would take two carloads at that rate. When the restaurant-keeper assured him that he would take all that the farmer could bring, the farmer returned to his home, and a week later came into the restaurant with four frog's legs. When the restaurant-keeper asked him where those two carloads were, he replied: "When I heard them croaking, I thought they were two carloads, but when I came to catch them they were only two." The story, said Mr. Bryan, had lost much of its point, since the returns had showed that over 1,000,000 Democrats had failed to come to the polls to vote for their party. He was not, however, at all discouraged as to the outlook for the cause which he represented. Tens of thousands of men who believe in the free coinage of silver, he said, had voted the Republican ticket, and he believed that the Silver men in the Democratic party were strong enough to control its final attitude. This faith I then regarded as much too optimistic, but when I met him next his hopes had been fulfilled. It was at St. Louis, during the Republican convention of 1896. While we were dining together, I expressed my feeling that the all-important thing was to secure at Chicago the nomination of a candidate whom the Populists could indorse, and my belief that he was by all odds the most available man. It was the kind of a compliment to try a man's soul, and his stood the trial. Without self-depreciation or selfassertion, he discussed his prospects as if he had been a third person. He realized to the full that, in ordinary years, a man with his sympa. thies could not possibly secure the favor of the forces which dominate national conventions. But he also realized that this was an exceptional year; that the common people were thoroughly stirred throughout the South and West; and that men with his sympathies were likely to control the approaching convention. Three weeks afterwards, the convention was held at Chicago, and Mr. Bryan received the nomination.

The campaign which followed is national history, and no word need be said here as to its char. acter. For those who live in the East, however, and for those also who live in the cities of the West, the extent of the change which the campaign of 1896 wrought in the Democratic party may demand a few words.

State ticket in 1894. In 1896 the vote for Mr. Bryan in Ohio rose to 477,000, or 70,000 more than the vote by which President Harrison had carried the State in 1892. Nor did this gain of 200,000 votes mark the full extent of the change that had been wrought. Thousands of Democrats voted against Mr. Bryan in 1896; and tens of thousands of Republicans-Quaker Republicans, Abolition Republicans-men who had been with the Republican party since 1856-voted for the first time in their lives for the Democratic candidate. Prior to 1896 the cities had been the stronghold of the Democratic party, and the rural districts the stronghold of the Republicans. In 1896 the situation was reversed. Prior to 1896 the immigrant voters had been, as a rule, on the side of the Democrats, and the American-born voters on the side of the Republicans. In 1896 this, too, was changed. It is safe to say that, of the 3,000,000 votes cast for Mr. Bryan in 1896 west of the Alleghanies and north of the Ohio, much less than one-half had voted the Democratic ticket in 1894. It was a new party, numerically stronger than the old, and infinitely surpassing it in the moral enthusiasm which came out of the contest. Eastern Democrats and city Democrats, who demand that the brilliant Silver Republican leader who has been nominated by the Populists for Vice-President ought to be ignored by the National Democratic Convention do not realize how new a party was brought into being by that conflict. The supreme duty of the present campaign is the union of all these forces, and the action of the Populists in nominating the Democratic leader for President and the antiimperialist Silver Republican leader for VicePresident ought to be accepted as a sufficient offering for union on the part of the elements which constitute so large a part of the new Democracy in the pivotal States of the West.

THE CHICAGO PLATFORM.

In 1896 Mr. Bryan was represented in the cities, and even on the farms, in the East as the representative of destructive radicalism. Every plank in the platform was caricatured, and its defenders could get no hearing, because the daily press was almost a unit against them. The plank declaring for the free coinage of silver was represented as a declaration in favor of a 50-cent dollar, though the whole argument for free coinage was that the restoration of silver to the currency would certainly double the demand for silver bullion and almost certainly double its price. Coined silver had never fallen below the legal ratio. In 1890, when a single house of Congress passed a bill for the unlimited purchase of silver at a price not exceeding 16 to 1, the value of

silver bullion rose all over the world to 17 to 1.

