The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-09-09
HE FoRGETs HIMSELF.


We will do Mr.. Bryan the justice to
say that the address which he deliv-
cred on Labor day before the trades
unions of Chicago is by far the most
respectable perfor' &c that has yet
been set down to h. cedit. Perhaps
a man who aims at saying everything
at one time or another in his wordy
career must be expected, as a part Of
the performance, to at times say some
things that are just and true. Upon
this occasion, strict party politics being
barred out, and the issues Of this cam
paign not being up for discussion with
out violation Of propriety, Mr. Bryan
was thrown back upon simpler and
larger questions, about which he could
not theorize. There is, of course, moth
ing that is new in what he said, but
there is much that is sensible and that
cannot be too often repeated. 1t is not,
either, peculiar to Mr.. Bryan or to any
politician or political party. All Of us
are agreed when we come down to dots
about the general principles that Mr.
Bryan enunciates. Democrat, Re-
publican and Populist, McKinleyite and
Bryanite, will all say, If you ask them,
that all men are selfish; that no one is
perfectly just; that our government
is the best form Of government known
among men; that public changes are
sometimes necessary; that the right of
the citizens ballot is a sacred one not
to be tempered with, and that in a de-
mocracy men will get the kind of gov
eminent, in the long run, that they
deserve. A few score of truisms like
this composed Mr.. Bryan's Chicago
address. They attain to excellence and
achieve notoriety, not because they are
new, and not because they are pecu-
liar to Mr.. Bryan or his followers, but
because they are so different from, and,
in the main, contradictory Of all the
other speeches that he has delivered.
One exception to this is to be noted,
however, in his persistent arraying
of capital and labor over and against
each other as hostile forces. He goes
into the foolish question in this speech
of the relative antiquity of position
of the two forces at work in the pro-
duction of wealth. He says that labor
should have greater honor and first
consideration, because labor must ex-
list before capital can be created. Now,
this is mere hair-splitting, and has no
connection whatever with practical af-
fairs. Away back in the stone age
somewhere, when men had nothing but
their limbs to serve them withal, a
hairy beast in human form doubtless
fashioned himself a club from the trunk
of tree, or a hammer from a bit of
rock. and it forthwith became capital.
Today, the distinction of origin is lost;
since both capital and labor co-exist
in immense quantities and ought to
cooperate tremendously in the increase
Of wealth. The reason why labor ought
to receive greater consideration than
capital is because man is more sacred
than anything else. Human life is a
more precious thing than the most val
liable form of property. But as to dis
tinguishing between labor and capital
on any other basis, this plea of Mr.
Bryan's is not only specious in itself,
but is an insidious repetition in his con-
slant effort to array class against class,
and to claim that he is the especial
champion of the poorer and more help
less. Human nature is human nature
wherever you find it, among rich or
poor, laborer or capitalist You do
not find that when the man Of one de-
scription loses or acquires capital and
enters the other description that he
changes his qualities particularly. He