The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-09-05
. MIscHiEvous DEMAGoGuE.

MISCHIEyOUS DEMAGOGUE.
favorite argument of Mr.. Bryan, If it
can be called argument, and one which
he has repeated great many times. is to
remind his hearers that the common people,
as he calls them, are a great majority in
! this country: that upon them devolves the
duty of settling all questions of public poll
icy; that they know what they want and
are entirely competent to settle the money
| question; that there is nothing difficult or
| complicated about it, anyhow, ETC. 1.-The
| Creator he says, did not use a different
kind of mud in making financiers from that
used in making other people, Show me
who says the money question is too
| complicated for common people and I will
show you enc who thinks it is just about
complicated enough for him. This kind of
talk, like much of what Mr.. Bryan says,
comes under the definition of '.jollying.H
1t is intended to flatter the people, and, by
putting them in a good humor with them
selves. make them well disposed also
towards him.
The fact that there is a modicum of truth
in this often-repeated talk of Mr.. Bryans
makes it the more misleading. It is quite
true that this is the peoples government,
and we are all glad it is so. 1t is quite
true that in the last resort all questions of
public policy must be settled by them. It
is quite true that financiers are not by
nature any different from other people nor
better in any way unless they have made
better use of their talents and opportuni-
ties. But it does not follow that the money
&c civ
have his audiences believe or that it should
be passed upon without very careful con-
sideration eff the laws and principles of
finance, of historical precedents and of the
testimony of those who have made study
of such questions. Mr.. Bryan is a lawyer
by profession, though he has never prac-
ticed much, and said a short time ago that
his income from that source was very lin
tied. Suppose some important question of
constitutional law or statutory construc-
ton involving vast interests and historical
precedents and experience of other coun-
tries We're thrown into politics to be set
tied by popular vote. What would Mr..
Bryan think if some candidate for office
who knew nothing of law should go about
telling the people that they were entirely
competent to decide such questions; that
the Creator did not use any different kind
of mud in making lawyers from that which
went to the making of other people; that
whoever told them questions of constitu-
tional law or statutory construction were
complicated had no faith in popular gov
eminent and was trying to deceive and de-
fraud them under the pretense of being a
superior person. Mr. Bryan is not much
of a lawyer. but does he believe that the
average citizen who has never read law at
all knows much about the rule in Shell
ley's case, the law of contracts or the con-
struction of wills as he does and is COM
petent to pass on those questions offhand?
He may have tried hog case or a COW
case before a jury and must be familiar
with the rule of law which requires juries
to take the law from the legal expert who
sits on the bench. He may also be aware
that juries are often glad in criminal cases
to have the opinions of medical and other
experts who are supposed to know more
about technical questions than they do.
In spite Of what Mr. Bryan says, the
monetary question is a complicated one
extremely delicate in its adjustments and
complicated in its relations 1t ought not
W ne III pOHtlcS at all, Dut, DelnS there
and being subject to popular vote, the peo-
pie should not be told that it is a simple
question and one they are competent to
decide offhand They should be told that
the literature of the question is very ex-
tensive, including works by political econ
omists and trained financiers of this and
| other countries, and that they ought if
possible, to study this literature or at least
ascertain the opinions and conclusions of
those who had made study of it. They
should be told that some of the funda-
mental principles of monetary science are
established aXioms, to disregard which
would be suicidal folly, and that they ought
to ind out what these axioms are and fol-
low them. Instead of this, Mr.. Bryan tries
to make his audiences believe there is no
principle involved in the money question
nothing that they need to study nothing
to be learned from the experience of other
nations, and. above all, nothing to be
learned from trained financiers or writer's
on economics. He is a very mischievous
demagogue