Chapter III: Part 3

The New York _Herald_ voiced the general feeling when it said: “’Infamous’ is the only word to describe the treatment that has been inflicted upon our patriotic soldiers, and under which, despite the indignant outbursts of a horror-stricken people, thousands of them are still suffering to-day.” The _Herald_ further declared the soldiers to be “the victims of job-and-rob politicians and contractors, and of criminally incompetent and heartlessly indifferent officials.”

For almost six months Colonel Bryan remained with his regiment in camp. The quarters, the sanitative conditions, and the general arrangements of the “Third Nebraska” were the pride of the army. Colonel Bryan was at once “guide, counselor, and friend” to his men, winning the almost idolatrous love of each and all of them. He gave lavishly of his meager funds to secure the comfort of the sick and maintain the health of the strong. His days and nights were devoted to the service of the regiment, and more than one poor boy, dying of fever far from the wind-swept Nebraska prairies, passed away holding his Colonel’s hand and breathing into his Colonel’s ear the last faltering message of farewell to loved ones at home.

CHAS. POYNTER SENATOR ALLEN ADLAI STEVENSON MRS.
POYNTER MISS POYNTER C. A. TOWNE
LEWIS G. STEVENSON WEBSTER DAVIS MRS. W. C. POYNTER W.
J. BRYAN GOV. POYNTER

AT THE GOVERNOR’S MANSION, LINCOLN

In joining the volunteer army, as when he delivered the first anti-imperialist speech, Colonel Bryan had acted against the advice of many of his closest personal and political friends. Despite his decisive defeat for the presidency in 1896, he had not only maintained but even strengthened his position as the recognized leader of the Democratic party and its allies. Undaunted by the result of the campaign, he had almost immediately resumed the fight for bimetallism. He had published a book reviewing the contest under the suggestive and defiant title “The First Battle.” He had taken to the lecture platform and to the political hustings, vigorously, hopefully, and earnestly propagating the principles of democracy, unwavering, unwearying, and undisturbed by the general depression of his followers and as general exultation of his opponents. He was the incarnation of the spirit of conservative reform, and all parties had come to regard him as the prophet and supreme leader of the new movement back to Jeffersonian principles. His friends feared to have him accept a commission, not only on the ground that his doing so might later compel his silence at a time when his voice ought to be heard, but more largely because they dreaded the possibility of having his motive impugned. It was evident to them, as to Colonel Bryan himself, that by taking up the role of colonel of a volunteer regiment, he had much to risk and lose, and little, if anything, to gain. But the Democratic leader was not to be dissuaded. Content in his own knowledge that his motive was worthy and patriotic, he assumed and bore unostentatiously and yet with dignity the office of military leader of 1,300 of his Nebraska friends and neighbors. He remained faithfully with his regiment, living the slow and tedious life of the camp, until the treaty of peace was signed with Spain in December, 1898. That treaty provided not only for the cession of Porto Rico to the United States and Spanish relinquishment of all claim to sovereignty over Cuba, but further for the turning over of the Philippine Islands to the United States on the payment of $20,000,000. This last concession was wrung from Spain by the insistent and uncompromising demand of the American Peace Commissioners, under instructions from the state department at Washington.

Shortly after the treaty was signed, President McKinley blasted the fond hopes for independence that had been planted in the Filipinos’ breasts by issuing this proclamation:

“With the signature of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris on the tenth instant, and as the result of the victories of American arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In fulfilment of the rights of sovereignty thus acquired, and the responsible obligations of government thus assumed, the actual occupation and administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands become immediately necessary, and the military government heretofore maintained by the United States in the city, harbor, and bay of Manila is to be extended with all possible dispatch to the whole of the ceded territory.”

Prior to this time, and later, the President explained his position on the Philippine question, and we quote from him at some length.

At Chicago, in October, 1898, he said: “My countrymen, the currents of destiny flow through the hearts of the people. Who will check them? Who will divert them? Who will stop them? And the movements of men, planned and designed by the Master of men, will never be interrupted by the American people.”

At the Atlanta (Ga.) Peace Jubilee in December of the same year, he said: “That [the American] flag has been planted in two hemispheres, and there it remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who will withhold it from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds? Who will haul it down?”

At Savannah, a day or two later he said: “If, following the clear precepts of duty, territory falls to us, and the welfare of an alien people requires our guidance and protection, who will shrink from the responsibility, grave though it may be? Can we leave these people who, by the fortunes of war and our own acts, are helpless and without government, to chaos and anarchy after we have destroyed the only government that they had?”

At the Home Market Club, in Boston, on February 16, 1899, he explained himself more fully, saying: “Our concern was not for territory or trade or empire, but for the people whose interests and destiny, without our willing it, had been put in our hands. It was with this feeling that from the first day to the last not one word or line went from the Executive in Washington to our military and naval commanders at Manila or to our Peace Commissioners at Paris that did not put as the sole purpose to be kept in mind, first, after the success of our arms and the maintenance of our own honor, the welfare and happiness and the rights of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity? If we can benefit these remote peoples, who will object? If, in the years of the future, they are established in government under law and liberty, who will regret our perils and sacrifices? Who will not rejoice in our heroism and humanity?”

