Chapter IX: The Modern Orators (3)

Will anybody deny that the Government at Washington as
regards its own people is the strongest Government in the
world at this hour? And for this simple reason: because it
is based on the will, and the good will, of an instructed
people. Look at its power! I am not now discussing why it
is, or the cause which is developing this power; but power
is the thing which men regard in these old countries, and
which they ascribe mainly to European institutions; but
look at the power which the United States have developed!
They have brought more men into the field, they have built
more ships for their navy, they have shown greater
resources, than any nation in Europe at this moment is
capable of. Look at the order which has prevailed at their
elections, at which, as you see by the papers, fifty
thousand, or one hundred thousand, or two hundred and fifty
thousand persons voting in a given state, with less
disorder than you have seen lately in three of the smallest
boroughs in England. Look at their industry.
Notwithstanding this terrible struggle, their agriculture,
their manufactures and commerce proceed with an
uninterrupted success. They are ruled by a President,
chosen, it is true, not from some worn-out royal or noble
blood, but from the people, and the one whose truthfulness
and spotless honor have claimed him universal praise; and
now the country that has been vilified through half the
organs of the press in England during the last three years,
and was pointed out, too, as an example to be shunned by
many of your statesmen, that country, now in mortal strife,
affords a haven and a home for multitudes flying from the
burdens and the neglect of the old governments of Europe;
and, when this mortal strife is over--when peace is
restored, when slavery is destroyed, when the Union is
cemented afresh--for I would say, in the language of one of
our own poets addressing his country,

The grave's not dug where traitor hands shall lay
In fearful haste thy murdered corse away--

then Europe and England may learn that an instructed
democracy is the surest foundation of government, and that
education and freedom are the only sources of true
greatness and true happiness among any people.

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS ROBERT BURNS[11] (1880)

Burns died at the same age with Raphael; and Mozart, who
was his contemporary, died only four years before him.
Raphael and Mozart are the two men of lyrical genius in
kindred arts who impress us and the most exquisitely
refined by careful cultivation; and, although Burns was of
all great poets the most unschooled, he belongs with
Raphael in painting and Mozart in music, and there is no
fourth. An indescribable richness and flower-like quality,
a melodious grace and completeness and delicacy, belong to
them all. Looking upon a beautiful human Madonna of
Raphael, we seem to hear the rippling cadence of Mozart and
the tender and true song of Burns. They are all voices of
the whole world speaking in this accent of a native land.
Here are Italy and Germany and Scotland, distinct,
individual, perfectly recognizable, but the sun that
reveals and illuminates their separate charms, that is not
Italian or German or Scotch, it is the sun of universal
nature. This is the singer whom this statue commemorates,
the singer of songs immortal as love; pure as the dew of
the morning, and sweet as its breath; songs with which the
lover wooes his bride, and the mother soothes her child,
and the heart of a people beats with patriotic exultation;
songs that cheer human endeavors, and console human sorrow,
and exalt human life. We cannot find out the secret of
their power until we know why the rose is sweet, or the
dew-drop pure, or the rainbow beautiful, we cannot know why
the poet is the best benefactor of humanity. Whether
because he reveals us to ourselves, or because he touches
the soul with the fervor of divine aspiration, whether
because in a world of sordid and restless anxiety he fills
us with serene joy, or puts into rythmic and permanent form
the best thoughts and hopes of man--who shall say? But none
the less is the heart's instinctive loyalty to the poet the
proof of its consciousness that he does all these things,
that he is the harmonizer, strengthener, and consoler. How
the faith of Christendom has been stayed for centuries upon
the mighty words of the old Hebrew bards and prophets, and
how the vast and inexpressible mystery of divine love and
power and purpose has been breathed into parable and poem!
If we were forced to surrender every expression of human
genius but one, surely we should retain poetry; and if we
were called upon to lose from the vast accumulation of
literature all but a score of books, among that choice, and
perfect remainder would be the songs of Burns.

