The herald., 1896-07-10

s there. ] know 1t will be said in some
places this platform agrees with our Re-
publican friends. 1t, to me, is neither
any better nor any worse for 1t. cal
your attention to the fact that youl
plank upon pensions, that your planl
upon Monroe doctrine, that your planl
upon Cuba, that your plank upon th'
territories, that your plank upon
Alaska, that your plank even upon the
civil service are exactly like the Repub-
lican planks. Therefore, do not think
that the criticism will detract from the
value of the suggestion. Mr.. President
said few moments ago that 1 thought
the safest course for this convention
to have pursued was to simply have said
that this government should enact
statute in favor of placing gold and sill
yer alike as the currency of the country
and stop there. do not think, as l said,
and will repeat, that it is wise to haz-
(, ard everything upon a single number
Let me go further. I object to various
provisions of this platform, and think
IL the wise, level, cool-headed men, FAR
sighted men, such as the distinguished
senator from Arkansas who addressed
you, had prevailed that platform would
have been different. What was the ne
,essity for opening up the question of
Teenback circulation? What was the
necessity for putting in this platform
an implied pledge that this government
night issue greenbacks and make them
legal tender The Democratic party is
opposed to paper money. The Demo-
G4atic party from its earliest history
has been in favor of hard money; the
Democratic party thinks that the best
way for us to do is to eliminate United
States notes and treasury notes from
our currency. They are drag upon our
metals You have to constantly keep
supplied fund for their redemption un-
less you propose to repudiate them.
Therefore, when my friend from South
Carolina and my friend from Arkansas
cay. that this platform says what 1T
means. and means what it says, l would
like to have someone who follows me
tell me what this platform means upon
the subject of the issue of paper money
hereafter I am not violating any Sc
crets of the committee room when / say
that it was avowed that this govern
ment might desire to pursue that course
and this is an attempt at this late day
to commit the Democratic party to the
suicidal policy of the issuing of paper
money. applause and cries of That's
the stuff"') You say you wanted
clear and distinct platform. You have
not got it upon that question. 1t cannot
be defended successfully. Another sug-
gestion permit me to make. What was
the necessity for putting into the plat
form other questions which have never
been made the tests of Democratic 10y
atty heretofore Why, we find the dis
pured question of the policy and consti
tutionality of an income tax. What,
has 1t come to this that the followers of
Samuel J. Tilden, who, during all his
life was the opponent of that iniquitous
scheme which was used agtiainst him
in his old age to annoy and harrass him
and humiliate him-what, 1 say, should
1t be left to this convention to make
q tenet of Democratic faith a belief
in the propriety and constitutionality
of an income tax law? Why was it wise
to assail the supreme court of your
country w Ill SOIflt one tell Iilt WHdl
that clause means in this platform? If
you mean what you say and say what
you mean, will some one explain that
provision? (Applause.)
That provision, if it means anything,
means that 1t is the duty of congress to
reconstruct the supreme court of the
country. 1t meanS-and it was openly
avowed-it means the additional mem
bers to it, or the turning out of office
and reconstructing the whole court. I
said 1 will not follow any such revolu-
tionary step as that. Whenever before
in the history of this country has de-
Yotion to an income tax been made the
the test of Democratic loyalty? Never.
Have you not undertaken enough, my
good friends, now without seeking to
put in this platform these unnecessary
foolish and ridiculous things? What
further have you done? In this plat
form you have declared for the first
time in the history of this country that
you are opposed to any life tenure what
ever for office. Our fathers before us,
our Democratic fathers whom we revere
in the establishment of this govern
ment, gave our court judges a life ten
ure for office. What necessity was there
for reviving this question? How fool
ish and unnecessary, in my opinion. Are
Democrats whose lives have been de-
voted to this party; are men whose
hopes, whose ambitions, whose aspira-
tions all lie within party lines, to be
driven out of the party upon this new
question of life tenure of the court judges
of our federal courts?
This is a revolutionary step; this is
an unwise step; this is an unprecedented
step in our party history,
Another question that l think should
have been avoided, is this: What was
the necessity, what was the propriety OF
taking up the vexed question of the is
sue of bonds for the preservation of the
credit of the nation? Why not have left
this question to free coinage OF
silver alone? What have you declared ?
You have announced the old policy that
under no circumstances shall there ever
be a single bond issue in times of peace
You have not excepted any thing. What
does that mean? 1t means the virtual
repeal of your resumption act; it means
reputation pure and simple.
This statement is too broad, the state
ment is too sweeping. 1t has not been
carefully considered. You even oppose
congress doing it; you even oppose the
president doing it; you oppose them do
ing it either singly or unitedly; you
stand upon the broad prOpOsitiOn that