One more quotation. At Minneapolis, October 12, 1899, President McKinley delivered himself of this utterance: “That Congress will provide for them [the Filipinos] a government which will bring them blessings, which will promote their material interests, as well as advance their people in the paths of civilization and intelligence, I confidently believe.”

With such phrase-making as this, concealing in sonorous periods the most un-American of sentiments, Colonel Bryan’s utterance, delivered immediately after he had resigned his commission, stands out in bold and pleasing relief: “I may be in error, but in my judgment our nation is in greater danger just now than Cuba. Our people defended Cuba against foreign arms; now they must defend themselves and their country against a foreign idea—the colonial idea of European nations. Heretofore greed has perverted the government and used its instrumentalities for private gains, but now the very foundation principles of our government are assaulted. Our nation must give up any intention of entering upon a colonial policy, such as is now pursued by European countries, or it must abandon the doctrine that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. To borrow a Bible quotation ‘A house divided against itself can not stand.’ Paraphrasing Lincoln’s declaration, I may add that this nation can not endure half republic and half colony, half free and half vassal. Our form of government, our traditions, our present interests, and our future welfare, all forbid our entering upon a career of conquest....

“Some think the fight should be made against ratification of the treaty, but I would prefer another plan. If the treaty is rejected, negotiations must be renewed, and instead of settling the question according to our ideas we must settle it by diplomacy, with the possibility of international complications. It will be easier, I think, to end the war at once by ratifying the treaty and then deal with the subject in our own way. The issue can be presented directly by a resolution of Congress declaring the policy of the nation upon this subject. The President in his message says that our only purpose in taking possession of Cuba is to establish a stable government and then turn that government over to the people of Cuba. Congress could reaffirm this purpose in regard to Cuba, and assert the same purpose in regard to the Philippines and Porto Rico. Such a resolution would make a clear-cut issue between the doctrine of self-government and the doctrine of imperialism. We should reserve a harbor and coaling station in Porto Rico and the Philippines in return for services rendered, and I think we would be justified in asking the same concession from Cuba.

“In the case of Porto Rico, where the people have as yet expressed no desire for independent government, we might with propriety declare our willingness to annex the island, if the citizens desire annexation, but the Philippines are too far away and their people too different from ours to be annexed to the United States, even if they desired it.”

In making this statement, and in his subsequent active support of the treaty, Mr. Bryan’s course was again opposed to the wishes and advice of many of his close political friends. In fact, before Mr. Bryan took his firm stand probably the majority of Democratic leaders in and out of Congress were opposed to the ratification of the treaty because of its Philippine clause. But Mr. Bryan, while as strongly opposed to this clause as anyone, was anxious to see the war finally ended. He knew that for the Senate to reject the treaty would prolong the war perhaps a year or more, and, further, that it might lead to endless and unpleasant complications. Once the war was ended, he held, the American people themselves could dispose of the Philippine question.

Largely owing to the aid extended the administration by Mr. Bryan, the treaty was ratified by the Senate. Those senators who were opposed to the imperial policy of President McKinley supported the “Bacon resolution” as a declaration of this nation’s purpose toward the Philippines and Filipinos. This resolution declared:

“The United States hereby disclaim any disposition or intention to exercise permanent sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, and assert their determination, when a stable and independent government shall have been erected therein, entitled in the judgment of the government of the United States to recognition as such, to transfer to said government, upon terms which shall be reasonable and just, all rights secured under the cession by Spain, and to thereupon leave the government and control of the islands to their people.”

The Democratic policy, as outlined by Mr. Bryan, was the support of the treaty and of the foregoing resolution. The treaty was ratified, but the resolution, though supported by practically the solid Democratic, Populist, and Silver Republican strength in the Senate, and by a number of Republican senators who were opposed to the imperial policy, was defeated by the deciding vote of Vice-President Hobart. Had the resolution been adopted, and the Philippines been given the same promise of independence and self-government as had already been given Cuba, it is believed that the long, bloody, and costly war in the Philippine Islands might have been averted, and the abandoned old-world heresy of the right of one man to rule another without that other’s consent would not now have regained a footing on the soil of the great American Republic.

In the meantime the President’s proclamation of December 21, 1898, to the Filipinos, asserting the sovereignty of the United States over them and theirs had provoked a veritable hurricane of indignation among that people.

The characteristic that distinguishes the Filipinos from all other Asiatic races is their fierce, inherent love for liberty. For three hundred years they had been intermittently battling with the Spaniard to regain what they had lost, and the palm of victory was within their eager reach on the day that Dewey’s guns first thundered across Manila bay. Knowing as they did that the United States had gone to war to secure liberty for the Cubans, why should they doubt the securing of their own liberty as well?

The President’s proclamation came like a thunder clap. General Otis, who was commander-in-chief of the American forces in the Philippines, reported its effect as follows:

“Aguinaldo met the proclamation by a counter one in which he indignantly protested against the claim of sovereignty by the United States in the islands, which really had been conquered from the Spaniards through the blood and treasure of his countrymen, and abused me for my assumption of the title of military governor. Even the women of Cavite province, in a document numerously signed by them, gave me to understand that after all the men are killed off they are prepared to shed their patriotic blood for the liberty and independence of their country.”

