The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1899-04-27

And our American ambassador would have
said to them: The people of the United
States have decided to restore Independent
bimetailsm at the ratio of 10 to l. We be-
lieve can maintain the parity. but you
have a good many investments over there,
and II you have any doubt about our doing
1t you had better join us, because If anybody
suffers 1t will be you-nOt us" Uong laugh
ter and applause)
Now, my friends, an argument like that
would have some effect; yes, and as an
argument that IL would have effect | recall
TO your minds an item that crossed the ocean
while our commission was over there 1t
ran like this: That. while there was n good
deal of sentiment over there. yet the inan-
cial interests were solidly opposed to making
any concession to blmetalism. and that
there only one argument We had that
had any weight with them, and that was II
they did not do something to help restore
international bimetallsm free silver would
win in the United States. and restore bimet
allism by independent action. and that Brit
ish investments would suffer. And Ii was
said in this dispatch that that argument was
being made by one of the commissioners
could not but applaud the common sense OF
the commissioner who abandoned the Rcpub
ncan platform. and got on to common
sense platform, and appealed to them by an
argument they would understand
English Bankers Influence.
But. my friends. why haven't we interna.
Il
sentiment in Europe: ON the contrary, there
Is sentiment there, and the sentiment is Sc
strong that the French government Joined
with us in sending ambassador to En-
gland. And In England the sentiment was
so strong that petition was sent 10 tho
English government, signed by the leading
labor organizations of England asking for
internationak bimetGllsm-so strong that a
report presented while our commission
was there. Il report signed by ten out of
m m 10 "a mis- nipt
ed to investigate the condition Of agriculJ
ture. and the ten out of the fourteen de-
clared that the gold standard was destructl
i've to English agriculture. and pointed TO
bimetallism as the only relief for the En-
glsh farmer. CApplause) But why, my,
friends. did the English government refuse
to listen TO the labOrers and the farmers?
Because on the 22d day of September, 1897
the bankers of London met at the clearing
house, behind closed doors, and, pledged to
secrecy. declared that the gold standard was
all right. The English bankers, so few In
number that they can meet in the clearing
house, determine the policy of England and
England determined the policy of Europe.
and Europe will determine the policy of the
United States as long the Republican par
ty Is In power.
l have been asked why l am not willing to
drop the money question. | replied BE
cause the money question won't drop u.s. |
know not what others may desire or what
they may be willing to do, but | am not
willing that our declaration against the gold
standard shall be dropped as long as a hand
full of English tipanciers can determine the
financial policy of 100000 American peo-
pie. And some say that II we will not drop
the money question ought TO drop the
ratio of ff to l. When you find a man OPP
posed to 16 to l, inquire and you will find
that he was never in favor of 1t, and then
inquire again and you will find that there Is
no otler ratio that he Is in favor of. We de
nOunced international bimetalllsm as a de-
lusion and IL snare In 1896. 1t has been
proved to be SO since 1896. We declared for
the ratio of 10 to in 1896, and no party has
risen TO advocate any other ratio but 16 to 1.
Until some other party proposes some 9TH
er ratio and tries 10 secure bimetallism al
some other ratio, there is no reason why We
should discuss ratio with them. The ratio
of 16 to l was decided upon, not at the Chi
cagO convention, but at the primaries which
elected delegates to attend the Chicago con-
yentiOn. The ratio OF IL TO had been sub
mitted to the people. and those who wanted
1t in 1896 are in favor of 1t now. And they
know why they are in favor Of 1t. The ratio
Of IL to is the ratio at which our gold and
silver coins now circulate. We simply ask
reinstatement Of the law that was on the
statute books-where 1t was before the act
of decentralization was secretly passed. We
simply want to renew by law what was done
by law. They struck silver down by law
We raise ii up by law; they close the mints
by law; we open them by law. (Applause.)
They gave gold a monopoly in mint privi-
leges by law; we expect to give competitor
by law, the old competitor we had.
My friends, you will hear people say that
they don't object to silver If we will only
open the mints at the bullion ratio or the
commercial ratio 1t Is only when u gold
man commences to talk money that he for
gets all that he knows Of other subjects.
When people ask us to drop our fight ON the
money question, and fight the trusts. | re-
member that the Republican party is today
preparing to organize trust more potent
for evil than all the Industrial trusts COM
bined. There is a bill now before Congress,
reported by the Republican committee. that
turns over TO the national banks the absolute
control of she paper money Of this country.
1t provides for the retirement of the green
backs by an issue Of bonds drawing 2A per
cent; it provides that banks shall be per
mitted TO issue up to the par value of the
bonds, and that the per cent. tax on circu-
lation shall be reduced 10 a small fraction of
1 per cent. Here is your evidence of good
policy. They want to Issue bonds
In place of greenbacks and tax the people to
pay the interest on the bonds, and then they
reduce the tax that the banks now pay on
the circula ton that they have. Why pile up
the taxes on the people, and lower the taxes
on the banks: What does Ii mean? Why, IL
that law goes into effect. and ~ per cent
bonds are at par, then national bank with
a capital of 100000 can invest 1t in bonds.
deposit the bonds with the treasury. and
draw upon the bonds 100000 in bank notes:
so that the amount the bank gets back Is
just equal to the amount the bank paid for
the bonds. So that it has not single dollar
invested. and yet 1t goes on drawing 2l2 per
cent. interest year on nothing. 1t Is u
small proposition in mathematics. and yet
the banks will tell you they want this done
for the public good.
imperialism.
There Is another object that is not in
nd al In N Ia yar
Included In the principle 1t sets forth. The
in his message of 1898 asked for u
standing army of 100000 men We have had
no national convention since that time But
Democrats do not have TO have Il national
TO learn that the Democratic
party is opposed to militarism in the United
States. Seventy thousand more soldiers
needed than In 1896. Why? For interna-
tional protection? Why: What has hap
Does n Republican admins
ration make more soldiers necessary: When
comes and confidence Is restored.
s it necessary TO have soldiers to point 1t
,ut with bayOnets: But they tell us that
we need them for outside service. Where?
In Cuba? oh, no, not permanently, because
he President has promised the Cubans chat
,ur occupation Is only temporary. therefore,
le would not need soldiers permanently In
Cuba. Nor are they needed In Porto Rico.
Ny own opinion has been that the people Of
Porto Rico should be permitted to choose for
themselves between annexation and a repub-
ic of their own. But so far they have ex-
pressed no desire for a republic and seem to
lesire annexation. SO that there does not
seem to be any necessity for large army
here.
Where do we need large Increase in the |
lrmy? In the Philippines? Why, my friends, |
he President In his Boston speech said that |
he question was to be settled by the Amer !
can people, and until the American people |
settled II how do you know 1t will need IO, |
100 soldiers there permanently: But If we |
10. according to their argument, need 10000 |
oldiers there permanently. then / ask you, |
ny friends what Is the expense going TO be. |
t is estima ted that it costs $1,000 soldier |
o keep the army In the United States and |
i 800 a soldier to keep the army outside the |
United States Seventy thousand soldiers |
would mean over hundred millions year. |
Who pays the money? The Filipinos? Why, |
ny friends. If we make the Filipinos pay the |
Expense Of our army, we will have to tax |
hem several times as much as Spain over |
aXed them.
Called HIS Country a Bully.
Mr.. Bryan's reference to the United |
states as a bully for striking down the
Filipino natives created the greatest en-
husasm of the night. There was DEM
when he said that it was this |