ft
"Che Conservative.
party , after you go home , endorses your
action and makes your position its per
manent policy , I promise you that I will
go out and serve my country and my
God under some other name , even if I
must go alone. "
Mr. Bryan here announced what he
would do if the democratic party adhered -
hered to its advo-
„
Trnttorfl. , ,
caoy of the gold
standard he would become a bolter and
believed he would be performing a
patriotic duty in bolting. But the gold
standard did not remain the permanent
policy for the democratic party. The
national convention of 180G adopted a
10 to 1 plank in the platform. Many
true , honest and patriotic democrats
could not support that platform , believ
ing it to be dishonest and a menace to
the business interests of the country.
Accordingly they did what Mr. Bryan
said he would do if the party persisted
in its advocacy of the gold standard.
They bolted.
The action of the gold democrats
forced Mr. Bryan to revise his philoso
phy of bolting as promulgated in 1893.
Then bolting was a "patriotic duty. "
Now it was to be branded as the "act of
a traitor. " In 1893 , "duty to country
was higher than duty to party. " In
1896 strict party devotion was more to
be commended than loyalty to principle
or love of country. In his speech at
Richmond , Va. , in 1890 , Mr. Bryan thus
defined his attitude toward those demo
crats who were not supporting his
candidacy :
"I want to warn you who are con
templating deserting from the demo
cratic party at this time , that the man
who , in the face of such an enemy ,
either goes to the roar or is found in
secret conference with the enemy , is a
traitor upon whom the brand shall be
placed and HE SHALL NOT COME BACK.
The gold democrats are today as firm
in their convictions for honest money ,
as loyal in their devotion to prin
ciple , as they were in 1896. If Mr.
Bryan is again the nominee of the
democratic party they will use , with
slight variation , the words he uttered
in 1890 , at Richmond "we will no !
come back. "
Should we CO-
CHINA. , . . . , .
operate with the
powers in the dismemberment of the
Chinese empire ? Should we willingly
become a party to international land
grabbing ? Shall we forcibly enter the ter
ritory of the Orientals and try to excuse
ourselves upon the ground that we were
obeying a "manifest destiny ? " Be
cause of A native uprising in China , the
extent of which we know little or noth
ing about and concerning the exac
nature of which we have little or no re
liable information , quite a number o :
people are very excitedly and strenuous
y urging that we should do what the
above queries imply.
In discussing the Chinese problem the
San Francisco Argonaut asks : "Is it
right that the -
. pow-
Kosponslblllty. ° *
ers should permit
; ho continuance of a government under
; he mad and malign rule of an empress
who despises reform , and whose hatred
of foreigners finds expression in acts of
utmost cruelty ? " This sweeping and
scathing denunciation of the dowager
no doubt has its foundation in the depre
dation of the Boxers. We might ask if
it is right to hold the dowager , the head
of the government of China , personally
responsible for every transgression of
law on the part of her subjects ? Must
we not make a distinction between
individual and national crimes ? In our
own country riots are of frequent occur
rence and often they are in the nature
of outbreaks against foreigners. Many
times a cruel fate has made the China
man a victim of mob violence and he
has yielded up his life to satisfy the
gory cravings of some of our patriotic
citizens , bent upon preserving the
national type by preventing the possi
bility of Oriental assimilation ! Twenty
Chinamen have thus perished to one
missionary killed by Boxers.
If the Chinese were only as wise as
the Argonaut they would place the
responsibility for
Domestic Violence. . , , . . .
these acts with
President McKinley and demand the
cooperation of the powers to prevent the
"continuance of a government under
the mad and malign rule of a president
who despises reform , and whose hatred
of foreigners finds expression in acts of
utmost cruelty. " It was but a few days
ago that the press despatches from St.
Louis told of the forcible removal , by
striking laborers , of a lady passenger
from a street car. After being denuded
her body was painted. Is it possible to
conceive of a more cowardly and vicious
act than this. Yet a condition of affairs ,
in which such revolting scenes form a
conspicuous part , has been permitted in
St. Louis for nearly two months , without
any determined effort being made , on
the part of the authorities , to establish
order. If the president of the United
States is personally responsible for all
this , what a monster the civilized world
must believe him to be. If , as the
Argonaut says , the dowager of the
Chinese empire is to be held personally
responsible for every act of vandalism
and murder committed within the
boundaries of her empire , to be con
sistent we must place at the door of
President McKinley the responsibility
for like outrages committed within the
boundaries of our own country. Instead
of their being the lawless acts of indi
viduals they are to be regarded , as
national crimes. But would the most
bitter enemy of President McKinley
make such an accusation or take such an
extreme view ? Then why do so when
lie head of the government of China is
u controversy ? Why have one stand
ard of official responsibility for our W
presiaeut and another for the dowager ?
ORATORY. In his speech
before the national
republican convention at Philadelphia ,
ast week , Governor Roosevelt said :
1 'We have passed such wise laws on
finance , that they the silver demo
crats actually appeal to the pat
riotic , honest men who deserted them
at the last election to help them now ,
because , forsooth , we have done so well
that nobody need fear their capacity to
undo our work. I am not exaggerating.
This is literally the argument that is
now addressed to the gold democrats as
a reason why they need no longer stand
by the republican party. To all such as
may be inclined to listen to these specious
arguments I would address an emphatic
word of warning.
"Remember that , admirable though
our legislation has been during the last
three years , it has
AViimiiifj to Gold
Democrats. been rendered pos
sible and effective
only because there was good administra
tion to back it. Wise laws are invalu
able , but , after all , they are not as
necessary as wise and honest adminis
tration of the laws. The best law ever
made , if administered by those who are
hostile to it and who moan to break it
down , cannot be wholly effective and
may be wholly ineffective. We have at
last put our financial legislation on a
sound basis , but no possible financial
legislation can save us from fearful and
disastrous panic if we trust our finances
to the management of any man who
would be acceptable to the leaders and
guides of the democracy in its present
spirit. No secretary of the treasury
who would be acceptable to or who
could without loss of self-respect serve
under the populistic democracy could
avoid plunging this country back into
financial chaos.
"Until our opponents have explicitly
and absolutely repudiated the principles
which in 1890 they professed and the
leaders who embody these principles
their success means the undoing of the
country. Nor have they any longer
even the excuse of being honest in their
folly. They have raved , they have
foamed at the mouth , in denunciation
of trusts , and now in my own state their
foremost party leaders , including the
man before whom the others bow with
bared head and trembling knee , have
been discovered in a trust which really
is of infamous and perhaps of criminal
character a trust in which these
apostles of democracy , these prophets of
the new dispensation , have sought to
wring fortunes from the dire need of
their poorer brethren. "
The allusion to the New York ice
trust made up , quite exclusively , of
disciples of the doctrines of the Chicago
platform of 1890 and delegates to the
convention which meets at Kansas City
next week is rather refrigeratory ,
chilling in fact.