The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-09-15

an object lesson on the SUBJECT and had
four men stand up among four thousand
and suggested that that was the proportion
of the standing army 10 the population
Why, my friends, IL Is not a question
whether four men can intimidate four
thousand. 1t is a question whether you
will have four soldiers supported sol
diers when one soldier Will be enough TO
answer the purpose Suppose they were TO
multiply your taxes by four in this county?
Would you be satisfied IL the Republicans
showed you that you had some money left
after they collected four times much
from you as you now pay? Why, no. The
question is not how much can you stand.
but how much you ought to stand. And
when we come to the expense of a large
army and its menace. IL is not whether
four soldiers in four thousand would be
menace to this country. 1t is this: If peo-
ers have their views. We will meet and
negotiate"
Asked whether he expected demands for
the cession of territory as indemnity. Ii
pie have reached the point where they will
permit four soldiers when they only need
one, then how do you know but the next
step will be an increase which will make
them a menace to the country. [Applause.1
If the people will not stop this increase be-
fore 1t becomes menace, are you sure
they are going to afterwards"
THE PORTO RICAN BILL.
Continuing. Mr. Bryan argued that the
American people had not declared for i'm
perialism and that there was no warrant
for the increase Of the army. He went at
length into the Philippine question. con-
tending that the United States has no title
either to the archipelago or its people. and
declaring that the F'ilipinos should be
treated just as the Cubans are treated
1.-The President says that nobody wants
Imperialism" said Mr.. Bryan, again re-
ferring 10 Mr.. McKinley's letter, and he
said in reply: 1--WE are not talking of the
future but of the past. We point you
to the Porto Rican bill, thing that
is. and We charge that the Porto Rican
bill cannot exist except upon an imperial
istic theory of government We are not
looking to the future, but to the present.
What does that bill assert? 1t asserts that
a President, elected by the people of this
country, holding office under the Consti-
tuition, is not bound by the Constitution.
1t is built upon the theory that Congress
created by the Constitution is not re-
strained by that Constitution when a bill
deals with the people of Porto Rico. My
friends, If that is true of the people of
Porto Rico ii may be true of any number
OF people anywhere. challenge you to
find in all the history of the world a power
trary than the power asserted by the Porto
Rican bill. [Great applause.]
Mr.. Bryan again made reference TO an
ntterance Of the President bn, in the follow wv
other day in his letter that the only OPP
position that we had in the Philippines
came from a part of one tribe. Well my
friends that is too high compliment to
pay TO that one part of that one tribe.
To say that a small fraction of people
over there could keep in subsection all the
rest of the people and then keep an army
of 5000 American soldiers at bay, too, IS
saying too much. 1t reminds me very
much of the arguments that were made
i'm England just before the Boer war COM
menced. Do you know why they went TO
war with the Beers? Why they said
that there were three times as
many people down there who were
not Beers as there We're of the Beers.
England's ostensible reason for undertake
taking a war with the Boer republic was to
help three men get their rights from one
man. Well, 1 wondered at the time why
the three would not take care of them
selves as against the one But when the
war commenced we never heard of the
three at all, but We heard Of the one all
the time. [Laughter.] Where were the
three men who were being trampled upon
by the one man? / guess they enlisted i'm
the Boer army. Where were those men for
whose rights the English began the fight ?
They disappeared Now, isn't IL strange
that il a majority of the people I'm the
Philippines wanted our rule that they have
not helped uS?'
Concluding. Mr.. Bryan declared that the
Republican party was building upon a
sordid plan, putting the dollar above the
man. why is it, he asked of the Re-
publicans. that you think much more
of money than of human rights?'
Replying 10 MS own question ne SAID.
at is because you have been putting the
dollar above the man. Ii Is because you
have been worshiping man and forgot
humanity. Republicans want TO ask you
why any farmer should vote the Repub-
lcan ticket when the Republican party
has no police for the farmer, but is back
of those who bleed the farmer In every
possible way? Why should the laboring
man vote the Republican ticket when the
Republican party turns deaf ear
to every plea that the laboring
man makes? Why should the bust
ness man vote the Republican ticket
when the Republican party upholds
the trust and drives the small business
man out of his business? Why should the
old man who stands upon the brink of the
grave vote the Republican ticket and
generation? Why should the young man
vote the Republican ticket and condemn
himself to servitude. and clerkship under
a monopoly? The Republican party to-day
does not stand for the principles of human
rights The platform of 1856 adopted by the
Republican party denounced the gospel of
force 1t said that it Is the lhighwayman s
was unworthy of the diplomacy of any ma
ton. To-day ii would build an empire
upon the highwaymans plea that might
makes right" fGreat applause.l
A monster night meeting was held at the
Auditorium, which was addressed by j. j.
Lentz Mr.. Welty, Charles w. Baker, Tom
L. johnson and DR.. j. c. Norton. Mr.. Bry-
an did not begin to speak until after II
O'Clock and he did not then speak at great
length He gave especial attention to the
charge that he was responsible for the
ratification of the peace treaty and said he
was willing TO assume that responsibility
Mr. Bryan left. after the meeting, for St