How fitly, then, among the memorials of those who in
different countries and times and ways have been leaders of
mankind, we raise this statue of the poet whose genius is
an unconscious but sweet and elevating influence in our
national life. It is not a power dramatic, obvious,
imposing, immediate, like that of the statesman, the
warrior, and the inventor, but it is as deep and strong and
abiding. The soldier fights for his native land, but the
poet touches that land with the charm that makes it worth
fighting for, and fires the warrior's heart with the fierce
energy that makes his blow invincible. The statesman
enlarges and orders liberty in the state, but the poet
fosters the love of liberty in the heart of the citizen.
The inventor multiplies the facilities of life, but the
poet makes life better worth living. Here, then, among
trees and flowers and waters; here upon the greensward and
under the open sky; here where birds carol, and children
play, and lovers whisper, and the various stream of human
life flows by--we raise the statue of Robert Burns. While
the human heart beats, that name will be music in human
ears. He knew better than we the pathos of human life. We
know better than he the infinite pathos of his own. Ah!
Robert Burns, Robert Burns! whoever lingers here as he
passes and muses upon your statue will see in imagination a
solitary mountain in your own beautiful Scotland,
heaven-soaring, wrapped in impenetrable clouds. Suddenly
the mists part, and there are the heather, the brier-rose,
and the gowan fine; there are the

Burnies, wimplin' down your glens
Wi' toddling' din,
Or foaming strang wi' hasty stens
Frae lin to lin;[12]

the cushat is moaning; the curlew is calling; the plover is
singing; the red dear is bounding; and look! the clouds
roll utterly away, and the clear summit is touched with the
tender glory of sunshine, heaven's own benediction!

L. Q. C. LAMAR SUMNER AND THE SOUTH[13] (1874)

It was certainly a gracious act on the part of Charles
Sumner toward the South, though unhappily it jarred on the
sensibilities of the people at the other extreme of the
Union, to propose to erase from the banners of the national
army the mementos of the bloody internal struggle which
might be regarded as assailing the pride or wounding the
sensibilities of the Southern people. The proposal will
never be forgotten by that people so long as the name of
Charles Sumner lives in the memory of man.

But while it touched the heart and elicited her profound
gratitude, her people would not have asked of the North
such an act of self-renunciation. Conscious that they
themselves were animated by devotion to constitutional
liberty, and that the brightest pages of history are
replete with evidences of the depth and sincerity of that
devotion, they can but cherish the recollection of the
battles fought and the victories won in defense of their
hopeless cause; and respecting, as all true and brave men
must respect, the martial spirit with which the men of the
North vindicated the integrity of the Union, and their
devotion to the principles of human freedom, they do not
ask, they do not wish the North to strike the mementos of
heroism and victory from either records or monuments or
battle-flags. They would rather that both sections should
gather up the glories won by each section, not envious, but
proud of each other, and regard them as a common heritage
of American valor. Let us hope that future generations,
when they remember the deeds of heroism and devotion done
on both sides, will speak, not of northern prowess or
southern courage, but of the heroism, courage and fortitude
of the Americans in a war of ideas--a war in which each
section signalized its consecration to the principles, as
each understood them, of American liberty and of the
Constitution received from their fathers.

Charles Sumner in life believed that all occasion for
strife and distrust between the North and South had passed
away, and there no longer remained any cause for continued
estrangement between these two sections of our common
country. Are there not many of us who believe the same
thing? Is not the common sentiment, or if not, ought it not
to be, of the great mass of our people, North and South?
Bound to each other by a common constitution, destined to
life together under a common government, forming unitedly
but a single member of a great family of nations, shall we
not now at least endeavor to grow toward each other once
more in heart, as we are indissolubly linked to each other
in fortunes? Shall we not, while honoring the memory of
this great champion of liberty, this feeling sympathizer
with human sorrow, this earnest pleader for the exercise of
human tenderness and heavenly charity, lay aside the
concealments which serve only to perpetuate
misunderstandings and distrust, and frankly confess that on
both sides we most earnestly desire to be one--one not
merely in political organization; one not merely in
community of language, and literature, and traditions, and
country; but more and better than all that, one also in
feeling and in heart?

Am I mistaken in this? Do the concealments of which I speak
still cover animosities, which neither time nor reflection
nor the march of events have yet suffered to subdue? I can
not believe it. Since I have been here I have scrutinized
your sentiments, as expressed not merely in public debate,
but in the abandon of personal confidence. I know well the
sentiments of these by my southern friends, whose hearts
are so infolded that the feeling of each is the feeling of
all; and I am on both sides only the seeming of a
constraint which each apparently hesitates to dismiss.

