The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1896-10-09
Prof. Mitchell's Speech.

Prof las. w. Mitchell, President OF
the BRYAN and Sewall CLUB OF ELL
u,itsburg. this county. made the follow
ing address before the members a'
meeting held last Saturday evening"
Gennemen: 1t is the habit OF those
uho have deserted the banner OF tne
Democracy, like Palmer, C0cnr an,
Whitney and others, to say that the
namocratic convention that nominal
ted Rrvan was Populist convention
and not a representative of the genuine
Democracy. Let rs inquire InI0
this. Were the primaries that Lnet al
over the country and that sent ueie-
gates TO the State conventions, ilon
which delegates to the NanonaI con.
wention that met at Chicago, composed
of PoDulists or Democrats? Let US APP
nlv his to ourselves. We sent dele
gates to the State convention that sent
ont it's delegates to Chicago. Were we
Pnnulists or Democrats? Every state
was represented by Democratic deie-
gates, and surely the 800 men OF tue
, I 100 that composed the Chicago con-
vention were the delegates of Demo
cratic State conventions. But the de-
serters. like B0urke Cochran, call us
} Populists? Do we represent the MAJOR
ity of the Democratic State conventions
| or not? Are 800 delegates greater IN
number than 300 or not! Does Tue
majority rule in this Democratic party
ar not? Are those who are loyal TO
nartv and to party principle true or
not? These are the questions when
we must consider in answering the
sneers of Bourke Cochran, who call the
BRYAN party traitors and Populists. The
Democratic party, through its mana
gers in Chicago, did not adopt the
! Populislic principles or Republican
ideas, but the Populists adopted Mr..
Bryan and the free silver Republicans
did so likewise.
If any follower of Mr.. B'yan is called
a Populist because the POpulists sup
port Mr.. Bryan, what shall we Call MI.
| Cochran, who, whilst be seems TO
make the Democratic eagle scream Tor
true Democratic doctrine, declares In
the same breath that he will vote for
Mckinley. l know but one word that
will define Bourke Cochrane's conduct
and that word is traitor.
But now, gentlemen, let me pass
from this reference to these new con-
verts to Republicanism, and let me say
few words to show you the error of
the gold standard advocates III de-
mandng a single standard.
One of the arguments of these men
regarding the ability to maintain the
gold standard by drawing gold from
England to meet all demands here,
would be easily overcome, if, as report
ed last week, the bank of England
should increase its rate of discount on
gold. In that bank there is reserve
of Ell 100000, or in round numbers
$l55, O00,OOO Of this amount eli, OOO,-
or $55, 000, 900, belong to the Japanese
Government. Now, inasmuch as New
York bankers within the past three
weeks have been largely drawing on
England for gold and that Japan may
call in her gold reserve, suppose, as
was reported in the papers, the gov
errors of the bank of England sud-
denly order that the rate of discount
be raised; they can do so under preteXt
that "If we keep up this rate of cheap
discount England will be depleted
of gold, and surely England cannot
ruin itself to saveiother nations" They
will say, "Let America work cut its
own financial salvation" Is it not
clear that after all this virtuous cry for
honest money is like the cry or the
thief as he joins the crowd and to call
off attention from himself as he cries
out "stop thief" For certainly, when
the price of gold goes up the American
banker in paying the increased price
will not give hold to his customers at
the par value, and yet we are told that
by having the gold standard, farmers,
mechanics, professional men, all those
who are not money changers of course
they are not in it for fun but for
gain-will be benefited by the change.
Suppose wheat should rise, under a
gold standard. Is the farmer benefited
by this rise or is he working so the
speculatOr may be benefited, for of
course no farmer expects to be paid in
gold for his grain, and although the
prices may go up, he gets but the lawful
money ofthe United States in payment,
silver or paper-never gold.
Suppose this farmer sells his wheat to
Mexico and the free coinage of silver is
the law of the land, why the Mexican
importer will pay that farmer in silver
dollars at the agreed price and the mid
dleman who sells to the Mexican pur-
chaser gets nothing more than his COM
mission, for he draws on the Mexican
dealer, who with the facility of having
his silver bullion minted free, will pay
American standard dollars, a piece of
money that affords the Wall street
grabbers no chance for speculation at
the expense of the farmer. Is it not
clear to all, that, as the farmer does
not, and under the conditions and diff
culties of trade cannot deal directly
with the London dealer. this farmer
cannot and will not get gold for his
wheat, but if on the other hand his
middleman deals with silver standard
country, that he as we'll as that middle
man each gets his own.
The farmer with the gold standard
must agree to raise wheat so that the
speculatOr in grain may make gold; on
the silver basis, the farmer gets silver
or lawful money and the honest COM
mission merchant who sells his grain
gets his commission which is all that is
fair.
Another favOrite argument of the
gold bugs is to show that countries in
which silver is standard are low in
the standard of civilization and in the
financial progress of the age. Let us
see how far this applies to Mexico.
That republic in 1890 imported $50, OOO,-
600 worth of goods, it exported $50, OOO,-
600. OF the large export, $6O, 1000, 900
went to the United States in 1898 aud
1894. On the other hand in that year
1t imported from the United States over
SD 600 000 Of UOOda ubiIa in 1ooE e.