Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1897-04-29
BRYAN
Replies to Nh, Cleveland
Shows Up Growers Wall at Nc
KinIey's Policy.
BRYAN

In Lincoln, Neb., special w. J.
Bryan says:
The presence of Mr.. Cleveland, two
members of his cabinet and such emf
nent Gold Democrats as Ex-Congress-
men Turner, Bynum and Patterson
made the banquet an important polit-
ical event, and the address delivered
by Mr.. Cleveland may fairly be ac-
cepted as setting forth the present
views and future purposes of the
boiling Democrats.
Pre- badly the most unexpected thing
in the address was his reference TO
the Republican administration. He
borrows emphasis from a Scriptural
text and accuses the Republicans OF
returning IN hot haste to their wal
lowing in the mire Of extreme pro-
lection. This is an unfair criticism,
because the Republicans have never
shown any disposition to abandon
extreme protection. Mr.. Mckinley
won political fame as the apostle of
high tariff, and during the late cam
paign reiterated his devotion to this
policy. Those Democrats who voted
for Mr. Mckinley voted so with their
eyes open to tariff possibilities.
M'KINLEY's FINANCIAL POLICY.
Neither have those Democrats rea-
son to complain of Mr.. McKinley's.
attitude on the money question To
be sure, the president has sent an
argosy abroad in search-not of
golden fleece-but of an object equally
elusive, namely, an international
agreement for the restoration of bi-
metallism, but in so doing he is only
carrying out the pledge contained In
his platform. Unless the Gold Demo-
Gratis were in possession of assurances
notgiving to the public generally, or
expected the president to abandon
his platform, they ought to be salts
fled with his financial policy. He
promised to maintain the gold stand
ard until relief come from abroad, and
he is doing it in spite of the continued
distress caused by such policy.
The Democrats who supported the
Chicago platform can consistently
condemn both the tariff policy and
final completely of the administration,
but those who supported Mr.. McKin-
ley are only receiving what they had
a right to expect.
PAYMENT FOR PARTISAN SUPPORT.
Mr.. CleYeland accuses the Republi-
cans of determination "to repay
partisan support from the proceeds OF
increased burdens of taxation placed
upon those already overladen." He
knew that the Republicans had col
lected a campaign fund larger than
ever before known in politics. Did it
meyer occur to him that the contribut-
ors would expect repayment through
legislation friendly to their interests?
Has not the Dingley bill been drawn
exactly upon the plan Of the Mckinley
bill? 1t may differ in its schedules,
but it does not differ in it's general
plan and preparation.
But if those Democrats who sup
ported Mckinley have no reason to
criticise his course, what shall we say
of those Democrats who supported the
Indianapolis ticket? What claim
have they to consideration at the
hands of the President? Mr.. Cleve-
land asserts that when the fate of the
Nation seemed in the balance, deliver
ance came through bolting Democrats.
Does he mean though those Democrats
who voted directly for Mckinley, or
through those who voted for the In
dianapolis ticket?
THE PALMER AND BUCKNER MEN.
The leaders among the gold Demo
Gratis claim to have voted for Palmer
and Buckner. Certainly, this did not
entitle them to pose as saYiors of their
country. They knew the contest would
be close. Even Mr.. Cleveland refers
to the campaign as one of doubt and