The South--prostrate, exhausted, drained of her life-blood
as well as her material resources, yet still honorable and
true--accepts the bitter award of the bloody arbitrament
without reservation, resolutely determined to abide the
result with chivalrous fidelity. Yet, as if struck dumb by
the magnitude of her reverses, she suffers on in silence.
The North, exultant in her triumph and elevated by success,
still cherishes, as we are assured, a heart full of
magnanimous emotions toward her disarmed and discomfited
antagonist; and yet, as if under some mysterious spell, her
words and acts are words and acts of suspicion and
distrust. Would that the spirit of the illustrious dead,
whom we lament today, could speak from the grave to both
parties to this deplorable discord, in tones which would
reach each and every heart throughout this broad territory:
My country-men! know one another and you will love one
another.

ROBERT INGERSOLL AT HIS BROTHER'S GRAVE[14] (1879)

My Friends: I am going to do that which the dead oft
promised he would do for me.

The loved and loving brother, husband, father, friend, dies
where manhood's morning almost touches noon, and while the
shadows were still falling toward the west.

He had not passed on life's highway the stone that marks
the highest point, but, being weary for a moment, lay down
by the wayside, and, using his burden for a pillow, fell
into that dreamless sleep that kisses down his eyelids
still. While yet in love with life and raptured with the
world, he passed to silence and pathetic dust.

Yet, after all, it may be best, just in the happiest,
sunniest hour of all the voyage, while eager winds are
kissing every sail, to task against the unseen rock, and in
an instant hear the billows roar above a sunken ship. For,
whether in mid-sea or 'mong the breakers of the farther
shore, a wreck at last must mark the end of each and all.
And every life, no matter if its every house is rich with
love and every moment jeweled with a joy, will, at its
close, become a tragedy as sad and deep and dark as can be
woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death.

This brave and tender man in every storm of life was oak
and rock, but in the sunshine he was vine and flower. He
was the friend of all heroic souls. He climbed the heights
and left all superstitions far below, while on his forehead
fell the golden dawning of the grander day.

He loved the beautiful, and was with color, form, and music
touched to tears. He sided with the weak, and with a
willing hand gave alms; with loyal heart and with purest
hands he faithfully discharged all public trusts.

He was a worshiper of liberty, a friend of the oppressed. A
thousand times I have heard him quite these words: "For
justice, all place a temple; and all seasons, summer." He
believed that happiness was the only good, reason the only
torch, justice the only worship, humanity the only
religion, and love the only priest. He added to the sum of
human joy; and were every one to whom he did some loving
service to bring a blossom to his grave, he would sleep
tonight beneath a wilderness of flowers.

Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of
two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the
heights. We cry aloud, and the only answer is the echo of
our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying
dead there comes no word; but in the night of death hope
sees a star, and listening love can hear the rustle of a
wing.

He who sleeps here, when dying, mistaking the approach of
death for the return of health, whispered with his last
breath: "I am better now." Let us believe, in spite of
doubts and dogmas, and tears and fears, that these dear
words are true of all the countless dead.

And now to you who have been chosen, from among the many
men he loved, to do the last sad office for the dead, we
give his sacred dust. Speech can not contain our love.
There was, there is, no greater, stronger, manlier man.

WILLIAM GLADSTONE AGAINST THE TORY GOVERNMENT[15] (1880)

To those gentlemen who talk of the great vigor and
determination and success of the Tory government, I ask you
to compare the case of Bulgaria and Turkey. Try them by
principles, or try them by results, I care not which; we
knew what we were about and what was to be done when we had
integrity and independence to support. When they had
integrity and independence to protect they talked indeed
loud enough about supporting Turkey, and you would suppose
they were prepared to spend their resources upon it; but
all their measures have ended in nothing except that they
have reduced Turkey to a state of greater weakness than at
any portion of her history, whereas, on the other hand, in
regard to the twelve or thirteen millions of Slavs and
Roumanian population, they have made the name of England
odious throughout the whole population, and done everything
in their power to throw that population into the arms of
Russia, to be the tool of Russia in its plans and schemes,
unless, indeed, as I hope and am inclined to believe, the
virtue of free institutions that they have obtained will
make them too wise to become the tools of any foreign power
whatever, will make them intent upon maintaining their own
liberties, as becomes a free people playing a noble part in
the history of Europe.

I have detained you too long, and I will not, though I
would, pursue this subject further. I have shown you what I
think the miserable failure of the policy of the
government. Remember, we have a fixed point from which to
draw our measurements. Remember what in 1876 the proposal
of those who approved of the Bulgarian agitation and who
were denounced as the enemies of Turkey, remember what the
proposal would have done. It would have given autonomy to
Bulgaria, which has not got autonomy; but it would have
saved all the remainder at less detriment to the rest of
the Turkish Empire. Turkey would have had a fair chance.
Turkey would not have suffered the territorial losses which
she has elsewhere suffered, and which she has suffered, I
must say, in consequence of her being betrayed into the
false and mischievous, the tempting and seductive, but
unreal and unwise policy of the present administration.