The revulsion was complete. Before the proclamation was issued, it is true, there had been growing among the Filipinos a feeling of distrust of the Americans, and of doubt whether, after all, they were to be conceded their independence. For, at the surrender of Manila, although its capture had been impossible without the aid of the insurgents, they were studiously excluded from any share of the honor, and thus given the first intimation of the final treachery of the administration. Later the Filipinos were refused a hearing at Washington, and again before the Peace Commission which was to dispose of them like chattels.

Actual hostilities broke out February 4, 1899, and are thus referred to by President McKinley in his message to Congress December 4, 1899: “The aggression of the Filipinos continually increased, until finally, just before the time set by the Senate of the United States for a vote upon the treaty, an attack, evidently prepared in advance, was made all along the American lines, which resulted in a terribly destructive and sanguinary repulse of the insurgents.”

The report of General Otis, reads as follows (page 96): “The battle of Manila commenced at half past eight o’clock, on the evening of February 4 (1899), and continued until five o’clock the next evening. The engagement was strictly defensive on the part of the insurgents, and one of vigorous attack by our forces.”

Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, in a letter to the Springfield (Mass.) _Republican_, January 11, 1900, is responsible for this statement regarding the first battle: “The outbreak of hostilities was not their fault, but ours. We fired upon them first. The fire was returned from their lines. Thereupon it was returned again from us, and several Filipinos were killed. As soon as Aguinaldo heard of it he sent a message to General Otis saying that the firing was without his knowledge and against his will; that he deplored it, and that he desired hostilities to cease, and would withdraw his troops to any distance General Otis should desire. To which the American general replied that, as the firing had begun, it must go on.”

Thus began the War in the Philippine Islands. It has cost thousands of lives and millions of treasure. It has burned the homes and uprooted the fields of a frugal, intelligent, and industrious people in whose minds and hearts have been seared the ringing words of Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death!” It has not brought to the United States either riches or glory, but, on the contrary, lost to us much in taxes on our people, more in the death of our youth, and most of all in the sullying of the noble and lofty ideals which animated the Fathers of the Republic and made their lives sublime. An American soldier writing to the Minneapolis _Times_, in describing a captured city, thus simply sets forth the enormity of our national offense:

“Every inhabitant had left Norzagaray, and no article of value remained behind. The place had probably been the home of fifteen hundred or two thousand people, and was pleasantly situated on a clear mountain stream in which a bath was most refreshing. It was not a city of apparent wealth, but in many houses were found evidences of education. In a building which probably had been used as a schoolhouse were found a number of books, and a variety of exercises written by childish hands. Pinned to a crucifix was a paper upon which was written the following in Spanish: ‘American soldiers—How can you hope mercy from Him when you are slaughtering a people fighting for their liberty, and driving us from the homes which are justly ours?’ On a table was a large globe which did not give Minneapolis, but had San Pablo (St. Paul) as the capital of Minnesota. On a rude blackboard were a number of sentences, which indicated that the teacher had recently been giving lessons in the history of the American revolution.”

The demoralizing effect of this war against liberty on the American conscience became early apparent. If it were permissible to make war on the Filipinos because they would not yield to our government, it was no far cry to withhold from the Porto Ricans the protecting aegis of the Constitution, to levy a discriminating tariff against them, and to tax them without their consent. And it of course became impossible for the United States to express sympathy for the Boers in their war against British aggression, or even to maintain neutrality between the two. As a consequence horses, mules, arms, and ammunition were permitted to be freely shipped from our ports for the use of British soldiers, while British ships were permitted to intercept and capture American ships laden with American breadstuffs, when consigned to the Boers. In fact, an “Anglo-Saxon alliance” was more than hinted at by John Hay, then United States Ambassador to Great Britain, and later Secretary of State, when he said at London, on April 20, 1898, speaking of England and the United States:

“The good understanding between us is based on something deeper than mere expediency. All who think can not but see that there is a sanction like that of religion which binds us in partnership in the serious work of the world. We are bound by ties we did not forge, and that we can not break. We are joint ministers in the sacred work of freedom and progress, charged with duties we can not evade by the imposition of irresistible hands.”

To this sentiment Joseph Chamberlain, the British Secretary of the Colonies, replied in kind on May 13, at Birmingham, saying:

“I would go so far as to say that, terrible as war may be, even war itself would be cheaply purchased if, in a great and noble cause, the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack should wave together over an Anglo-Saxon alliance. At the present time these two great nations understand each other better than they ever have done, since, over a century ago, they were separated by the blunder of a British government.”

So we come to the close of the recital of the most salient events which gave rise to the greatest issue save that of independence, and later, of slavery, with which the American people have ever stood face to face.

Contemporaneous with the growth of the question of imperialism, and allied to it, another great issue arose,—the problem of the trusts.

