The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-08-24

been in the state of New York long. I
have not met many of your people, but
in the short time have been here L
have met enough Republicans who are
going to our ticket to make up for ev-
cry prominent Democrat that has de-
serted US, and we welcome the guests
as we speed the parting.
Now my friends, it is a practical
question. 1t is a question which you
must consider for yourselves. The gen
tlemen who have preceded me have
competent to settle these questions for
yourselves. The forefathers of our
government never conceived that the
time would come when there would pc
only a few people in this country who
we're competent to settle great pubic
questions II they had, they would
have written in the constitution that on
most questions everybody could vote,
but on the money question only the
dnancier could vote. It Is a hollow
mocEery to grant to the people a right
in your constitution and then deny
them the privilege of exercising It. I
assert that the people Of the United
States, those who produce wealth. as
well as those who exchange t,have suf-
6cient patriotism and sufficient intel
Hgence to sit in judgment upon every
question which has arisen. or which
VIII arise, no matter how long our gov
eminent may endure.
Great political questions are eco
nomic questions, and great economic
questions are, in their final analysis,
no extended experience in the handling
of money TO enable q man to tell right
from wrong More than that. this
money question will not be settled until
the great common people act upon IT..
No question is settled until the masses
settle il. Abraham Lincoln said that
the Lord must have loved the common
people, because he made SO many Of
them. He was right about it. There
is another evidence that the Lord made
the common people, and made a great
many Of them. because the common
people are the only people who have
ever supported a reform that had for
its object the benefit Of the human
race don't mean to say that there
have not been exceptions to the rule;
I don't mean to say that you have not
found among the masses at all times
those who were ready to bstray those
who toiled with them If they could see
some chance Of personal elevation Nor
do l mean to say that those who have
gone beyond the ranks of the common
people are entirely unmindful Of the
claims of brotherhood upon them. But
what I say is that as a general rule
the common people now and heretofore
have been the support and the only
great support Of every measure of re-
form. Now you have a right to take
this question, examine 1t, and form
your own opinion, and the ballot is
given to you in order that you may ex-
press your opinion when you come to
vote and not be required to accept
to call your attention to a few things
for you to consider when you are try
ing to make up your mind what you
oguht to do.
Now, our opponents are all divided
as to the policy which should be pur-
sued. You take the gold standard
Democrats; some of them say they
ought to come out openly and indOrss
the Republican candidate, so as 10 be
sure to elect him, and others say, No,
that would be dangerous, because IN
less we have g candidate Of our own
there would be a great many Demo-
Gratis who would be foolish enough to
vote the Democra tic ticket of the com
mon people, And there they are divid-
ed. They all want the same OBJECT.
They all want to elect a Republican
Democracy IS better exemplified
through Republicanism. But I say
they are divided as to the means of
getting at it. Some think they can
elect a Republican candidate better by
having a candidate of their own to fool
Democrats with than they could by
openly supporting the Republican
there, but they are divided all the way
through when they come to argument.
Why, some of them will start out to
show that the gold standard is good
thing, AM after one OF their speakers
has gone on while showing what a
great thing the gold standard is, then
another speaker comes along and says
standard Is good, that it really Is not
good, that what We want Is bimetal-
ism, but we cannot have 1t until some
body else helps US. Now, these two
arguments are not consistent. If the
gold standard is & good thing, why
should they want birnetaIlisn? And
yet If they ever have two men maxi
ing speeches the same night the
chances are 16 to I that one of them
will praise the gold standard while the
other will tell you how anxious they
are to get rid of it.
We'll, then, they come to the details
Of the argument. One man says the
reason he does not want free coinage
Is that he does not think the govern
ment should pass a law that will en-
BILE the silver mine owners to take so
cents worth of silver bullion and con-
vert it into 100 cents. and he will get
red in the face and become indignant
at the idea that the government should
attempt TO rob some individual in this
way. OF course he may have been in
favor Of a system Of taxation which
would give to some 300 per cent, but
that does not count. It is a terrible
thing to allow the silver miner to make
that profit. Then the next man who
comes up will say that as a matter OF
fact the stamp of the government adds
nothing TO the value of the metal and
that the free coinage of silver simply
means that you convert so cents worth
of bullion into a so cent dollar and no.
body makes any profit out of it. Now.
I say, the chances are that if you have
two men making speeches on the same
platform in favor of not taking any
action until some foreign nation helps
US, YOU will find that one of them VIII
in ali probability make one argument
and the other Will make the other ar
gument. and very often the same man
makes both arguments. Now you can
see the absurdity Of II. If the silver
miner under the law of free coinage
finds that his silver bullion is so raised
that that which is now worth so cents
will be worth 100 cents. then there are
no fifty cent dollars, and il the other
man is correct and the law adds moth
ing to the value of the metal and you
simply convert so cents worth OF silver