The result of this is that free sliver
mon would bo mono-metalllsts. .
A financial panla would oome the
moment the free and unlimited coinage
of silver produced an undue propor
tion in the quantities of the two kinds
of money. Gold would go out of circu
lation and to that extent the amount
of the circulating medium would be
turned from commercial trade. Yet
that is not all of this proposition.
There are hundreds of millions of
American securities held abroad.
There are county bonds, school bonds,
city bonds, railway bonds, and 'others
that we might mention, that have been
purchased by the capitalists of Europe,
and by such sale wo havo bad the bone
fit of all the money that has been sent
to this country to purchase these
bonds. These purchases were made
upon the faith that they would be paid
in money worth one hundred cents on
the dollar. Capital is timid. It can
not be regulated by law. Every owner
of capital has the right to do with it
as he pleases. His money is his own.
When the threat comes, that those se
curities are liable to be paid in de
preciated money, the holders of those
securities would demand that they be
paid at the earliest day. Gold will
travel out of the country to pay these
securities. America will be called
Dpon to pay its debt to Europe. There
Is scarcely a city but would bo found
with an empty treasury, nor a railroad
company that would not be forced Into
the hands of a receiver under fore
closure proceedings. It needs no argu-
meut or lengthy discussion to show
that panlo would spread itself over the
United States, such as this country has
never experienced before. The evils
that my friend, Mr. Bryan, so often
undertakes to predict, using a sentence
of Secretary Carlisle as a text, has not
come from what he calls the demoneti
zation of sliver, but it will surely come
from the free and unlimited coinage of
silver.
Mr. Bryan ridicules the suggestion
frequently made that the Rothschilds
might buy up the silver of Europe and
bring it to American mints to be coined
into money, and thus make a hundred
per cent profit on the investment, by
saying: "If he wants to give his silver
dollar for a gold dollar, he must find
somebody who Is willing to give his
gold dollar for a silver dollar. He
cannot compel the giving or exchange
of a gold dollar for some other." That
admits the whole proposition. If I had
a hundred silver dollars of depreciated
value could I compel my neighbor to
give me one hundred gold dollars In
exchange therefor? It also follows
that the man who had the gold would
refuse to make the exchange. All this
means that silver would become the
circulating medium and gold would be
retired.
Mr. Bryan further argues that the
Rothschilds could not use the Ameri
can coined silver dollar in buying
American merchandise, because "he
could only buy with his silver dollar
from those who were unwilling to ac
cept his silver dollar for goods"
"You can trust to the intelligence of
the American not to allow the cheap
dollar to be palmed off on him."
Well, If the silver dollar is a cheap
dollar, so that it cannot be palmed off
for American goods or for American
labor, then what are they going to do
with the American dollar? If the sil
ver dollar is to be so cheap that it will
not buy goods, and will not pay for
labor, what is it good for?
If the Rothschilds cannot buy goods
or cannot buy labor with the silver dol
lar, how Is the American laborer or
the American merchant to buy goods
with his silver dollar? If the silver
dollar is to be so cheap that it cannot
be used what do we want with it?
If the Rothschilds cannot buy goods
with the American 6ilver dollar,
then the New York merchant cannot
buy goods in Europe with his sliver
dollar. The Omaha merchant cannot
buy New York goods with his silver
dollar. The sliver dollar must have
some value some exchangeable value
if it is in the pocket of the Roths
childs, or in the pocket of the Kountzes,
Continued on page 4.