A “trust” may be defined as an industrial combination of such huge proportions as to enable it not only arbitrarily to fix the price of the finished product in which it deals, through the stifling of competition, but frequently to determine alone the price of the raw material it uses and to fix the rate of wages of those whom it employs. Of these great and dangerous combinations there were formed, during the years 1897 to 1900, a number exceeding all those already in existence. That this was permitted to be done with the Sherman anti-trust law on the Federal statute books has puzzled many. Its explanation may be found in the following candid admission made by Dr. Albert Shaw in the _Review of Reviews_ for February, 1897:

“The great sound-money campaign of 1896 was carried on by money contributed by corporations—money voted by the directors out of the funds held by them in trust for the stockholders. Nobody, probably, would even care to deny that this is literally the truth.”

When the “great sound money campaign” was concluded, it was but fair, of course, that those who had given so lavishly should be allowed to replenish their depleted coffers. And so neither anti-trust laws, supreme court decisions, nor the cry of protest rising from the people was allowed to stand in the way of those generous corporations to whom President McKinley owed so much.

In the last six months of 1898 the movement toward centralization that meant monopoly was most alarmingly pronounced. During this time there were filed articles of incorporation by more than one hundred companies of abnormal capitalization. The most important trusts were:

CAPITAL
Gas trusts $ 432,771,000
Steel and iron 347,650,000
Coal combines 161,000,000
Oil trusts 153,000,000
Flour trust 150,000,000
Electrical combinations 139,327,000
Sugar 115,000,000
Cigarettes and tobacco 108,500,000
Alcoholic 67,300,000
Telephone 56,700,000
Miscellaneous 1,349,250,000
———————
$2,717,768,000

Among those classed as “miscellaneous” were trusts in leather, starch, lumber, rubber, dressed beef, lead, knit goods, window glass, crockery, furniture, crackers, sheet copper, paper, acids and chemicals, wall paper, typewriters, axes, bolts and nuts, salt, saws, rope, twine, thread, stock yards, matches, refrigerators, potteries, marbles, packing and provisions.

After the formation of each trust the first step was almost invariably to limit production by shutting down a portion of the mills controlled by the combination, thus reducing the number of wage earners. And almost as invariably the next step was to increase prices. By thus reducing expenses and increasing receipts the result was, though much of the trust property had been put in at an enormously inflated valuation, the watered stock yet earned exceedingly large dividends. The evil was not only that these unnatural dividends were earned at the expense of the laborer and the consumer, but that concentration of profits was leading to congestion of capital in certain sections of the country at the expense of other sections.

The great friend and helper of the trust-promoter was, of course, the high protective tariff. Without the tariff, to shut out competition from abroad, it would be impossible for the domestic concerns to form a close corporation and arbitrarily to fix prices. But Congress, instead of attempting to remedy the evil by lowering the tariff, deliberately raised it, being particularly careful to see that the percentage on trust-controlled goods was made sufficiently high to render foreign competition impossible. This led the Philadelphia _Ledger_, a Republican newspaper, to remark:

“If Congress had any genuine regard for the interests of the people, or if it were sincere of purpose respecting their common welfare, or in regard to the proper protection of labor, it would promptly transfer to the free list every product controlled by a conscienceless and predatory trust which reduces production, cuts off working people from work and wages, and increases prices to the tens of millions of consumers.” The correctness of this view was testified to, before the United States Industrial Commission, in June, 1899, by no less a personage than Henry O. Havemeyer, president of the sugar trust, who said:

“The existing [tariff] bill and the preceding one have been the occasion of the formation of all the large trusts with very few exceptions, inasmuch as they provide for an inordinate protection to all the interests of the country—sugar refining excepted. All this agitation against trusts is against merely the business machinery employed to take from the public what the government in its tariff laws says it is proper and suitable they should have. It is the government, through its tariff laws, which plunders the people, and the trusts, etc., are merely the machinery for doing it.”

The showing regarding trusts made in the “Commercial Year Book” for 1899 was startling. Its salient features may be thus tabulated:

1899 1898
Number of trusts 353 200
Stock $5,118,494,181 $3,283,521,452
Bonded debt 714,388,661 378,720,091
Stock and bonds 5,832,882,842 3,662,241,543

This shows an increase for the year of 76 per cent. in the number of institutions and of 60 per cent. in stock and bonded debt. But it shows more than this. According to the census of 1890 the entire capital employed in manufacturing and mechanical industries was $6,525,000,000. A comparison of this figure with the stock and bonds of trusts for 1899 shows that the capitalization of these gigantic combines was equal to 90 per cent. of the entire manufacturing investments of 1890.

It was such significant figures as these that woke the country to a realization of the imminence and great importance of the trust problem. It was felt that the most stupendous industrial revolution in the history of the world was on, because it was realized how closely our industrial system had approached to complete absorption under monopolistic control. Industry at large was becoming organized into a system of feudalized corporations. Each was stifling competition, discouraging enterprise, and padlocking the gates of opportunity. Together they were in absolute mastery of the industrial field.

