-
T
the Conservative.
It required 8,000
BRYAN ACCEPTS.
words for Mr.
Bryan to say "yes" to the amalgamated
proposal of populism , Bryauarchy , and
frae-silver-republicanism. Those who
have watched the career of this poly-
partied nominee are no doubt greatly
surprised upon reading the lengthy
document given out an Indianapolis , to
find no "cross of gold" or "crown of
thorns" which so effectively appealed to
emotional delegates at the Chicago con
vention. He failed to utter one word of
warning against the gold standard
which , in 1896 , he declared was devasta
ting this country of ours , "destroying
happy homes , " and bringing desolation
and despair to cheerful "firesides. "
Instead of denouncing this gold
behemoth , he now rebukes those who
would dare "press
An Economic
Question
'
'economic questions
on the country to the exclusion of those
which involve the very structure of our
government , " and accuses them of "sub
serviency to pecuniary considerations. "
How insignificant has become the "eco
nomic question" about which Mr. Bryan
used these words in 1896 :
"The great struggle now on cannot
cease until all the industrial interests of
the country are fully and finally eman
cipated from the heartless domination of
syndicates , stock exchanges and other
great combinations of money grabbers
in this country and Europe.
"My friends , all the trusts together
fall into insignificance when compared
to the money trust.
"They ( the republicans ) have declared
against the right of the people of the
United Std 10 govern themselves.
"In this campaign for the first time in
the history of this government a great
party proposes to surrender the right of
self-government and invest in foreign
legislative bodies the power to legislate
for the people of the United States.
"If they ask us 'what about other
questions ? ' We tell them that so long
as the right of self-government is en
dangered , there is no other question.
Why discuss things if we be not power
ful enough when we should have the
power ? "
If Bryan then spoke the truth ; if , in
the fight for bimetallism , was involved
the right of self-government , is it not
more than a mere "economic question ? "
If to yield in this fight was to relinquish
the right of self government can we better
afford to yield now than we could in
1896 ? Is not the question whether we
shall legislate for ourselves or permit
Europe to legislate for us of greater im
portance than our legislating for the
Filipinos. Is not the question of indus
trial emancipation from the "heartless
combinations of syndicates , stock ex
changes , and other great combinations
of money grabbers in this country
and Europe , " more important than
our making laws to govern another
people ? The privilege of making laws
for somebody else is dependent upon the
MS"- "
right to make laws for ourselves. Hence
the denial of the right to make laws for
ourselves of necessity denies the right
to make laws for somebody else. If Mr.
Bryan was truthful , honest and sincere
in 1896 , how can the question of im
perialism be paramount to the "economic
question" of bimetallism ? How can the
question of self-government for the
American people be of lesser importance
than the question of establishing a
government for the Filipinos ? If , on
the other hand , Mr. Bryan was not
honest and sincere in 1896 what must bo
our opinion of his expressions upon the
subject of imperialism ?
If , as Mr. Bryan says , there are other
questions which overshadow this econ -
. , , . . . n o m i o question ,
A Lightning :
Change Artist. Why did he , On
the Fourth of July ,
notify the convention at Kansas Oity
that unless there was a specific reaffirmation -
ation of this "economic question" he
would not accept the nomination for the
presidency ? If THE CONSERVATIVE re
members rightly the perils of the republic
were the same upon the fourth as on
the fifth of July ? These "questions
which now threaten the structure of our
government" confronted us on the
former as well as the latter date. This
being true , is it not a sad commentary
upon the intelligence and patriotism of
the peerless one that he should make the
triumph of these questions secondary to
the reiteration of an "economic ques
tion ? " Was he not' 'subservient to pecun
iary considerations ? " Many people will
be at a loss to know when to agree with
this matchless leader. On the Fourth of
July he was firmly standing out for the
free and unlimited coinage of silver as
tantamount to everything else. On the
fifth day of July we find him apparently
making something else paramount.
Verily "we know not what a day may
bring forth , " especially is this true when
applied to Mr. Bryan's definition of
tantamonutcy -paramountcy. . Mr.
Bryan's facility in the convertibility of
paramounts forces THE CONSERVATIVE
to the conclusion that this sage econo
mist believes the life of the republic is
dependent not so much upon the
triumph of certain principles as it is
upon his election to the presidency. If
we are to be positively assured of the
safety of the structure of our govern
ment the peerless proclaimor must be
put in the white house.
The question which Mr. Bryan be
lieves endangers the structure of our
government is the
The Paramount.
government of re
mote territory. This question is a logi
cal sequence of the treaty with Spain.
A majority of the senate of the United
States opposed the ratification of that
treaty because they did not believe it
compatible with our form of government
to assume this responsibility. They did
not believe we ought to acquire remote
territory and become responsible for the
government of distant people. But un
fortunately the efforts of these patriotic
senators were defeated. Senator Hoar ,
the leader of the anti-imperialists thus
explains the defeat :
"I myself , in my humble way , did
everything in my power to prevent the
ratification of the treaty. I do not un
derstand that any opponent of Imperial
ism charges me with failing to do my
full duty as a senator , both by vote and
speech. I did it at the cost of what was
as dear to me as my life the approval
and sympathy of men who had been my
friends and political companions for
more than thirty years. Everything I
tried to do was brought to naught by
the action taken by Mr. Bryan , an action
taken against the remonstrance of the
wisest leaders in his own party. "
The one who "against the remon
strance of the wisest leaders of his party
„ . , , . . favored the ac-
Strangely Inconsistent . ,
quisition of the
treaty , " and defeated the efforts of op
ponents of Imperialism now asks the
suffrages of those who opposed the Im
perialistic policy embodied in the treaty 1
Referring to his part in ratification Mr.
Bryan says :
"When the war was over and the re
publican leaders began to suggest the
propriety of a colonial policy , opposition
at once manifested itself. When the
president finally laid before the senate a
treaty which recognized the independ
ence of Cuba but provided for the ces
sion of the Philippine islands to the
United States , the menace of Imperial
ism became so apparent that many pre
ferred to reject the treaty and risk the
ills that might follow rather than take
the chance of correcting the errors of
the treaty by the independent action of
this country.
"I was among the number of those
who believed it better to ratify the
treaty and end the war , release the vol
unteers , remove the excuse for war ex
penditures , and then give to the Filipi
nos the independence which might be
forced from Spain by a new treaty. "
From this it is clear that Mr. Bryan
was fully aware of the menace of Im-
perialisin c o u -
, , . ,
T . . .
Aware of the Danger. 7 ,
tamed in the ces
sion of the Philippines. He admits that
this menace was "so apparent" that
" te the . "
"many preferred reject treaty.
In making this admission he also admits
that he preferred to endorse a danger
which was "so apparent. " The ills
that might have followed the defeat of
the treaty were nothing as compared to
those which have followed ratification.
Senator Money thus stated the effect of
ratifying the treaty :
"Does any man say we are going to
have peace by ratifying this treaty ?
Yes ; we will have peace with Spain , but
we will begin war with the Filipinos.
We had a war with Spain that lasted
three mouths. I stood right here and
predicted on the 28th of March that we
were about to engage in a war that
would last sixty days , which would be a