The Mt. Sterling advocate. (Mt. Sterling, Ky.) 1890-current, 1895-06-11
bryan hEFLlro
TO CARLISLE.
Shows the Inconsistency Of His
Position.
FOR THE GLASSES, NOT MASSES,

Withdrawal of silver--A Policy of Dis
aster.
Ex-Congressman w. J. Bryan spoke as
follows at Memphis May "a in answer to
Secretary Carlisle
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW
CITIzENs--It gives me great pleasure to be
able to meet the good people of this city
and occupy their attention for little
while in discussion of the greatest ques-
tion-the greatest economic question-that
has come before the people of this genera
ton. After had read the glowing account
in the newspapers of the convention in the
interest of sound money which you were
to have yesterday, and of the reception ac-
corded the distinguished apostle who was
to present the doctrine on that occasion,
wondered If it would be possible to find
enough silver men in this community TO
come out and make respectable audience
on the following night, and this morning
when arrived in the city l inquired what
was the effect of the meeting and whether
all the people of this vicinity were convert
cd to the doctrine of bimetallism on gold
basis, and one gentleman explained the eff
feet of the meeting by story, which with
your permission will repeat:
A small country town was surprised
when it awoke one morning to find that
there were posters scattered all over the
streets, bearing nothing but these words:
"Your uncle is coming" Nothing more.
In few days the surprise occasioned by
this occurrence had about passed away,
when on another morning the people were
again astounded to find all the streets lit
tered and all the walls plastered with other
posters which read: "Your uncle is here.
Go to the opera house tonight" When
night came, the entire town turned out,
purchased tickets and entered the opera
house. They sat in their chairs patiently
and when at last the curtain went up
nothing greeted their view but big ban
ner hung across the stage and bearing the
words, "You uncle is gone"
I do not in this story have allusion TO
the blood relative of an avuncular connec-
ton, but to the man to whom we go when
we need an uncle.
1 have read the speech made by Secreta-
~ SdIlAHlt llGIO gtSltIueiN. l. lllNt lNtth CliO
speech made by him ut Covington ON last
n onday night, and have read the speech
made by the same man on the 21st of
February, 1878, and when 1 compare the
two,speechCs of this week with tho speech
of II years ago cannot but think of that
lament Of David at the death Of Saul,
"How are the mighty fallenl'
And l want to call your attention for q
little while tonight to some of the differ
ences between these speeches. The first
was made II years ago. twas made when
Mr. Carlisle was 40 years old. l give you
his age SO that you will not allow him TO
plead the baby act. He had been prac
ticing attorney for 90 years. He had been
q member of the lower house of the Ken
lucky legislature; he had been a member
OF the senate in Kentucky and lieutenant
governor of the great state of Kentucky,
and he was then member of congress. I
want you to read that speech, because the
greatest service that Mr.. Carlisle can do
for the cause Of the people this year is by
his present uttCrances to bring to our no
tice his utterances of II years ago. At
that time he was hurting the pebbles of
truth on the giant of the Philistines, John
Sherman. But this year he is Goliath him
self, coming forth every morning to issue
his challenge to his former friends. de-
sire not only to call your attention to some
of the differences, but to call your atten-
ton to the reasoQ of the change as he de-
scribes it himself.
Carlisle's Change of Opinion.
In his speech at Memphis Mr.. Carlisle
did not refer to his speech of II years ago,
but at Covington he did, and he said that
some of his opponents were taking words
out of their connection and in that way
incorporating him, besides ascribing to
him words he had never uttered. He said
that on some subjects connected with the
silver question he had changed his opinion,
but that he had never changed on the sub
jcct of free coinage. He was not fair in
that statement. In his speech of 1878 he
did say that he was opposed to the free
coinage Of silver, but he also said that he
was opposed to the free coinage of gold on
the same ground, and he was then in ia
vor of the unlimited coinage of both these
metals on terms of exact equality. Is it
fair for the secretary of the treasury to
say to an audience that he never was in
favor of the free coinage Of silver, and omit
to say that he had urged the same objec-
WIN w IllO liOO vi SOlNli anu lClNO
upon his audience the impression that he
had never changed, when in fact he had
believed in the free coinage of silver on the
same terms with gold?
But we shall not stop here He says
that he never wrote a letter nor made a
speech in favor of the free and unlimited
coinage of silver at any ratio. / want to
bring forward evidence sufficient to con-
vince you that Mr.. Carlisle was either in
favor of free and unlimited coinage or else
was guilty of graver offense than that of
changing his mind. In his speech of 1873
he explains that he fought for the free and
unlimited coinage of silver at ratio Of l6
to l without waiting upon the action of
any other nation, but that he did it in the
hope that the proposition upon which b.
voted would be modified in the senate.
He served In the house and senate for about
10 years after making the speech of 1873
and never upon single occasion did he
attempt to withdraw the utterances of that
occasion or to modify the emphasis with
which he then spoke. He never voted
against free coinage until after the nomi-
nation of Mr.. Cleveland in 1892. He was
In the senate in 1890. The house sent over
a measure to coin silver bullion, and he
voted against it on amendment. But you
may say that perhaps he did this in the
expectation that when the bill went back
a. \ 4. Ill