The menacing danger of the situation was early realized, and the “anti-trust” movement progressed side by side with the opposition to imperialism. The fight was to be one of individualism against a gigantic and arrogant plutocracy, the forces of individualism contending for the doctrines of liberty and equal opportunity as against the reactionary tendencies of which trusts and imperialism were the supremest manifestations. In this Titanic struggle it was but fitting that the Jeffersonian hosts should be marshaled under the leadership of the brave, aggressive, eloquent, and inspired evangel of the doctrines of the Fathers—William J. Bryan.

RENOMINATION

When the result of the great presidential contest of 1896 was made known, Mr. Bryan’s political enemies, both in and out of the Democratic party, loudly proclaimed that “Bryanism”—or “Bryanarchy,” as a green-eyed relict of Mr. Cleveland’s second cabinet terms it—was dead and buried. Some said it was “too dead to bury.” And Bryan himself, they gleefully asserted, had died with the death of ideas to which he was wedded. Doubtless many of them believed this. The fierce and determined onslaught of the silver men in that memorable campaign had so wrought upon the fears of the class of Americans of whom Marcus A. Hanna and Pierpont Morgan are representative, that, in their nervous hysteria after their narrow escape, they were in a frame of mind where but little evidence was required to induce great faith. And, moreover, the decisive defeat which Bryan had suffered, considered in its probable effect on his disorganized following, was such as naturally gave birth to the hope that to the outstretched palms of the repudiated and disowned leaders of the party, such as Mr. Cleveland, might soon be restored in contrition the insignia of power and authority.

But even those who most sincerely believed and uproariously heralded the death of Bryanism and of Bryan continued their flagellations of both as earnestly as of yore. To them the good old Latin rule “_De mortuis nihil nisi bonum_” was obsolete and cobwebby.

And so, for almost three years succeeding Mr. McKinley’s election, the funeral notices of Democracy’s leader were daily published and his requiems daily sung. But, through all this time, the faith of the allied forces of reform that their leader was still of the living abode with them, and, firm in the belief, they were neither faltered nor dismayed, and never a man broke ranks.

And it was not long before faith that was of the spirit gave way to that certainty which comes of knowledge that is of the brain and senses. The first evidence was the remarkable sale and popularity of “The First Battle.” Another was the increasing demand for Mr. Bryan’s services as lecturer and public speaker, and the rapturous enthusiasm with which he was received, excelling, if possible that which greeted the Presidential candidate. Then, when he fearlessly took a stand against imperialism, which seemed to be sweeping the country like a great forest fire, and at once, in response to his appeal, the great Democratic party lined up against that policy, it became clearly evident that the powers of the great popular leader had not waned; neither had his influence over the minds and hearts of the people been lost. Finally, just as he was the first great public man of the United States to raise his voice in protest against the abandonment of the Republic, so he was the first to propose a definite and coherent remedy for the overshadowing evil of the trusts. This again demonstrated his natural fitness for leadership. Mr. Bryan first outlined his views at the Anti-Trust Conference held in Chicago in 1899. Because of its importance, as well as because it was the first tangible remedy proposed, it is here reproduced:

“I believe we ought to have remedies in both state and nation, and that they should be concurrent remedies. In the first place, every state has, or should have, the right to create any private corporation, which, in the judgment of the people of the state, is conducive to the welfare of the people of that state. I believe we can safely entrust to the people of a state the settlement of a question which concerns them. If they create a corporation, and it becomes destructive of their best interests, they can destroy that corporation, and we can safely trust them both to create and annihilate, if conditions make annihilation necessary. In the second place, the state has, or should have, the right to prohibit any foreign corporation from doing business in the state, and it has, or should have, the right to impose such restrictions and limitations as the people of the state may think necessary upon foreign corporations doing business in the state. In other words, the people of the state not only should have a right to create the corporations they want, but they should be permitted to protect themselves against any outside corporation.

“But I do not think this is sufficient. I believe, in addition to a state remedy, there must be a Federal remedy, and I believe Congress has, or should have, the power to place restrictions and limitations, even to the point of prohibition, upon any corporation organized in any state that wants to do business outside of the state. I say that Congress has, or should have, power to place upon the corporation such limitations and restrictions, even to the point of prohibition, as may to Congress seem necessary for the protection of the public.

“Now, I believe that these concurrent remedies will prove effective. To repeat, the people of every state shall first decide whether they want to create a corporation. They shall also decide whether they want any outside corporation to do business in the state; and, if so, upon what conditions; and then Congress shall exercise the right to place upon every corporation doing business outside of the state in which it is organized such limitations and restrictions as may be necessary for the protection of the public.”

The legislation to be enacted by Congress Mr. Bryan roughly outlined as follows:

“Suppose that Congress should say that whenever a corporation wants to do business outside of the state, it must apply to and receive from some body, created by Congress for the purpose, a license to do business. Suppose the law should provide three conditions upon which the license could be issued:

“1. That the evidence should show that there was no water in the stock.

“2. That the evidence should show that the corporation has not attempted in the past and is not now attempting, to monopolize any branch of industry or any article of merchandise; and

“3. Providing for that publicity which everybody has spoken of and about which everybody agrees.”

This plan of Mr. Bryan’s for the suppression of monopolistic trusts is given here, not especially because of the intrinsic merit it may possess, but as illustrating one of the important phases of his character.

