October 12

Minneapolis, MN (Excerpt)

William Jennings Bryan, The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896 (Chicago: W.B. Conkey Company, 1896), 538-547.

"Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Before entering upon the discussion of any political question, I desire to express my appreciation of the kindly feeling which has prompted the gift presented to me in your presence. I am the more gratified because of the source from which it comes. When I was in St. Louis a few weeks ago, the horseshoers presented to me a silver horseshoe which I promised to hang over the doors of the White House, if I am elected. Over in St. Paul last Saturday night the laboring men gave me a pen with a silver holder with the instruction that I should use them in signing the free coinage bill which will come to me if I am elected. And tonight the laboring men of this city have been thoughtful enough to provide me with this beautiful inkstand, which is a part of the necessary outfit. Now that I have a pen, pen-holder and inkstand, I only need the ink to be properly equipped for the walk.

As I remarked to the laboring men of St. Paul, I would not favor the free coinage of silver did I not believe that it would be for the best interests of those who toil. I have not belonged to that class known distinctively as workingmen, being a lawyer by profession, but I have been taught that the legal profession must have something to rest upon. Lawyers do not produce wealth, and unless wealth is first produced they will suffer. I believe that all the classes which rest upon the producers of wealth can only prosper permanently when the producers of wealth are prosperous, and, therefore, I am not unselfish when I desire such legislation as will enable the people to have more than enough to eat and drink and wear. I want them to have enough to be comfortable, because until they produce there is nothing to distribute, and if they simply produce without enjoying, the production of wealth will be so discouraged that production will finally cease.

I desire to say also before proceeding further that I appreciate the honor which has been done me tonight by these veterans of the war who have marched as a body guard. I would not receive the support of these soldiers if I thought their interests could not be intrusted to those who believe in an American financial policy. I am confident that the interest of those who fought thirty years ago that this Union might be one will be safe in the hands of those who are fighting today a great battle which will determine whether this nation, being one, is big enough to attend to its own business. I am informed that the Republicans have been circulating in this city an editorial which was once published in the Omaha World-Herald. I was editor of the Omaha World-Herald for nearly two years, but my editorial work began about two years after the publication of the editorial to which I refer. That editorial criticised pension legislation, but those who are circulating it know that it was published before I was at all connected with the paper, and that I was in no way responsible for it. If they have not known it heretofore, they know it now, and will not be free from criticism if they use it hereafter. The fact that they attempt to use an editorial which I did not write is proof that they have not found anything in my four years of Congressional life which they can use.

Let me call your attention to another matter. In my travels over the country I have received letters asking me to answer all kinds of questions. I do not always pay attention to these requests because I desire to make my own speech instead of having it outlined for me by men who do not have as much interest in our cause as I have, but I have received a letter today from so distinguished a citizen of Minneapolis that I think I am justified in making some reference to it. The letter is dated October 12 and signed by W. D. Washburn, who is, I believe, an ex-Senator from this State. In this letter he asks me many questions about my votes and speeches in the House of Representatives on the tariff bill. I answer these questions by respectfully referring him to the Congressional Record, but when he asks me to enter into a discussion of the tariff question I reply to him that there is a question before the American people of far greater importance. The tariff question can be settled at any time, but there is one question which must be settled now. If he wants me to discuss the tariff, I reply to him that if he will join me in putting a prohibitory duty on foreign financial policies I will then discuss the rest of the schedule with him. If he is not willing to discriminate against that foreign product by. a prohibitory duty, then I suggest that he wait until the money question is set tied by international agreement and afterward submit the tariff question to inter-national agreement. I am not going to discuss the tariff question, because I desire to call your attention to the paramount issue of this campaign, declared to be so by three political parties, and considered so even by the Republicans, who are afraid to discuss it and are attempting to drag in the tariff question instead.