There are other matters which must be reserved for other
times. We are told about the Crimean War. Sir Stafford
Northcote tells us the Crimean War, made by the Liberal
government, cost the country forty millions of debt, and an
income tax of one shilling and four pence per pound. Now
what is the use of telling us that? I will discuss the
Crimean War on some future occasion, but not now. If the
Liberal government were so clever that they contrived to
burden the country with forty millions of debt for this
Crimean War, why does he not go back to the war before that
and tell us what the Tory government did with the
Revolutionary War, when they left a debt on the country of
some nine hundred millions, of which six hundred and fifty
millions then had made in the Revolutionary War, and not
only so, but left the blessing and legacy of the corn laws,
and of a high protective system, an impoverished country,
and a discontented population--so much so that for years
that followed the great Revolutionary War, no man could say
whether the constitution of this country was or was not
worth five years' purchase. They might even go further back
than the Revolutionary War. They have been talking loudly
of the colonies, and say that, forsooth, the Liberal party
do nothing for the colonies. What did the Tory party do for
the colonies? I can tell you. Go to the war that preceded
the Revolutionary War. They made war against the American
continent. They added to the debt of the country two
hundred millions in order to destroy freedom in America.
They alienated it and drove it from this country. They were
compelled to bring this country to make an ignominious
peace; and, as far as I know, that attempt to put down
freedom in America, with its results to this country, is
the only one great fact which has ever distinguished the
relations between a Tory government and the colonies.

But gentlemen, these must be matters postponed for another
occasion. I thank you very cordially, both friends and
opponents, if opponents you be, for the extreme kindness
with which you have heard me. I have spoken, and I must
speak in very strong terms of the acts done by my
opponents. I will never say that they did it from
vindictiveness, I will never say that they did it from
passion, I will never say that they did it from a sordid
love of office; I have no right to use such words; I have
no right to entertain such sentiments; I repudiate and
abjure them. I give them credit for patriotic motives--I
give them credit for those patriotic motives which are
incessantly and gratuitously denied to us. I believe we are
all united in a fond attachment to the great country to
which we belong, to the great empire which has committed to
it a trust and function from Providence, as special and
remarkable as was ever entrusted to any portion of the
family of man. When I speak of that trust and that function
I feel that words fail. I cannot tell you what I think of
the nobleness of the inheritance which has descended upon
us, of the sacredness of the duty of maintaining it. I will
not condescend to make it a part of controversial politics.
It is a part of my being, of my flesh and blood, of my
heart and soul. For those ends I have labored through my
youth and manhood, and, more than that, till my hairs are
gray. In that faith and practice I have lived, and in that
faith and practice I shall die.

JAMES G. BLAINE EULOGY OF PRESIDENT GARFIELD[16] (1881)

His terrible fate was upon him in an instant. One moment he
stood erect, strong, confident in the years stretching
peacefully out before him. The next he lay wounded,
bleeding, helpless; doomed to weary weeks of torture, to
silence, and the grave.

Great in life, Garfield was surpassingly great in death.
For no cause, in the very frenzy of wantonness, by the red
hand of murder, he was thrust from the full tide of this
world's interest, from its hopes, its aspirations, its
victories, into the visible presence of Death--and he did
not quail. Not alone for the one short moment in which,
stunned and dazed, he could give up life, hardly aware of
its relinquishment, but through days of deadly languor,
through weeks of agony, that was not less agony because
silently borne, with clear sight and calm courage, he
looked into his open grave. What blight and ruin met his
anguished eyes, whose lips may tell--what brilliant broken
plans, what baffled high ambitions, what sundering of warm,
strong, manhood's friendships, what bitter rending of sweet
household ties! behind him a proud, expectant nation, a
great host of sustaining friends, a cherished and happy
mother, wearing the full, rich honors of her early toil and
tears; the wife of his youth, whose whole life lay in his;
the little boys not yet emerged from childhood's days of
frolic; the fair, young daughter; the sturdy sons just
springing into closest companionship, claiming every day
and every day rewarding a father's love and care, and in
his heart the eager rejoicing power to meet all demands!
Before him desolation and great darkness! And his soul was
not shaken. His countrymen were thrilled with instant,
profound, and universal sympathy. Masterful in his mortal
weakness, he became the centre of a nation's love,
enshrined in the prayers of a world; but all the love and
all the sympathy could not share with him his suffering. He
trod the wine-press alone. With unfaltering front he faced
death. With unfailing tenderness he took leave of life.
Above the demoniac hiss of the assassin's bullet, he heard
the voice of God. With simple resignation, he bowed to the
Divine decree.