When the tariff question was under discussion, Mr. Bryan was an outspoken advocate of a tariff for revenue only. When the silver question arose Mr. Bryan wrote and stood squarely upon the first platform that declared for the “free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.” When the dark cloud of imperialism rose on the horizon his was the first voice to point out the danger, and he took an unequivocal position in favor of granting independence to the Filipinos. And now, at the Trust Conference, while many joined with him in denunciation of the evil, he alone proposed and ably defended a definite and explicit remedy. So it has been with every other question with which Mr. Bryan has had to deal, in his career as a public man; he has never failed to state his exact position and to take the American people fully and freely into his confidence. And his frankness and honesty have been appreciated. Of the thousand delegates chosen during the first six months of the year 1900 to attend the great Democratic National convention at Kansas City, those from every state but two were instructed for Bryan for President. When it is remembered that this was done in spite of the earnest desire of a number of well-known Democrats who wished it otherwise, but absolutely dared not make a fight, the full significance of this great popular tribute to the defeated candidate of four years before may be understood. It was this unanimity as regarded the candidate, together with the unanimity regarding the issue, the feeling of enthusiasm aroused by the one, and of patriotic fervor excited by the other, that made the Kansas City convention one destined to be memorable in American history. And while the name on the lips of every Democrat was the same name as was pronounced at Chicago four years before, the issue which aroused them by the compelling force of events was entirely different. Then the question was: What kind of money shall this nation have, and who shall issue it and control its volume? Now the question was: What form of government shall this nation have; shall it remain a Republic, as contemplated by the fathers,—the world’s beacon light of liberty,—or shall it turn its face to the past, extinguish its light, and on the dark sea of empire, littered with the flotsam and jetsam of nations that once were great and free, set forth toward the orient? The issue was worthy of the man, and the man, with a reunited and virile Democracy behind him, was prepared to meet it.

No man who was so fortunate as to be present at the Kansas City convention can live long enough to forget it. It was epoch-marking not only for its outward appearance, but for its inward significance. To the onlooker, stirred by its emotional enthusiasm, by the wildness and frenzy of its patriotic manifestations, these were its memorable and significant features. But to him who looked beneath the surface, who knew and saw the strange combat being waged between one man and many hundreds of men,—a combat one of the strangest in nature and most remarkable in its outcome ever waged in a parliamentary body,—it was this that held him entranced to the end, and sent him home marveling at that one man’s strength and greatness. It came about in this wise: Of the hundreds of thousands of Gold Democrats who left the Democratic party in 1896 because of the silver question, ninety per cent. or more were anxious to come back and aid in Mr. Bryan’s nomination and election, now that they believed they saw the Republic itself in danger at the hand of President McKinley and his advisers. They saw, as did the Silver Democrats, as did Mr. Bryan himself, that imperialism was to be the dominating, all-important issue of the campaign. In the shadow of the great danger of the conversion of the Republic into an empire they were willing to subordinate all minor differences and join to defeat the President they had themselves helped to elect four years before. It is true that to these men “free silver” was still a bugaboo. At the same time they were convinced that, because of the complexion of the Senate, with its heavy Republican majority, even should Mr. Bryan and a Democratic House of Representatives be elected on a free silver platform, it would be impossible for them, in four years, to enact any legislation along that line. But nevertheless, after the manner of many a returning prodigal, they demanded a concession. It was a very modest and moderate concession they wanted. They asked the party only to reaffirm instead of reiterating the free silver plank of the Chicago platform.

It can hardly be denied that to reaffirm is, in effect, to reiterate. The difference is only in seeming,—and, possibly, that it gives opportunity for “interpretation” and “construction.” At all events, the Gold Democrats had early gone to work to secure this concession. They had been successful in enlisting in their behalf scores and hundreds of sincere friends of bimetallism in the Democratic party. And when the delegates were gathered at Kansas City it became evident that a large majority of them were favorable to the policy of a general reaffirmation of the Chicago platform without a specific repetition of the demand for free silver at the ratio of sixteen to one. Not only were the most of the delegates inclined to this course, but it was advocated, before the convention met, by a large majority of the influential party leaders. It was, on the part of the leaders, as of most of the delegates, a sincere and honest advocacy, by men whose fealty to the doctrine of bimetallism was undoubted. It was their intent, not to abandon the demand for free silver,—far from it,—for the platform would reaffirm the demand made in 1896,—but to subordinate it in such a way as would do least damage in the fight for the preservation of the Republic. Such was their honest position.

But here the trouble arose. The Gold Democrats, by their very insistence, had made “free silver” the only issue, so far as the convention was concerned. There was no difference among Democrats as to any other plank of the platform. This very fact, and the fact that in every newspaper in the country the one question of discussion and of speculation concerning the convention was whether it would “reaffirm” or “reiterate” had brought the old issue so prominently to the fore-ground that not to reiterate would mean practically to abandon the position, while under fire. Had the issue never been raised, had the fight thereon never been precipitated, it is conceivable, even probable, that there had come from no source any objection to the policy of reaffirming the Chicago platform so far as the old issues were concerned, and making specific declarations on the new ones. But the issue had been raised, and the objection came,—came from William J. Bryan, at his home in Lincoln.