But there is a part of the letter which I think you ought to hear. It is good, and I am not willing to deny you any good thing. He says:

'The audience will be composed, I presume, very largely of laboring men and wage earners, all of a high order. This class of people, like others, dominated by human selfishness so far as their own interests are concerned, naturally prefer to receive their wages in dollars worth one hundred cents, rather than in those worth only fifty-three cents.'

I take for my text the words 'like others, dominated by human selfishness so far as their own interests are concerned.' Laboring men, I want to ask you why it is that every goldbug says you are selfish and that your vote will be influenced by selfish considerations, while he pretends to be a philanthropist and insists that he loves honest money simply because it will help other people. I want to know why it is that these goldbugs are so sure that everybody else will be influenced by selfish considerations and so positive that personal interests cannot affect them. Why is it, my friends? I will tell you why. If a man believes that a proposed law is good for himself and also good for others, he will admit that it is good for himself; but if he thinks a law is good for him-self and bad for others, he will not admit that it is good for him. Now, that is a rule which you can examine and apply in everyday life, and you will find that men never deny that a thing is good for them so long as they can show that others share the benefit. It is only when they believe that they prosper by the adversity of others that you find them denying the benefit to themselves.

There is one thing that I like about the advocates of free coinage, and that is that they do not pose as 'holier than thou' people. Ask a silver man why he wants bimetallism, and he says that he wants it because it is good for him and he believes that it is good for others also. He knows that the gold standard destroys opportunity for work and increases the number of idle men, and he knows that idle men are a menace to his own employment. Ask a farmer why he wants bimetallism and he will tell you that he believes it is good for him and for others also. He tells you that he suffers from falling prices, and that he believes the only way to stop falling prices is to increase the volume of standard money, and he knows that that can only be done by restoring silver to its ancient position by the side of gold. Ask a business man why he wants bimetallism, and he will tell you that he believes bimetallism will be good for him and for others also. He will tell you that he makes a living out of those to whom he sells, not out of those from whom he borrows. He will tell you that he can sell more goods when people are able to buy, and that, therefore, he believes bimetallism will bring prosperity. But ask one of the great financiers why he is in favor of the gold standard. Will he say that it is because it is good for him? You never heard one of them say that. Some of them even say that free coinage will be good for them but that they do not want anything which will help them. They pretend to want the gold standard because it will be good for the laboring man. Yes, my friends, those financiers are so concerned about those who toil, that whenever one of them is troubled with sleeplessness, his physician never asks him the cause of the trouble but just tells him that his sleep will be restored if he will quit worrying about- the laboring man. The financier says that he is in favor of the gold standard because it will help the farmer, the laborer, and the business man. When you tell him that the laboring men, the farmers and the business men are willing to risk bimetallism, he rises to the full height of his moral stature and exclaims:

'But shall I let them hurt themselves?'

No, he will cram the gold standard down their throats whether they want it or not, and he will justify his conduct on the ground that he loves them better than he loves himself. Do you believe it, my friends? I do not. I say that the financier is just as good as anybody else, but I deny that he is better. I am willing to admit that he is as unselfish as others, but I deny that he is more unselfish. I challenge you to find in six thousand years of recorded history a single page which proves that the owning and loaning of money purges man-kind from the dross of selfishness.

Is Mr. Washburn, 'like others, dominated by human selfishness?' Are all people dominated by human selfishness? If so, does it not explain why the heads of the trusts are against our ticket? But why don't they say that it is because they are dominated by human selfishness and know that the election of the Chicago ticket will hurt the trusts? Why is it that the bond syndicates are against us? Is it because they are dominated by human selfishness? Why don't these men come out and openly declare that they are opposed to our platform because it interferes with their business of bleeding the government? But no, we are told that these financiers are unselfish, and that in spite of all the good that free coinage would bring to them, they have the moral courage to turn their backs upon their own welfare and plead for the welfare of the common people.

