The gold leaf., 1900-08-23
MR.. BRYAN'S
GREAT SPEECH.
A MASTERLY, THOUGHTFUL, STATESMAN
LIKE DELIVERANCE.
Imperialism the Paramount Issue in
This Campaign-Mr. Bryan Does Not
nention Silver, Doubtless Because
His Position on That Question Was
so Well Understood as to Render
Repetition Unnecessary.
washington POSt.)

The Democratic party can we'll rest
content with the presentation of the
issue of imperialism made by Mr..
Bryan in his speech at indianapolis.
1t is the most complete and logical
argument which has yet been sub
mitted.
If any evidence were needed to
prove Mr.. Bryan's ability, it is amply
found in this address. In 1896 he
was so thoroughly saturated with the
silver question as to gain for himself
the reputation of being a man of one
idea only. His persistent and sue
cessful effort to incorporate the 16 to
l plank in the Kansas City declaration
strengthened this view of his charac-
ter. 1t was felt that although the
platform asserted imperialism to be
the paramount issue, Mr.. Bryan would
not be able to divorce himself from
his favorite subject, and that the
money question, after all, being the
one with which he was most familiar,
would occupy his thoughts to the ex-
clusion of all else. The falsitv of this
belief is shown by the admirable man
lCl III "AiCh liz udS tdhCl uOlu Ol Juc
newer and graver topic. He has
ignored silver altogether. The OBJ
noXious word is not mentioned in his
speech. There is no reference to 16
to l. He takes it for granted, evil
IDENTIFY, that his position on that ques-
tion is so well understood as to render
repetition unnecessary. AT any rate,
the address indicates that, as far as
Mr.. Bryan is concerned, Imperialism
is actually the paramount issue of the
campaign.
1t is. we admit, generally an easier
task to criticise and condemn than to
praise. Flaws are easy to discover;
fault-fnding comes naturally to the
human mind. At the same time,
there is captious and foolish criticism,
and, on the other hand, there is dig
nified and sensible argument. Mr..
Bryan's speech is on the latter plane.
He has not descended to the level Of
the politician, but discusses what he
believes to be great danger to the
republic with calmness, clearness and
force. He explains and defends his
support CT the ratification of the
treaty of peace with Spain by saying
that he expected favorable action
would end the war, release the volun-
teers, remove the cause for military
expenditures, and bring independence
to the Filipinos. In this he admits
he was mistaken, the defeat in the
Senate of the Bacon resolution, which
promised independence, being evi-
dence that the Republican party was
determined to keep the Filipincs in a
state of subsection. In this connec-
ton. he repeats the well-known argu-
ment that the inhabitants of the Phil
ippine Islands, if the latter are re-
tanned as part of the United States,
must either be subjects or citizens.
If they are to be subjects, the Repub-
lican party has entered upon a policy
Of imperialism. He finds nowhere,
in any Republican speech or party
declaration, any evidence that the
Filipinos are to be made citizens.
Mr.. Bryan is for expansion, but it
must be, to his mind, expansion that
means new States and more citizens.
Any other kind of territorial acquisi-
tion is, he argues, at variance with
the idea of a republic. 1t is govern
ment by force, government Of taxa
ton without representation in de-
tiance of the very principles for which
our forefathers fought in 1776. He
would have the American people
brought to their own moorings. Nor
does he find in the Republican plat
form any expressed intention of
granting to the Filipinos that indie
pendence to which, he says, they are
as much entitled as the Cubans. The
Philadelphia convention declared that
the Filipinos should have the bless
ings of liberty and civilization, and
''the largest measure of self-govern
ment consistent with their welfare
and our duties" But this, he as
serts, is exactly what King George
promised the American colonists.
Says Mr.. Bryan:
'In what respect does the position
of the Republican party differ from
the position taken by the English
government in 1776? Did not the
English government promise a good
government to the colonists? What
king ever promised bad government
to his people? Did not the English
government promise that the colo
nists should have the largest measure
of self-government consistent with
their welfare and English duties? Did
not the Spanish government promise
to give to the Cubans the largest
measure of self-government consist
ent with their welfare and Spanish
duties? The whole difference between
a monarchy and a republic may be
summed up in one sentence. In a
monarchy the king gives to the peo-
pie what he believes to be a good
governments: in republic the people
secure for themselves what they be-
lieve to be a good government"
Ia the course Of his speech Mr..
BRYAN incidentally remarks that il
we acquired Spain's title to the Phil
ippines by purchase, we cannot defend
such title, ..and we can honorably
turn the property over to the party
in possession" This is the only
reference, direct or indirect, to the
possible surrender of the Philippines,
but it is phrase Of which, we doubt
not, much will be made in the cam
paign. The proposition is not elabo-
rated, while considerable space is
devoted to what Mr.. Bryan regards as
the solution of the Philippine prob
lem. He follows closely the language
of the Democratic national platform,
and wants the United States to prom
;so tho Eil;p;pos indapoudance and