Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-05-24
/, letter TO. Mr.. BRYAN.

Now York, City, April 30. 1900 To
william j. Bryan, Lincoln, Neb -
Mar Sir: Ours is o common cause
Tbarefore let us reason together. L
rsnt the Democratic party to win: SO
do you, No one has more at stake than
,onrself You we're the party standard
ioarer in 1896. You went down in an
onominious defeat and the party suf-
,s,sd the consequences. Our standard
hearer in 1892 led US to victory. He
rsrried California Connecticut, Della
mare, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland.
Nav Jersey, New York, Washington
and WISCONSIN. and from which he re-
reiyed 126 electoral votes. In 1896 you
carried but one of the above named
States, that of Washington, with ITS
iour paltry electoral votes. The
sralysis Of the foregoing indisputatle
facts shows that Cleveland polled in
tbe 10 Northern States named, more
than 81 times as many electoral votes
ss you d d.
Ii is true that your popular vote was
largo, as Mckinley beat you by only
Gl,Jli. Popular vote, however, counts
for nothing, the electoral vote every
thing. When we examine tho figures
We fnd that Cleyeland's ropulai vote
over Harrison was only 38J, $40, yet
Cleveland had 132 more electoral votes
than Harrison, while you had 80 less
than Mckinley.
Mr.. Cleveland carried Connecticut
by 1910 while you lost it by 50, 545.
Cleveland carried Delaware by 4SS.
while you lost 1t by 3.630. II carried
Illinois by 2G, 933, while you lost it by
~, 1893. He carried Indiana by 7,125,
while you lost it by Is. ISL. He carried
Maryland by 81, 1870, while you lost,it
by 'i222i. He carried New Jersey by
l4,S74. while you lost it by ST,632. He
carried New York by 45,5l8, while you
lost it by the enormous figure OF
2ts, 4G0. He carried Wisconsin by
6,5i4, while you lost 1T by 1922
This Illuminating defeat was not be-
cause you were personally less popular
with the masses in 1896 than Mr..
Cleveland was in 1899, hut solely be-
ause Cleveland ran on plat
rinciEles and upheld ,Ieifersunian
Democracy, while you did not.
The financial plank used by the
Poruists in theii platform in 1852,
and which was borrowed and incor.
platform adopted at Chicago in 1896,
is what caused your downfall and like.
wise the downfall of the Democratic
party. In 1892 the financial plank OF
the Democratic platform declared in
favor Of the use and coinage of both
gold and silver, but pledged tine party
to such safeguards Of legislation as
shall insure the maintenance Of the
parity of the Two metals, and equal
power of every dollar at all times in
the markets and in the payment of
debts
The financial plank OF the Chicago
platform of 1896, and upon which you
TODD, declared for 1.-THE free and I'M
limited coinage OF both silver and gold
al the present legal ratio of 16 To
without waiting for the consent of any
other nation"
You were personally responsible fol
this plank. Every thinking Democrat
in the land knew that it would be i'm
lnssible to permit the free and un-
limited individual coinage of silver of
the false ratio Of 16 to while the true
or marker value ratio was 81 to l
without also destroying the parity be-
tween the two metals thus coined. The
same plank of the platform further de-
handed that the silver dollar. coined
at that ratio, 'shall be fun legal
tender, equally with gold for all debts,
public and private.
No greater blunder than this was
ever made by any political party in the
United States, and no swifter nor more
telling punishment was ever adminis-
tered, rs can be seen from the figures
have above presented. Notwith-
standing this, it is now said by you
that there will be feafiirmation OF
the Chicago platform of 1896 by the
Kansas City Convention of 1900.
It is highly probable that under
existing conditions what you say
goes" but / sincerely hope that you
will not say "reatllrmn or ''reiteraten
or "re.adopt" the Chicago platform.
10 do this means to realirm the finan-
ciel plank Of that fatal platform, and
10 do SO means the utter destruction
OF our party.
1t pains me very much to have you
insist on declaring for free coinage, at
liked legal ratio of l6 to !, while the
market value ratio between the two
mctals is today as "a to /, and at the
same time hoar you call this Jeffer-
sonian Democracy. The principle which
you heie SO stubbornly contend for is
Numerically opposed to what Thomas
Jefferson taught. If you will turn to
Vol. ILL.,, page ASP, Of the Writings OF
Thomas Jefferson" where he is dis
cussing the subject of the ratio OF
coinage, you will find the following
statements:
The proportion between the values
Of gold and silver is mercantile prob
ION altogether,
just principles will lead us to dis.
regard legal proportions tratios) alto
gether; to inquire into the market price
OF gold, in the several countries with
which we shall principally be connected
10 commerce, and to take an average
hon them
The Financier states it at present
April. 1854, as at l4la for l. Perhaps
we might, with safety, lean to a proper
ton somewhat above par for gold, con-
sIdering our neighborhood and com.
merce. 1t is not Impossible that 10 to
may be found an eligible proportion,
! state it, however, as q conjecture
only"
From the above. Col. Bryan, you will
SEQ that you must cease talking about
Jehersonian principles while you are
oontending for fixed legal ratio OF
coinage at l6 to /, because Jefferson
taught that '.just principles will lead
US to disregard legal proportions alto.
gether and inquire into the market
rice" As the market price Is now
1901 at about "a to /. you should con-
tend only for what the father of our
nj