As the end drew near his early craving for the sea
returned. The stately mansion of power had been to him the
wearisome hospital of pain, and he begged to be taken from
its prison walls, from its oppressive, stifling air, from
its homelessness and hopelessness. Gently, silently, the
love of a great people bore the pale sufferer to the
longed-for healing of the sea, to live or to die, as God
should will, within sight of its heaving billows, within
sound of its manifold voices. With wan, fevered face
tenderly lifted to the cooling breeze, he looked out
wistfully upon the ocean's changing wonders; on its far
sails whitening in the morning light; on its restless waves
rolling shoreward to break and die beneath the noonday sun;
on the red clouds of evening arching low to the horizon; on
the serene and shining pathway of the stars. Let us think
that his dying eyes read a mystic meaning which only the
rapt and parting soul may know. Let us believe that in the
silence of the receding world he heard the great waves
breaking on a farther shore, and felt already upon his
wasted brow the breath of the eternal morning.

WILLIAM J. BRYAN "THE CROSS OF GOLD" SPEECH[17] (1896)

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: I would be
presumptuous indeed to present myself against the
distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this
were a mere measuring of abilities; but this is not a
contest between persons. The humblest citizen in all the
land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is
stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak to
you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of
liberty--the cause of humanity.

When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay
upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of
the Administration, and also the resolution offered in
condemnation of the Administration. We object to bringing
this question down to the level of persons. The individual
is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but
principles are eternal; and this has been a contest over a
principle.

Never before in the history of this country has there been
witnessed such a contest as that through which we have just
passed. Never before in the history of American politics
has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been,
by the voters of a great party. On the fourth of March,
1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress,
issued an address to the Democrats of the nation, asserting
that the money question was the paramount issue of the
hour; declaring that a majority of the Democratic party had
the right to control the action of the party on this
paramount issue; and concluding with the request that the
believers in the free coinage of silver in the Democratic
party should organize, take charge of, and control the
policy of the Democratic party. Three months later, at
Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver
Democrats went forth openly and courageously proclaiming
their belief, and declaring that, if successful, they would
crystallize into a platform the declaration which they had
made. Then began the conflict. With a zeal approaching the
zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the
Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto
victory until they are now assembled, not to discuss, not
to debate, but to enter up the judgment already rendered by
the plain people of this country. In this contest brother
has been arrayed against brother, father against son. The
warmest ties of love, acquaintance, and association have
been disregarded; old leaders have been cast aside when
they refused to give expression unto the sentiments of
those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up
to give direction to this cause of truth. Thus has the
contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as
binding and solemn instructions as were ever imposed upon
representatives of the people.

We do not come as individuals. As individuals we might have
been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York
(Senator Hill), but we know that the people for whom we
speak would never be willing to put him in a position where
he could thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it
was not a question of persons; it was a question of
principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we
find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now
arrayed on the other side.

The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor Russell) spoke
of the State of Massachusetts; let me assure him that not
one present in all this Convention entertains the least
hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts, but
we stand here representing the people who are the equals,
before the law, of the greatest citizens in the state of
Massachusetts. When you [turning to the gold delegates]
come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb
your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed
our business interests by your course.

We say to you that you have made the definition of a
business man too limited in its applications. The man who
is employed for wages is as much a business man as his
employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a
business man as the corporation counsel in a great
metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as
much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer
who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, who begins
in spring and toils all summer, and who by the application
of brains and muscle to the natural resources of the
country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the
man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the
price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into
the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and
bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to
be poured into the channels of trade are as much business
men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room,
corner the money of the world. We come to speak of this
broader class of business men.

Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live
upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have
braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the
desert to blossom as the rose--the pioneers away out there
[pointing to the West], who rear their children near to
Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the
voices of the birds--out there where they have erected
schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches
where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest
the ashes of their dead--these people, we say, are as
deserving of the consideration of our party as any people
in this country. It is for these that we speak. We do not
come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest; we
are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and
posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been
scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been
disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our
calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we
petition no more. We defy them!

The gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he fears a
Robespierre. My friends, in this land of the free you need
not fear that a tyrant will spring up from among the
people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand, as
Jackson stood, against the encroachments of organized
wealth.

They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We
reply to them that changing conditions make new issues;
that the principles upon which Democracy rests are as
everlasting as the hills, but that they must be applied to
new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen, and
we are here to meet those conditions. They tell us that the
income tax ought not to be brought in here; that it is a
new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the
Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have not
criticized; we have simply called attention to what you
already know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting
opinions of the court. There you will find criticisms. They
say that we passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The
income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was passed;
it was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme
Court for the first time; it did not become
unconstitutional until one of the judges changed his mind,
and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change
his mind. The income tax is just. It simply intends to put
the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the
people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man
who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the
government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy
to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is
true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will
find he said that, in searching history, he could find but
one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who
destroyed the conspiracy of Catiline and saved Rome. Benton
said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us
when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We
say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin
and issue money is a function of government. We believe it.
We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no
more with safety be delegated to private individuals than
we could afford to delegate to private individuals the
power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson,
who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems
to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has
addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are
opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper
money is a function of the bank, and that the government
ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with
Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did,
that the issue of money is a function of government, and
that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.

They complain about the plank which declares against life
tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that
which it does not mean. What we oppose by that plank is the
life tenure which is built up in Washington, and which
excludes from participation in official benefits the humble
members of society.

Let me call your attention to two or three important
things. The gentleman from New York says that he will
propose an amendment to the platform providing that the
proposed change in our monetary system shall not affect
contracts already made. Let me remind you that there is no
intention of affecting these contracts which, according to
the present laws, are made payable in gold; but if he means
to say that we cannot change our monetary system without
protecting those who have loaned money before the change
was made, I desire to ask him where, in law or in morals,
he can find justification for not protecting the debtors
when the act of 1873 was passed, if he now insists that we
must protect the creditors.

He says he will also propose an amendment which will
provide for the suspension of free coinage if we fail to
maintain a parity within a year. We reply that when we
advocate a policy which we believe will be successful, we
are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity
by suggesting what we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he
would apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to
himself. He says he wants this country to try to secure an
international agreement. Why does he not tell us what he is
going to do if he fails to secure an international
agreement? There is more reason for him to do that than
there is for us to provide against the failure to maintain
the parity. Our opponents have tried for twenty years to
secure an international agreement, and those are waiting
for it most patiently who do not want it at all.

And now, my friends, let me come to the paramount issue. If
they ask us why it is that we say more on the money
question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply
that, if protection has slain its thousands, the gold
standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us
why we do not embody in our platform all the things that we
believe in, we reply that when we have restored the money
of the Constitution all other necessary reforms will be
possible; but that until this is done there is no other
reform that can be accomplished.

Why is it that within three months such a change has come
over the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently
asserted that those who believe in the gold standard would
frame our platform and nominate our candidates, even the
advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could
elect a President. And they had good reason for their
doubt, because there is scarcely a state here today asking
for the gold standard which is not in the absolute control
of the Republican party. But note the change. Mr. McKinley
was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform which declared
for the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be
changed into bimetallism by international agreement. Mr.
McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans,
and three months ago everybody in the Republican party
prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, the man who
was once pleased to think that he looked like
Napoleon--that man shudders today when he remembers that he
was nominated on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.
Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with
ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they
beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.

Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the reason for the
change evident to any one who will look at the matter? No
private character, however, pure, no personal popularity,
however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an
indignant people a man who will declare that he is in favor
of fastening the gold standard upon this country, or who is
willing to surrender the right of self-government and place
the legislative control of our affairs in the hands of
foreign potentates and powers.

We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon
the paramount issue of this campaign there is not a spot of
ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle.
If they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we
shall point to their platform and tell them that their
platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold standard
and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good
thing, why try to get rid of it? I call your attention to
the fact that some of the very people who are in this
Convention today and who tell us that we ought to declare
in favor of international bimetallism--thereby declaring
that the gold standard is wrong and that the principle of
bimetallism is better--these very people four months ago
were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard, and
were then telling us that we could not legislate two metals
together, even with the aid of all the world. If the gold
standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of
its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the
gold standard is a bad thing why should we wait until other
nations are willing to help us to let go? Here is the line
of battle, and we care not upon which issue they force the
fight; we are prepared to meet them on either side or on
both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the
standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the
most enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never
declared for a gold standard and that both the great
parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold
standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends,
should we not have it? If they come to meet us on that
issue we can present the history of our nation. More than
that; we can tell them that they will search the pages of
history in vain to find a single instance where the common
people of any land have ever declared themselves in favor
of the gold standard. They can find where the holders of
fixed investments have declared for a gold standard, but
not where the masses have. Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that
this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle
capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth
and pay the taxes of the country"; and, my friends, the
question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the
Democratic party fight, upon the side of "the idle holders
of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling
masses"? That is the question which the party must answer
first, and then it must be answered by each individual
hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown
by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses
who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party.
There are two ideas of government. There are those who
believe that, if you will only legislate to make the
well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through
on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that
if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their
prosperity will find its way up through ever class which
rests upon them.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in
favor of the gold standard; we reply that the great cities
rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your
cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up
again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass
will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

