The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-10-19

SiSoti itSSiA llOHl tile ulSloHoE pL lHS
 present smirching! The Bryan plat
 form would restore property equality
 by theft, It summons the property
 holder to surrender the half of his hold
 ings, and implies the threat that If the
 half be not willingly given, the whole
 may be forcibly taken, The Bryan
 platform would terminate commerce by
 making the enforcement of contracts
 penal. In fact, Bryan and his followers
 are out of patience with modern ciylli-
 zation and would restore man to the
 position he occupied before the laws of
 finance commerce and politics were
 devised and established. He would
 turn back the wheels of progress thou
 sands of years, have an entirely new
 deal and start man afresh from the
 savage state without law, without
 government, without restraint, without
 social life, without political experi-
 ences, without history. This is the
 Bryan platform. To be regular dem
 ocrat 1t must be accepted. Democrats
 have swallowed and digested so many
 nasty messes during the last four years
 -nlesses which years ago they would
 have spewed out with loathing-that
 the majority of them stomach Bryan without qualm. They are ready at
 his commands to strip off the cleanly
 garb of civilization and to accompany
 him back into the filth and squalor of
 barbarism. What an awful pioturel Awful to think that single American
 citizen can support such a program! If the few remaining democrats who a1a ;,, .ifrtk f,, | honest in mind, obedient to experience, loyal and patriotic, turn from Chicago to Indianapolis will they find full con- tent?
 Some democrats are calling the Indi- annapolis platform a perfect platform, an artistic platform, an ideal platform. It may be ideal. It certainly is not 1 real, Most of it's blanks are as vague as the sentences of German metaphy- | sician. It is full of asseverations about the bygone exploits of the democratic party which any tyro of his country's
 history knows to be misleading, if not 1 actually mendacious. For instance the platform asserts that the democratic
 party established the gold standard in 1 1884 and again In 1853. The democratic pdit9 hll iioiililS OI tiiG s'pi v AN pAfAS | legislation on the subject of coinage in ! 1884 was the law establishing the ratio | of 16 to 1 between gold and silver, the
 ratio which is the shibholeth of the
 Bryan party. the source of intending | trouble and the prime doctrine from l which the Indianapolis party are bolt l CTS. While the only legislation of 1853
 was the law lowering the value of sil- 1 yer half and quarter dollars seven per cent below their face value, fraud, a 1 deliberate departure from the law of l sound money. This is a fair specimen ] of the ideal character of the Indianapo- l lis platform. Apart from its emphatic l and unequivocal endorsement of the l gold standard 1t is not worthy of the l consideration of men who do their own 1 thinking, Moreover there are positive objections to 1t. One of its blanks com
 mences as follows: We therefore de-
 nounce protection and it's ally free
 coinage of silver. etc" The free coin-
 age of silver Is here presented in the 1 subordinate position of an ally, and the ] ally of protection Therefore if free l silver be bad be dishonest, be repudia- l tion, be the destruction of commercial and national honor, be everything the 1 gold democrats assert it to be; then in
 all these particulars protection must be
 more damnabie7 In the degree that the ] wicked principal is worse than his su- I bordinate ally. If gold democrats could pause in their platform making | to read the history of their country. they would find that point with pride" 1 Jefferson and point with pride" Jack | son both favored the tariff bill of 1876, 1 the most emphatic and out and out protection measure which has ever
 passed through congress, and which es- tablished for all time the doctrine that protection of American industries against foreign competition Is a valua-
 ble factor in American politics. The principle of protection Is correct. The | evils which result from 1t result from ! it's imperfect and wrongful application. l Protection is not matter of moral principle but a matter of commercial | policy. To classify it With repudiation, | lawlessness, anarchy and Bryanism, is 1 such stupid and infatuate blunder l that the intelligent voter is forced to | conclude that both branches of the democratic party are unreliable, igno-
 rant and unworthy of confidence and
 support. In another plank the Indian | apolis platform states: We demand | strict economy in the appropriations and in the administration of the gov | ernment" Two clauses further along
 states We favor liberal policy of
 pensions to the deserving soldiers and
 sailors of the United States" The two l blanks are utterly unreconcilable The
 second plank, if it means anything be- yond a vague nothing, means the ap-
 proval and support of the pension laws
 as they exist to-day, including the law
 of 1890, under which nearly five hun 1 dred thousand new pensioners have been added to the lists and the yearly
 expenses of the department have been | increased by tens of millions. The pen
 sion burden now amounts to about one
 hundred and fifty millions a year.
 Neither party has the courage to call a
 halt, though no country in Christendom
 can carry such a burden without im- | periling it's financial stability, Pen sions alone are more than sufficient to
 account for the present condition of the | United States treasury. Of all protec- | tions no protection is more dangerous, | both in itself and in the spirit to which l it administers, more undemocratte in | the truest sense of the word, than the
 class protection of pensions.
 The currency plank of the Indianap- | olis platform is as vague as vague can