On July 1, R. L. Metcalfe, a delegate at large from Nebraska, after a long consultation with Mr. Bryan gave out an authorized interview in which he declared that there must be a specific declaration on the money question. This was taken as a statement of Mr. Bryan’s position, and David B. Hill, the leader of the Gold Democrats, at once hastened from Kansas City to Lincoln on a futile mission. He wished to induce Mr. Bryan to recede from his position. It became at once evident that there was to be a contest over the money plank of the platform.

On July 3, the day before the convention met, A. S. Tibbets of Lincoln, another delegate-at-large from Nebraska, threw this bomb-shell: “Bryan will not run on any platform which does not contain a specific declaration in favor of free coinage at the ratio of sixteen to one. If this convention does not put that declaration in the platform it will have to nominate another candidate for president.”

This authorized statement was a bugle call to Democrats, reminding them that parties are founded on the bed-rock of principle, and that platforms are made unequivocally to express convictions. Many of the leaders of the party, assembled at Kansas City, took their stand by Bryan’s side, and the fight for sturdy, honest, and manly candor waged fiercely to the end.

Ex-Governor Hill, who had returned from Lincoln, alone among the leaders who had fought for a specific silver plank, boldly and openly continued his fight. He is a hard and stubborn fighter, and he centered his efforts on the organization of the committee on resolutions. He sent for heads of delegations known to be favorable to his plan, and urged upon them the necessity of selecting “careful, conservative, long-headed men,” as members of that important committee. He argued vehemently for the necessity of such action as would “reorganize the party” and make victory assured. “Good God, gentlemen,” the famous New Yorker exclaimed to one delegation with which he was closeted, “we must not lose this election. It means fifty years of republican rule. And if we are wise,” he said, wagging his head solemnly, “we will not lose it. The people want to be with us. Shall we be so generous”—with an oratorical flourish and Frenchified shrug of his expressive shoulders—“as to refuse to allow them to fight our battles?”

Here a Kansan spoke up. “I am not a delegate, senator,” he said, “but I want a conservative platform. If we don’t get it I’ll go home and quit, and I’ve voted the Democratic ticket for fifty years.”

“Wait, wait, my friend,” came the quick response; “don’t, don’t, I pray you, say that. Whether the platform pleases us or not, we must fight, fight to win, fight to the death.” The eyes of the shrewd and wily politician flashed. In quick, nervous staccato he continued: “Mark my words, mark my words. If McKinley and a Republican Congress are elected inside the year a force bill will be fastened upon us. Why? Kentucky; that will be the excuse. And the next move—do you know what it will be? On the pretext that the negro vote is not cast nor counted, the representation of the southern states in Congress will be reduced. Their vote in the electoral college will be diminished, and they’ll have the Democratic party by the throat, bound hand and foot. We must not permit it. We must not.”

The second day before the convention met, the writer of this chapter, in a dispatch to the Omaha _World-Herald_, said:

“There are many Democrats in Kansas City to-night who profess to deplore what they term William J. Bryan’s lack of skill as a “practical politician,” who murmur their complaints that the leader of their party does not understand the gentle art of constructing a platform that will “catch ‘em acomin’ and catch ‘em a gwine,” who complain that Mr. Bryan does not understand that the end and aim of a political party is to get into power—to hold offices and control the patronage of the administration. These men, crafty, cunning diplomats, though not always successful withal, are, it may frankly be admitted, grieved and disappointed at Mr. Bryan’s insistence that the Democratic platform should clearly and explicitly set forth the conviction and the purpose of Democracy’s heart and brain.

“But in all Kansas City, among all the sweltering and noisy crowds that throng the lobbies and march up and down the streets, there can not be found a single man—Democrat, Populist, or Republican—but will confess his admiration of Mr. Bryan’s honesty and courage.

“To the leaders and manipulators of parties, to the men taught and accustomed to play to the pit, Mr. Bryan is a source of ever-increasing wonder and surprise. It is hard for the politician to understand the statesman.

“It it not to be doubted that Mr. Bryan’s wishes are to prevail in the great convention of American patriotism which is to convene to-morrow on the anniversary of the Republic’s birth, to proclaim anew the unchanged and never-changing truths to perpetuate which the blood of heroes and of martyrs was shed on a hundred battlefields.

“The platform will be an honest platform, it will be an easily understood platform, it will conceal nothing, and it will evade nothing. It will there declare, in explicit terms, for independent bimetallism by this country alone, at the present legal ratio of sixteen to one. This prediction may be safely hazarded.

“All day long the leaven has been working, all day long the gospel of candor and righteousness has been preached, and to-night there is not a delegate but knows that Mr. Bryan demands that the Democratic party deal in unequivocal good faith with the people of this country.”

