The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-09-25

Inere is no more paipaDle instance
Of the utter dishonesty of Mr.. Bryans
methods and arguments than is to be
found in the speech which he delivered
at Brooklyn on Wednesday evening
He deemed it necessary in that COM
munity 10 attempt some explanation
or defense of the plank in the Chicago
platform which has been characterized
as revolutionary and anarchistic For
this purpose he quoted it in compari-
son with the plank Of the Republican
platform Of 1860, on which Abraham
Lincoln was elected president. For the
sake of showing the recklessness Of the
man we give the two planks side by
side. with a word of explanation to
point their real meaning. The section
of the Chicago platform of 1896 referred
to reads as follows:
we denounce arbitrary interference by
federal authorities in local affairs, as a vio-
lation of the constitution of the United States,
as crime against free institutions.
The section of the platform of 1850
referred to reads as follows:
The maintenance inviolate Of the rights
Of the state and especially the right of each
state to order and control its own domestic
institutions, according to its own Judgment,
exclusively, is essential to that balance Of
power upon which the operation and endur-
ance Of our political fabric depends, and we
denounce the lawless invasion by armed
force of the soil Of any state or territory
no matter under what pretext, as among the
greatest of crimes
Any declaration in a political plat
form must be read in the light not only
of its explicit language, but of the at
tendant circumstances which give to it
its real meaning. Nothing could be
more utterly dishonest than Mr.. Bry-
ans attempt to find a forced similarity
between two utterances which are as
wide apart as the poles.
What was the situation in 1860 which
called for the declaration quoted
above? The an-absorbing question in
this country was the maintenance or
destruction OF slavery in the states
which sheltered it by their laws, and
its extension to, or exclusion from. the
soil of the territories. One section de-
clared that, under the constitution. the
the right to determine their domestic
institutions themselves. The other con-
tended as vehemently that not an
other inch of our soil should be con-
taminated by slavery. Already the
clash of arms had come in what was
then the far West, and men threat
ened openly that slavery must be sun
pressed, by the exercise of force if
need be. With the Union already at
the point of dissolution from the con-
fiict of these two parties. it was the
effort of thoughtful men on both sides
to prevent the civil strife that threat
ened, by observing strictly the li1nita-
tions of the constitution.
The Republican party of 1860 made
its appeal to the people of the states
where slavery already existed, in the
plank to which Mr. Bryan refers. 1t
promised them non-interference It
said that control of it's domestic in
situations is the right Of each common
Wealth under the constitution. and II
denounced "the lawless invasion bv
armed force of the soil of any state
or territory This is perfectly plain
when read in the light of history. and
is accepted without reservation by ey-
cry patriotic citizen. We all of us
hold today that there must be no in
reference by federal authority with
the domestic institutions of any state
We are all ready to protest against
''lawless' invasion of any state or terri
tory as among the greatest of crimes
Let US turn now to Mr. Bryan's plat
form, and see what similarity we can
find. The two planks do not come
within thousands of miles of touching
The Chicago anarchy plank was
adopted. as we know, because Gov.
Altgeld insisted upon it with direct ref
ercnce to the course of Mr.. Cleveland
III the great riots of 1S93 It has no
ether reference or meaning. 1t was
Intended as stroke against the execu-
tive for directing the enforcement of
federal laws against lawless violation.
No institution OF any state was inter-