Rightly or wrongly, the bimetallist forces believed that free coinage would restore the market value of silver to the ratio which it held for two hundred years, during most of which time silver was relatively more abundant than now. Whether this belief was correct or not, the injustice of the outcry against a "proposed 50-cent dollar" is none the less apparent, because most of the men who supported free coinage supported it only because they believed that it would increase the currency with dollars on a par with gold-which itself, however, would be less in demand. If free coinage at the old ratio failed to have the anticipated effect, the very men who voted for it would vote to change the ratio, or otherwise proviu that a dollar's worth of silver bullion should be back of every dollar issued by the Government. The same thing holds true today. As Mr. Bryan himself has said, "The restoration of silver to the currency does not take away from Congress the power to enact subsequent legislation." The free coinage of silver is not championed by Mr. Bryan or his supporters as a measure of reckless radicalism. They support it because they know that for centuries past the coinage of both metals has hardly increased the currency fast enough to prevent falling prices and business stagnation; and they believe that the acceptance of monometallism, carrying with it the inevitable retirement of all legal-tender silver, means decades of recurring depression, until the credit of the world is adjusted to onehalf of its old foundation. The partial restriction of the coinage of silver since 1873 has not established the logical gold standard. clear-sighted monometallist, all the silver currency of the world is unsound currency; and only when it is replaced by promises to pay gold, and those promises are redeemed in gold, will the world's currency rest upon a sound gold basis. Those who contemplate cutting in two the basis upon which the credits of the world rest are the radicals, and not those who would keep in the world's currency the four billions of silver already there, and add to it year by year the new silver bullion not used in the arts.

To every

The other planks in the Chicago platform met with misrepresentation hardly more justifiable. The plank condemning government by injunction was not a condemnation of equity proceedings; and the demand for an income tax was only a renewal of the demand made by the Republican party in its early days, and made to-day by every liberal party in Western Europe, that a part of the burdens of taxation should rest upon what men own rather than on what they need. Just after the campaign of 1896, the writer had the

pleasure of meeting Mr. Leopold Maxse, the editor of the National Review, of London. Mr. Maxse, I soon found, was heartily in sympathy with the renewed coinage of silver. The action of our federal courts in issuing blanket injunctions against labor organizations, commanding them to refrain from acts legal and illegal, and punishing them without trial by jury for alleged disobedience, seemed to him inconsistent with the precedents of English jurisprudence. The demand of the Chicago platform, that the need of increased. revenues of our national Government should be met by a light tax on the incomes of the rich, instead of a still heavier tax on the necessities of the poor, seemed to him one that all parties ought to support. Presently a chance remark of his seemed to indicate that the National Review was a Conservative magazine. I said to him, in some astonishment, "Do you mean to say that you are a Conservative?" "Yes," he replied; "in England they call me a Tory;-but here, it seems, I am an anarchist."

The fierce passions which marked the campaign of 1896 have now subsided. Men understand each other better; and the raising of new issues, upon which people divide differently, has forced men in all parties to recognize the patriotism of those whom they fiercely condemned as anarchists on the one side or sycophants on the other during the campaign of 1896. The new issues that have been presented have lost Mr. Bryan the support of many voters in the West who supported the free coinage of silver, not as a measure of justice, but as a measure from which their section would receive pecuniary profit. The very same element, in fact, has been powerfully appealed to by the promise of commercial gain for the Pacific Slope held out by the Republicans as a result of the subjugation of the Philippines. Just how the possession of the Philippines is to effect this result, they do not explain; for few of them can calmly deny the truth of Benjamin Franklin's statement, that "the true and sure means of extending and securing commerce are the goodness and cheapness of commodities." But however wrongly held, the belief that the Pacific Slope, at least, will get profit from the conquest of the Philippines, is common among the commercial classes in the far West. One intelligent business man assured the writer that Oriental expansion would restore "dollar wheat," though the same man believed that it would injure us to trade freely with Europe, because of its ill-paid labor. By reason of these commercial dreams, Mr. Bryan is likely to lose largely from his vote of 1896 in the Mining States, and also on the Slope. But what he loses there is likely to be offset, and

offset several times over, by the gains which he has made in the East among the classes which sympathize with his devotion to the interests of the common people and the ideals of American democracy, but who differed from him intellectually respecting the results of bimetallism.

MR. BRYAN AN INDIVIDUALIST.

The first and less important of the new ques. tions that have forced their way to the front during the past four years is that of the trusts. Upon this question Mr. Bryan's attitude is conspicuously that of a conservative. Because it is so, he has lost the support of a few irreconcilable radicals who voted for him in 1896. One of the best thinkers among these remarked to the writer: Why should I support Bryan? He is at heart an individualist." This is preëminently true. Mr. Bryan is at heart an individualist. He believes, it is true, in the municipal ownership of public franchises; but that is because these municipal franchises are inevitably monopolies, and he agrees with the principle of our common law that a private monopoly is essentially hostile to the welfare of a community. The fact, too, that these municipal monopolies must be managed under the oversight of the ordinary voters intensifies his faith that this is a democratic measure. But his advocacy of municipal ownership of municipal monopolies does not give to him the slightest sympathy with the socialist and capitalist programme, that all sorts of manufacturing and other businesses must be allowed to pass into the hands of private monopo lies. He does not believe, with the Socialists, that for the citizens to permit themselves to come under the control of private monopolies is a promising way for them to get the private monopolies under their control; and he does not believe, with the capitalists, that private monop oly secures the welfare either of the public or the employees under its power. Even on the economic side, he knows the inertia which private monopoly has always produced, the restriction of production which monopoly prices have always brought to the industry controlled, and the sluggishness in making inprovements which lack of competition has always engendered. But even did he believe the absurd economic claims put forward in every age by the partisans of monopoly, it would still be hateful to him because of its depressing influence upon the independence, the self-reliance, the manhood of its employees. A nation of irresponsible workmen under the direction of private monopolies is as hateful to his sentiments as a nation of irresponsible subjects under the control of rulers. Indeed, it would be more hateful; for he believes that our republican institutions are, in