In truth the bold and manly position taken by Mr. Bryan had won him the admiration and respect of the whole country. It demonstrated anew those noble qualities which he possesses in such an unusual degree. The strength of his position was well outlined in an interview given to the New York _Herald_ by Mr. Metcalfe, who led the fight for a specific declaration. Mr. Metcalfe said:

“When the American people know Mr. Bryan better, they will learn that he is not a politician in the popular acceptation of that term, but that he is honestly devoted to his views of fundamental principles, and that, while not an obstinate man, on this question of principle he is as firm as a rock. Men who know him best know him to be a man of iron. He stands to-day determined that the platform on which he is to be a candidate shall contain a plank explicitly pledging independent bimetallism at the ratio of sixteen to one. Those men of the East who do not know the man, and who may be inclined to regard his position on this question as an obstinate one, should know that the same firmness of purpose, the same indifference to appeal even by men known to be friendly to him that characterizes his adherence to the principle in which some of the men of the East believe him to be wrong, will sustain him in the White House on the many great questions on which they believe him to be right.

“The situation is an unusual one as political situations have gone in this country, but the man who is to be the nominee of this convention is an exceptional man. As the prospective nominee of this convention he will not surrender his convictions. As the nominee of the Democratic party in the coming campaign he will not be a dodger. In the White House he will not be a wabbler. When he shall be elected, men who may be saddened by the thought that they have a President who believes in bimetallism at the ratio of sixteen to one may find consolation in the demonstration of the fact that they also have an American president who adheres to the policies and traditions of a republic in preference to the habits of an empire; who draws his inspiration from the great mass of the people, rather than from a coterie of trust agents; whose purpose it is to discharge his duties so that the result shall be the greatest good to the greatest number, rather than to surrender to a handful of men the privilege of administering the government to the end that the many shall bear all the burdens and the few shall enjoy all the benefits.”

The fight in the resolutions committee was a hard and long one. So closely was the committee divided that it was evident that neither side had more than two or three majority. It seemed almost inevitable that a minority and majority report, differing only as to the wording in which the party’s allegiance to silver should be expressed, would go before the convention. And in this event hard feeling would in all probability be engendered, harsh words be spoken, and factionalism and disunion might result. In this crisis, one of the members of the resolutions committee was seized with an inspiration. In a half hour the whole difficulty was solved. The committee unanimously agreed to a specific demand for free silver coupled with the declaration that imperialism was the paramount issue of the campaign.

On July 5 the platform was read and adopted by the convention, and Bryan nominated for president of the United States.

Again the writer incorporates a portion of a dispatch sent by him to the _World-Herald_ descriptive of this memorable session of the convention:

“Never in the history of popular government has there been held a national convention of a great political party that can be likened to that which at Kansas City to-day promulgated its declaration of principles and nominated its candidate for the chief magistracy of the great commonwealth of sovereign American states.

“To-day’s session witnessed scenes of turbulent enthusiasm, of intense patriotic ardor such as have never before been witnessed and such as promise a victory at once glorious and complete for William J. Bryan at the polls next November. It has been a day marked by loftiest patriotism and noblest purposes, a day that for centuries to come will stand clear and distinct as marking an epoch in the cause of human liberty.

“To-day was fired the first gun of that great war which is to be waged during the next four months for the preservation of the Republic and the perpetuation of American institutions. And to-day, on a Democratic platform, addressing a Democratic convention, Webster Davis, Republican orator, statesman, and publicist, denounced in words of burning eloquence Republican abandonment of republican principles, and pledged his loyal and unswerving support to William J. Bryan. And on that same platform David B. Hill, Gold Democrat, stood before wildly cheering thousands, and announced a reunited Democracy.

“’Save the Republic,’ is to be the battle cry, the Declaration of Independence the party creed, ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic’ the battle hymn, and the American flag the party emblem. And the leader, honest, unswerving, and undaunted, is to be the same gallant chieftain who breathed anew the breath of life into Democracy four years ago and marched it to glorious battle. Such, while the fire of patriotism burned fiercely in its heart, was the unanimous decision reached to-day by the Democratic National convention.

“As has been daily predicted in these dispatches, the Democratic party took no backward step on the question of finance.

“There is no attempt at quibbling, at subterfuge, or equivocation. Honesty and candor of the highest order live in this plank of the platform as they have their being in every other plank. There is not a line, a word, or a syllable capable of more than the one meaning; there are no omissions, no half statements, no dodgings of any question. The platform is in every sense worthy of the man—candid, bold, honest, and sincere even as he is candid, bold, honest, and sincere. Most wondrously were the schemes and machinations of the enemies of the Democratic party confounded. For on the single question on which the delegates were divided, as to whether there should be a specific demand for the free coinage of silver at the ratio of sixteen to one by this nation alone, the committee on resolutions brought in a unanimous report and the demand was boldly and specifically made. And the platform in which that demand was incorporated was adopted by the convention, not only with absolute unanimity, but amid the wildest, the most general, and most prolonged enthusiasm.

“In this unanimity spoke the love of every delegate for the Republic. It came because of a realizing sense that popular government and free institutions are in danger. And with that danger threatening, not a man in the convention but felt that all other differences must be buried while the party that founded and builded the Republic rallies to guard the sacred edifice from the vandal hands that are outstretched for its destruction. And thus it was that the great Democratic party reunited, north, south, east, and west clasping hands, love of country in every man’s heart and ‘save the Republic’ on each man’s lip, gave its platform and its candidate to the country.”