My friends, we declare that this nation is able to
legislate for its own people on every question, without
waiting for the aid and consent of any other nation on
earth; and upon that issue we expect to carry every state
in the Union. I shall not slander the inhabitants of the
fair state of Massachusetts, nor the inhabitants of the
state of New York, by saying that, when they are confronted
with the proposition they will declare that this nation is
not able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of
1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in
number, had the courage to declare their political
independence of every other nation; shall we, their
descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions,
declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our
people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle
is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we
cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that,
instead of having a gold standard because England has, we
will restore bimetallism, and then let England have
bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare
to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard
as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost.
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and
the world, supported by the commercial interests, the
laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will
answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them:
You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown
of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of
gold.

JOHN HAYNES HOLMES THE BIRTH OF AN ORATOR[18] (1912)

On the 9th day of December, 1837, there was held in Faneuil
Hall, in the city of Boston, a great public meeting in
protest against the recent murder, in Alton, Illinois, of
the Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy. The historic old edifice was
filled upon this momentous occasion to suffocation, as
feeling was running very high upon both sides of the
slavery question; and the audience was about equally
divided between the friends and enemies of the cause. The
meeting was opened with a brief and impressive address by
Dr. Channing. Resolutions denouncing the murder of Lovejoy
were then read and formally seconded. Everything seemed to
be moving smoothly, when a man was seen making his way
through the excited crowd to the great gilded eagle in the
front of the gallery. He was instantly recognized as
James T. Austin, a parishioner of Dr. Channing, a popular
politician, and at that time the Attorney-General of the
Commonwealth. Gaining his position, he began a harangue,
calculated to fire the crowd and break up the meeting. He
compared the slaves of the South to a menagerie, and
likened Lovejoy to one who should "break the bars and let
loose the caravan to prowl about the streets." He talked of
the rioters of Alton as akin to the "orderly mob" which
threw the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773; and, in direct
allusion to his minister, Dr. Channing, he closed by
asserting that a clergyman with a gun in his hand, or one
"mingling in the debates of a popular assembly, was
marvellously out of place."

No sooner were these words spoken than the chairman lost
all control of the meeting. The Attorney-General had
captured his audience, and friends and foes seemed to vie
with one another in calling for the resolutions that they
might vote them down, and then turn the protest of the
occasion into an endorsement. At this wild moment, when all
hope of saving the meeting seemed to be lost, a young man
with pale face and close-pressed lips, was seen pushing his
way to the platform through the frenzied mob. A few persons
recognized Wendell Phillips, a son of one of the richest
and most conservative families of Boston, a graduate of
Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and now just
entered upon the practice of his profession. Leaping upon
the stage, this unknown stripling faced the crowd, as tall
and fair and beautiful as an Apollo, and, raising his hand,
spoke two or three words in those marvellous silvery tones
which were destined ultimately to chant their music in so
many halls and before so many popular assemblies. Instantly
the wild "tumult and shouting" was hushed, while men leaned
forward curiously to hear what this foolish youth could
find to say in answer to the Attorney-General. "Mr.
Chairman," he began, "we are here met for the freest
discussion of these resolutions, and the events which gave
rise to them. I hope I shall be permitted to express my
surprise as to the sentiments of the last speaker--surprise
not only at such sentiments from such a man, but at the
applause which they received within these walls. . . . Sir,
when I heard the gentleman lay down principles which place
the murders of Lovejoy side by side with Otis and Hancock,
Quincy and Adams, I thought [pointing to the portraits of
the revolutionary heroes in the hall] those pictured lips
would have broken into voice to rebuke this recreant
American--this slanderer of the dead." Instantly, with this
utterance of magic eloquence, the tide of popular feeling
was turned. Sentence after sentence fell from the speaker's
lips like thunderbolts from the land of Jove, until at last
his words were swept away in the wild tumult of applause;
and with a mighty shout the resolutions were put and
carried. Thus was the day unexpectedly saved, and from that
moment on Faneuil Hall was identified with the name of
Wendell Phillips as it had previously been identified with
the names of James Otis and Samuel Adams, and was dedicated
to the cause of anti-slavery, as it had hitherto been
dedicated to the cause of political independence.