large measure, the result of the economic inde. pendence of the mass of our people. To destroy this independence and individual responsibility would be to destroy the best element in our national character. He is, as my Socialist friend said, at heart an individualist; and he therefore would put an end to the protection of trusts by the tariff, and would use all the power of the Government to prevent the contracts by which combinations keep their patrons from buying of competitors, and the secret rebates by which they secure cheaper access to markets.

RAILWAY REGULATION.

He has never, to my knowledge, declared himself in favor of aggressive action regarding the ownership of railroads; but nong ago he sent me, with evident indorsement, an address recently made by Interstate Commerce Commissioner Prouty regarding the proposed amendment of the Interstate Commerce Act, so that the commission shall not only have its present power to declare certain rates unjust, but also have the power originally intended to specify what rates are reasonable. One of the passages in the Republican commissioner's address read as follows:

It is urged by the railways that no commission can deal with these rate situations. The idea seems to be that nobody not specially ordained can deal with a freight rate, and that the right of ordination consists in putting a party on the pay-roll of a railway company. . . . To-day the railway is the sole judge between itself and the public of the rate which it makes. Some tribunal should be devised to which the public can appeal, and from which the public can obtain relief.

The Cullom bill, to give the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to give the public relief,-subject, of course, to an appeal to the higher courts, -Mr. Bryan would undoubtedly support; and with the support of the President, this bill, already demanded by many boards of trade as well as farm organizations, could be made law. With the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized to fix what rates are reasonable, the destruction of the small firms in the small towns by reason of the discriminations in favor of their competitors in the cities could in a large measure be stopped, and by requiring complete publicity for the transactions of railroads the secret concessions granted to powerful individuals and to trusts could in a large measure be prevented. These are not the remedies of a radical, but the remedies of a conservative, who would restore to the rural districts and to the industry of small manufacturers and merchants the rights which are naturally theirs. If the artificial advantages to the trusts were removed, and if the combinations of manufacturers in dif

ferent States to form a monopoly were as effectively prohibited as the combinations of national banks in different towns now are, the menace of the trusts would be largely removed.

THE SUPREME ISSUE.

But the supreme issue in the approaching campaign will not be the trusts. It will not be an economic issue at all. Mr. Bryan typifies the American people in the fact that to him moral issues are of supreme importance, and that the principles of liberty for which this country has always stood are the supreme expressions of the national conscience. He warmly supported the war for the emancipation of Cuba, because he believed that our duty as a neighbor, and our principle that all men have the right of self-government, demanded that we should put an end to the slaughter which was going on at our doors. But when the war for Cuban independence first threatened to turn into a war for the subjugation of the Philippines, Mr. Bryan sounded the note of warning. June 14, 1898, when the first intimations were received that our government did not sympathize with the independence of the Philippines, but was negotiating for their annexation, Mr. Bryan spoke as follows at the trans-Mississippi Exposition at Omaha:

On

History will vindicate the position taken by the United States in the war with Spain. In saying this I assume that the principles which were invoked in the inauguration of the war will be observed in its prosecution and conclusion. If, however, a contest undertaken for the sake of humanity degenerates into a war of conquest, we shall find it difficult to meet the charge of having added hypocrisy to greed. . . If others turn to thoughts of aggrandizement and yield allegiance to those who clothe land-covetousness in the garb of national destiny, the people of Nebraska will, if I mistake not their sentiments, plant themselves upon the disclaimer entered by Congress, and insist that good faith shall characterize the making of peace, as it did the beginning of war.

Four months later, immediately after the sign. ing of the treaty of peace with Spain, Mr. Bryan resigned his commission as colonel of his regiment. In an interview then published, he stated his reasons for resigning, as follows: "Now that the Treaty of Peace has been concluded, I believe I can be more useful to my country as a civilian than as a soldier. 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. Our nation must give up any idea of entering upon a colonial policy such as is now pursued by European powers, or it must abandon

the doctrine that governments obtain their just powers from the consent of the governed." From that time to the present, Mr. Bryan has been unceasing in his demand that the nation should remain true to the principles which Jefferson for. mulated in the Declaration of Independence, and which Lincoln reformulated when he declared that no man is good enough to govern another without that other's consent."

