* '
fc * ! '
The Conservative *
doubt , fall upon the people of our own
country. Such a policy would not only
bo opposed to our own self-interest , but
would bo antagonistic to the best inter
ests of Ohinu. To us it would mean the
abandonment of the fundamental prin
ciple of our form of government , viz. ,
local self-government. It would moan
a combination of conflicting and ir
reconcilable ideas of government a re
public at homo , a despotism abroad.
Shall wo depart from those paths , that
have proven safe , that have contributed
so much to our national greatness ? Or
shall wo cling to the safe and sure foun
dations of the republic and abandon our
dreams of empire and despotism ?
This view is in accord with the Eng
lish idea of our responsibilities should
_ . . . . wo once interfere
Brit lull View. . _ , . . , .
m a.
in China. The St.
James Gazette in commenting upon the
lessons wo are now learning from China
says :
"China is teaching America the im
possibility of a great trading nation
avoiding imperialism. America's ex
perience will teach her it is not the de
sire to grab distant lauds , but unavoid
able destiny , that drives great Britain
ever forward. Washington has no
choice but to protect imperiled Ameri
can citizens , and having once interfered
in China to protect her interests , she
shall never be able to shake from her
shoes the dust of the Celestial Empire. "
. The St. James Gazette advances the
same reasons for our remaining in China
that were presented in favor of the
extension of our power over the Philip
pines. If this argument was of suffi
cient weight to determine the policy oi
the present administration in dealing
with the Philippines would it not be
equally effective with some future ad
ministration whoii applied to China
especially since the Philippines can be
cited as a precedent ? Unless we wish
to place ourselves in a position where
we will "never be able to shake from
our shoes the dust of the Celestial Em
pire" we had better act upon the sage
advice given by Polouius to Laertes
"Beware of the entrance to a quarrel. '
While from our standpoint China has
not kept pace in the onward march o :
Society ait Organism. civilization . . , ,
while her in
dustriol life is crude and primitive , ye
this cannot be urged as a justification
for war. These things cannot be chaugec
in a day. Society is an organism. I
grows naturally , not phenomenally. Na
tura non lqsus applies with peculia
force to the organism we call a state
As the child cannot , presto change , be a
man , so China cannot in a moment be
evolved into the highest type of uatioua
life. China is the most densely popu
lated portion of the globe. Her iudus
trial system sustains more people pe
square mile than does that of any othe
country. The slow process of hand
labor enables all of her people to be em
_ r
ployed. A revolution in her industrial
ifo such as the immediate displacement
ihroughout the empire , of hand labor
) y modern machinery , would throw
millions out of employment and deprive
hem of the moans of livelihood. They
would bo forced to steal or starv o. The
country would bo overrun with hungry
lordos of idle men. A greater calamity
could not befall China than the sudden
iransition from the old to the now ,
as is agitated by ultraprogrossivo people.
A change in industrial life , in order to
bo effective aud beneficial , ought to bo
gradual , thereby giving the people am-
) le opportunity to adjust themselves to
iho now conditions. China will make
greater progress industrially and assume
more rapidly the ways of modern civil
ization if loft to work out her destiny
n her own way , as Japan has already
done , and we will bettor fulfill our dos-
; iny aud more nearly approach the ideal
of a republic , by confining our activities
bo present boundaries and avoiding en
tanglements in the Orient.
The
main. .
tivo conscience of
Mr. Bryan forced him , in 1893 , to con
demn the "gold standard" and to say of
the democratic party in Nebraska ,
which at that time stood for the gold
standard :
"Gentlemen , I know not what others
may do , but duty to country is above
duty to party. * * * If the democratic
party , after you go homo , 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. "
And speedily after this swashbuckler
bravado , the same citizen declares all
those who think of the silver standard
as he pretends to think of the gold , and
of all those who "place duty to country
above duty to party , " when the party
seeks to debase the currency and the
morals of the republic by 1C to 1 , to be
"conspirators , " "traitors upon whom the
brand shall be placed and they shall not
comeback. "
The conscience and ambition of Mr
Bryan were set up as the only couscience
and the only ambition for democracy to
heed. Under the rulings of that con
science and the inspirations of thai
ambition democracy has been merged
into and lost in the vagaries of popu
lism. And after four years of this
fanaticism the same man and the same
vagaries in finance are again forced to
the front. If it were impossible during
hard times and low prices to push them
to victory , how shall they be made to
triumph now ?
Will the support of Tammany , Croker ,
the New York City ice trust and the
silver conspirators be able to buy the
election for Bryan ? And if it is right
for those elements to support him how
can it be wrong for decent business men
everywhere to oppose him ?
Why did not Mr.
AN OVEUSIG11T ,
Bryan see that the
Chicago platform was brought up to
date and made to apply in every par
ticular to the now conditions that have
arisen since 1890 ? Ho should have
insisted that the plank condemning
federal interference with the Chicago
rioters , bo supplemented with a declara
tion endorsing the action of St. Louis
strikers in denuding lady passengers of
the street cars. He would thus have
placed himself in complete accord with
this new form of anarchistic demon
stration and would have made impossible
the displacement of his leadership. His
neglect is unpardonable.
T h e F r e m o u t
THE 1IK\'AN VOTE.
Herald challenges
the statement that appeared in THE
CONSERVATIVE that Mr. Bryan was a
weaker candidate for the democrats
than Grooloy. TIIE CONSERVATIVE can
easily demonstrate that this assertion is
correct. In 1892 Mr. Cleveland received
5,550,928 votes or 40.09 per cent of the
popular vote. Mr. Weaver the populist
candidate received 1,041,011 , or 8.08
per cent. The combined vote regis
tered against the republican candidate
was 54.72 per cent. The combined vote ,
however , is not the proper test of the
democratic party strength. The only
way to determine the relative strength
of the candidate is by a comparison of
the strict party vote. Applying this test
to Mr. Bryan and assuming the populist
vote of 1890 to be that of 1892 , his party
vote may be obtained by taking from
the total vote the 1,041,011 populist
votes , leaving 5,401,914 as the demo
cratic vote for Mr. Bryan. It was but
89.22 per cent of the popular vote. The
democratic vote for Mr. Bryan was
95,014 less than the democratic vote for
Mr. Cleveland in 1892 , notwithstanding
there were in 1890 1,808,150 new votes.
Owing to the agitation of the slavery
question in 1800 the democratic party
was divided upon sectional lines. The
democratic vote , however , opposed to
the republicans that year , was 00.92 per
cent of the popular vote , or 14.22 per
cent more than the combined demo
cratic , silver republican and populist vote
against the republicans in 1890. The
democratic vote polled by Greeley in
1872 was 44.21 per cent of the popular
vote. The democratic vote for Cleve
land in 1892 was 40.09 per cent. The
democratic vote for Mr. Bryan in 1890
was but 89.22 per cent. ' THE CONSERVA
TIVE can see no reason for retracting
the statement that Mr. Bryan was
the weakest man ever nominated by the
democratic party.
The vote in 1890 shows that a political
party , by abandoning its party prin
ciples , loses more of its party vote than
it gains from the party to which it
caters. The democratic party need not
hope to succeed this year by again
clothing itself in the livery of populism.
