The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902, September 21, 1899, Page 8, Image 8

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    8 Cbe Conservative.
BRYAN AS A SHOW.
It is becoming loss easy to avoid seeing
the humorous side of Colonel Bryan's
itinerant and oratoricnl chase for the
presidency. In 1896. when ho was in
the enemy's country for the purpose of
being told that ho was a nominee for
the presidency , it was reported that he
encountered a small company of vil
lagers on the banks of the Hudson and
immediately proceeded to make a speech.
After pxplaining who ho was he told
them that whenever ho saw two or three
people gathered together the temptation
to make a speech to them was irresisti
ble. There is something exquisitely
funny in this desire to declaim on all
occasions. The country knows Mr.
Bryan only as posing before an audience
of "fellow citizens" and gesticulating in
time to his voice of warning. The late
Mrs. Jeremiah Cruncher's tendency to
"flop" was nothing to Mr. Bryan's spell
binding habit. On emerging from the
Yosemite the other day his voice over
took him at "Wawoua. Ho had nor. had
a relapse after leaving Stockton on the
the way up , and three days' abstinence
had made it necessary for him to utter
himself.
The reception committee appointed to
escort him was there , acting as pall
bearers. These and the cooks , waiters
and chambermaids , hostlers and drivers ,
who are necessary to the administration
of Washburn's hotel and stage line ,
made a company that brought on an
oratorical fit , and Bryan had to talk.
Captain Steve Cunningham was there
listening with a critic's ear and reminded ,
by the hour and a half of words , that in
selling onions to foreign tourists for the
Lady Washington Lily bulbs ho is not
the only faker on the road.
Uncle Jim Lawrence was also in the
audifluco , blind of an eye , but able to
see the holes in a ladder. Mr. Bryan
announced his subject to be "The Beau
ties of the Yosemite , and Observations
on Politics. "
The reporters who were present have
preserved none of it , but contented them
selves with intimating that he held his
audience spellbound.
The speech , therefore , seems to have
been like the most of those delivered by
Mr Bryan. There was no thought in it
that sticks and stays. It is a remarkable
testimony to his physical endurance that
he has since 1896 been almost ceaselessly
talking , and has said nothing that is re
membered , nothing1 that has sunk into
the public mind and memory to bo read
ily recalled and quoted by his followers.
Ho has given his mind a long rest and
has taken an intellectual vacation by
talking. The professional orator has no
immortality unless ho has a message to
deliver , an idea to clothe in proper ver
biage. The country can recall the ideas
of Sumner , Blaiue , Edward Everett ,
Conkliug , Ingersoll , Wendell Phillips
aiid Lincoln in the phrase that expressed
them. They impressed a contemporary
generation and passed into folklore and
popular tradition. Mr. Bryan is exceed
ingly contemporary with this present
generation. He is extremely convenient
and chronically in evidence. Ho has
talked more and said less than any
present or past jobstor at oratory , and
the transitory mark ho has niado is
evidenced by the few "remains" ho has
loft in the public memory. Ho lacks in
originality. As an adapter he has some
skill. He adapted his free silver ideas
from poor Diok Bland , and by veneering
them with some vocal soapsuds took
from Bland a presidential nomination to
which he was fairly entitled. He has ,
in like manner , adapted John Sherman's
ideas on trusts , and those of Hoar , Bout-
well , Edmunds and Johnson on imper
ialism , and it must bo confessed he has
eusmalled them all to accommodate
thorn to the caliber of his oratory.
A close study of Mr. Bryan reveals
him as an actor. He is a born thespian.
He approaches every question with a
view to stage effect. His faculty of
adaptation of the ideas of others and his
fondness for dramatic exits and entrances
are all the characteristics of a player.
His tendency to begin making a speech
to any crowd he sees marks him a
natural-born barnstormer.
The impression he leaves is exactly
that produced by a show. In his progress
through the country in 1896 the crowds
that heard him were larger than had
ever listened before to a stump speaker ,
but where his audiences were largest
his vote was the smallest. The people
had gone to a show. They wanted to
hear a "boy orator" aged 40. They
heard him , applauded him even , went
home and voted the other ticket. To
thpm it was a circus , a passing show.
The same crowds go to "thounparalMed
aggregation of biological wonders and
agglomeration of mental and muscular
masters of magic and mystery , " but
they don't remember the clown's songs
nor take the ring-master's advice in
their public or domestic affairs.
So , rising from the circus to the stage ,
the audience weeps over Desdemona ,
though it knows she is not smothered ,
and it goes to the tomb in tears with
Juliet , knowing that she will bo at her
mutton broth and beer when the play is
over.
over.Mr
Mr Bryan excites just that sort of
interest and no other.
The feeling for him in his audiences
is perfectly sincere of its kind. He is
playing a part , does it fairly well , and
earns applause and something more sub
stantial , and gets both , and there the
impression ends.
After his next defeat for the presi
dency he should follow his trend and
talents and take to the stage. His age
would bo no bar , for his political career
has really been a course of study and
practice for the sock and buskin. He
would get largo audiences and make the
fortune of his manager and his own.
From the San Francisco Daily Call ,
Saturday Sept. 9 , 1899.
, , , , San Francisco
SOME , . , _ _
BKYANISMS. has heard Mr.
Bryan again , has
heard him by thousands , cheered him ,
and gone home , while he took to the
road to make another speech. His effort
at Woodward's pavilion was an excel
lent pample of his assertive style. Today
we propose to analyze only a portion of
it , saying in advance that the anti-im
perial sentiment of the country cannot
be , and will not be , used to elevate Mr.
Bryan to the presidency.
In discussing the platform of 1900 he
said : "Do you doubt that the demand
for arbitration between labor and capital
is stronger today than it was in 1896 ? I
believe it is stronger , and that the de
mand for arbitration will grow until
the arbitration of disputes between
corporate capital and employes of
capital will be as well systematized and
as practicable as is the court of justice
today for the settlement of disputes
between man and man. " Now all that
is high sounding and implies a great
"grievance" existing somewhere , to
cure which this Don Quixote appears ,
with a barber's basin for the helmet of
Mambriuo and a basswood stick for the
sword of Muudarra , offering himself for
office , for the healing of the nations.
His talk on arbitration is in apparent
ignorance of the fact that it is in con
stant operation between employers and
employed. The essence of arbitration
is that it is voluntary. That is the
difference between it and a court of
justice. When an issue goes to a court ,
free will ceases. It is no longer a volun
tary matter. The plaintiff has stated
his case and in his petition has demanded
his remedy. The defendant must ap
pear at the bar and give his reasons in
avoidance of judgment. If these are
not good in law , judgment rests upon
him and is enforced by the court. If
the defendant refuse or neglect to ap
pear he is in default , and judgment is
entered against him. In the arbitration
of differences it is for both parties to
assent or for either to refuse. That is
the essence of it , the mutual consent of
the parties to the issue joined. This
makes the difference between arbi
tration and the courts of justice , and
the difference is radical. Keeping in
mind this element of consent , and of a
tribunal in which there is neither plain
tiff nor defendant , one may well ask :
What does Mr. Bryan mean when ho
speaks of a "demand for arbitration ? "
Does he mean that there is to be a
federal or state statute compelling one
party to arbitrate when the other desires
it ? If so , he will do away with the
difference between arbitration and the
courts , for free consent will disappear ,