MR. BRYAN'S CHOICE OF POSITION.

At the time that he resigned from the army, Mr. Bryan took one position which has brought down upon him unceasing criticism from one New England anti-imperialist who believed that the annexation of the Philippines should be prevented by the Senate's refusal to ratify the Treaty of Peace. Mr. Bryan's reason for following Lincoln's maxim, that "friends can make laws . . . easier than aliens can make treaties, was at the time clearly stated by himself; but his statement has not received the attention which it deserves. "It will be easier," he said, "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 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." Such a resolution was offered in the Senate, and was only defeated by the casting vote of the VicePresident. The defeat of this resolution laid upon the administration the responsibility of continuing the war.

THE COST OF THE WAR.

The arguments which Mr. Bryan has been making in all parts of the country in favor of treating the Philippines as we are pledged to treat Cuba have been, in the main, arguments addressed to the nation's sense of honor and duty. He has, however, shown the baselessness of the claim that we should continue the war because of the commercial advantages to be secured. The Spanish islands, he has pointed out, are already more densely peopled than our own territory, and can. not, like our expansion toward the West, possibly furnish a field of opportunity for American labor. The plain people of America, who demanded the annexation of Louisiana when the aristocratic class opposed it, are being guided by the same

true instinct when they oppose the annexation of the Philippines, which the capitalist class demands. American labor cannot be benefited by the conquest of tropical islands more densely peopled than our own Eastern States. It cannot go there. The only opening that can be made is for American capital; and even this opening can be better secured if we retain the friendship of the people, as we have that of the Mexicans and Japanese, by respecting their aspirations for independence. It is the height of absurdity, he points out, for the same administration to insist that we should "have an English financial system in order to bring European capital into the States, and also an English colonial policy for the purpose of taking American capital out." Even if the war in the Orient did give additional profit to American capital taken from our own country, these profits would not come to the people who pay the taxes to support the war. To the plain people of the country, upon whom the mass of these taxes would fall, the policy of militarism means nothing but loss; and Mr. Bryan appeals to all who would keep this nation free from militarism to resist the colonial policy, whose first fruits in legislation was the administration's ill-timed advocacy of the bill for the permanent quadrupling of the standing army.

AMERICA'S MISSION.

But Mr. Bryan's principal arguments have never been addressed to the nation's sense of its own economic welfare-not even to its sense of the economic welfare of its poorer classes.

The ques

tion to him has been one of the nation's duty to remain true to those principles of liberty which have been the very life of our own democracy and of the century's struggles for democracy all over the globe. He believes, more profoundly than any of the imperialists, in the greatness of America's mission; for he believes that that mission has been of transcendent importance during the century that is past. In an address delivered upon Washington's Birthday, last year, when speaking of the love of human liberty which this nation has cherished, Mr. Bryan said:

This sentiment was well-nigh universal until a year ago. It was to this sentiment that the Cuban insurgents appealed. It was this sentiment which impelled our people to enter into the war with Spain.

Have the people so changed in a few short months that they are now willing to apologize for the War of the Revolution, and force upon the Filipinos the same system of government against which the colonists protested with fire and sword? The hour of temptation has come, but temptations do not destroy they merely test the strength of individuals and nations; they are either stumbling-blocks or stepping-stones; they lead to infamy or fame, according to the use made of them. If I mistake not the sentiment of the American people, they will spurn the bribe of imperialism, and by resisting temptation, win such a victory as has not been won since the battle of Yorktown. For over ten decades our nation has been a world-power. During its brief existence it has exerted upon the human race an influence more potent for good than all the other nations of the earth combined, and it has exerted that influence without the use of sword or Gatling gun. Mexico and the republics of South and Central America testify to the benign influence of our institutions, while Europe and Asia give evidence of the working of the leaven of selfgovernment. Standing upon the vantage-ground already gained, the American people can aspire to a grander destiny than has opened before any other race. Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual to protect his own rights. American civilization will teach him to respect the rights of others. Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual to take care of himself; American civilization, proclaiming the equality of all before the law, will teach him that his own highest good requires the observance of the commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Such is the appeal made by the leader of the new democracy to the conscience and heart of the American people. He goes before the people appealing to their profoundest patriotic and religious sentiments. He demands that we shall stop the war in the Philippines by treating those islands as we promised to treat Cuba, and as in the past we have treated all the nations of Spanish America. The fundamental principle of our democracy, he affirms, demands that we shall give to the people of the Philippines the government of their choice. The fundamental law of our religion demands that we shall treat them as we ourselves would be treated. In 1900 under Mr. Bryan, as in 1860 under Mr. Lincoln, the party which would lift up the manhood of the poor makes the foundations of the platform the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule. Dare men of conscience repudiate these principles; dare they refuse to apply them to the supreme issue pressing for settlement?