PEACE BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL[19] (1912)

First of all, let me tell you that nothing will be gained
by crushing unions and destroying organizations of labor.
The time has passed by forever for that course of
procedure. Labor is learning its power; and, what is more
important still, society has itself learned the value of
organized labor as a bulwark against the aggressions of
militant capitalism. The man who thinks that labor can be
permanently repressed and exploited is mad, and his madness
is a menace to the future peace of the country.

Neither can we solve this problem by talking about the
interests of capital and labor being identical under the
present system of industry, and by bringing capital and
labor together into any such "moonshine" organization as
the Civic Federation. We might as well recognize the fact
once for all that, just as long as higher wages mean lower
dividends, and shortened hours mean lessened output, the
interests of capital and labor are not identical but
opposite, not mutual but antagonistic.

The only way to bring peace into the present turmoil and
confusion of industry is first, for the sake of ordinary
decency and order, to make some laws to meet the
situation--laws which will oblige two warring classes to
bring their dispute before some impartial tribunal for
peaceful settlement, as two warring individuals are obliged
to do; and then, going straight to the heart of the matter,
to recognize that our whole system of capital and labor,
employer and employee, master and servant, is a form of
feudalism, and that this feudalism must give way to
democracy in the world of industry as it has long since
given way to democracy in the world of politics. The social
war will be over and peace established, when the man who
invests his labor in an industry is given the same degree
of ownership in that industry, as the man who invests his
money--when the laborer with his hands, like the laborer
with his brains, is given the full product of his
labor--when the laborer becomes a capitalist and the
capitalist becomes a laborer--when one man counts for one
man in the organization of industry, whatever his class or
station or wealth, just as one man is now counted for one
man in the organization of government. In other words, when
competition is succeeded by coöperation, private ownership
and control by social ownership and control, feudalism by
democracy, despotism by liberty, inequality by equality,
antagonism by fraternity, hatred by good-will. And you and
I can speed the coming of this happy day, by solemnly
resolving in the sight of God, that, so far as we are
concerned, we shall seek the enjoyment of no privilege
which is not universal, demand the exercise of no right for
ourselves which is denied to one of the least of these our
brethren, and cherish no sentiment within our hearts save
that of good-will for all the sons of men.

I have spoken upon this burning question this morning, my
friends, with a freedom which makes misinterpretation
inevitable and misquotation certain. I have spoken thus for
two reasons! First, that you, as my people, may know,
beyond all doubt, just where I, your minister, stand on
this burning question. I want you to know that, in this
present fight, I am on the side of labor. I excuse none of
its crimes--I pardon none of its criminals; but no crime
and no criminal can ever shake my faith in the justice of
its cause. And, in the second place, I have thus spoken,
that I may shake you out of that opinion which has been
forced upon your minds by the public discussions of the
last two weeks, and set your thinking upon this question
all anew. If you go out of this place, and denounce me as a
dynamiter, I shall have failed in my purpose; and the fault
will be mine, that I cannot express clearly what I want to
say. If you go out of this place, and, without accepting
any of my opinions, think the whole problem through again,
in prayer to God that you may find the truth and may do
injustice to no living soul, I shall have succeeded; and
the credit will be yours, that you have the open mind. But
whether I succeed or fail, matters little, perhaps; for, in
spite of you and in spite of me, "it is God who reigneth
over all the earth--He will judge the world in
righteousness and minister judgment to the people. He will
not fail nor faint till He have set justice in the
earth--till He have burst the yoke asunder and given
liberty to all them that are oppressed."

RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN THE PERFECT ORATOR

Imagine to yourself a Demosthenes, addressing the most
illustrious assembly in the world, upon a point whereon the
fate of the most illustrious of nations depended. How awful
such a meeting! How fast the subject! Is man possessed of
talents adequate to the great occasion? Adequate! Yes,
superior. By the power of eloquence, the augustness of the
assembly is lost in the dignity of the orator; and the
importance of the subject, for a while superseded, by the
admiration of his talents.