But there is another thing which I wish you would notice. I believe Mr. Washburn is a large employer of labor. Now if he is dominated by human selfishness, why is he worrying so much about the possibility of having to pay his employes in fifty-three cent dollars? If his employes are to be paid in cheap dollars, then Mr. Washburn will make a larger profit out of their labor, and he ought to rejoice over it if he, "like others, is dominated by human selfishness;" but no, he desires to pose before his employes as one who is willing to deny himself the advantage of paying in cheap dollars in order that the employes may not lose by free coinage. What reason have you to believe that he is less selfish than his employes? Now, my friends, I want to say to you that you cannot suffer if you are his employes, because any man who is interested enough in his employes to warn them of the-evil effects of free coinage before the election, will love his employes well enough after the election to take care of them. If under free coinage the dollar will be a fifty-three cent dollar, then Mr. Washburn can get nearly twice as many of such dollars for his product, and he can, therefore, pay wages which will buy as much as the wages paid today and still make as much profit as he does now. If he loves you, therefore, he will not let you suffer, and if he does not love you well enough to protect you after the election, then you have reason to doubt the love which he pretends before the election, when he tries to make you vote as he votes.

We are in favor of bimetallism, and we support our claim by logic which cannot be overcome, and our opponents prove their inability to meet us on this question when they attempt to turn the discussion to some other question. Mr. Washburn complains of the Wilson bill. I arrived in town late this after-noon, and was handed an envelope containing an extract from a speech which Mr. Washburn delivered in the Senate of the United States on the 11th day of July, 1892. I have not had an opportunity to verify this speech by the Congressional Record. I make this explanation because I am careful not to do any one an injustice, and when I read this I will ask Mr. Washburn, if he is in the room, to say whether I am quoting him correctly. (After a pause.) He does not seem to be here. I will read this, and if when I am gone you learn that it is an incorrect quotation, I ask you to give it no further consideration. In this extract I find that Mr. Washburn gives the price of wheat beginning with the year 1865 and continuing to 1890, and in speaking of the price he uses these words:

'The hopes of the producer have been turned to ashes, the grain dealer and miller and the business men have been disappointed. The balance of trade in favor of this country that everyone looked to with so much assurance, has been much below the general estimate, probably due to the depreciation of the prices in agriculture and fruit exports of $200,000,000. Gold is still leaving the country, and there is but little left to support general business, and I think there is a general disappointment that with the tariff of 1590 we do not see better times.'

If this quotation is correct, then Senator Washburn tells you that there was general disappointment that the tariff of 1890 was not followed by better times. And again he says:

'The people of the country were startled, I certainly was, when the statement was made in one of the magazines a few weeks since, that one-half of the volume of wealth of this country is owned by thirty-six thousand persons.

And still again he says:

'The millionaires, and the tens of millionaires, and the hundreds of millionaires have never created nor earned their wealth, and the royal road to wealth has been through illegitimate speculation, stock exchanges and grain gambling, railroad wrecking and trusts, and the whole volume of iniquities that have developed in the nefarious methods of the stock exchanges of this country.'

Now then, my friends, this Senator has expressed his alarm over the fact that over half of the wealth of the country is owned by only thirty-six thousand persons, that the millionaires have neither created nor earned their wealth, and that the royal road to wealth has been through illegitimate speculations, stock and grain gambling, railroad wrecking, trusts, etc. Ought the Senator to be surprised if we are alarmed now at the same thing which scared him four years ago? And ought he not to be alarmed now when he finds that nearly every man whom he described there, and nearly every class which he denounced there, unite in supporting of the same ticket which he is supporting? If it is alarming that thirty-six thousand people own half the wealth of the country, is it not also alarming that these same people are uniting to control legislation in order that they may continue to dominate the politics of this country? Is it not alarming that all the great trusts of this country have gathered together behind the bulwark which the Republican party has thrown up, and have contributed to a corruption fund which has no parallel in the political history of this country? Is it not alarming that these combinations are seeking to control the election in order that they may get back out' of the people more than they spent in trying to overcome the people?

Now, my friends, a cause is known, like an individual, by the company it keeps, and if you will only look for a moment at the company it is keeping, you will get a good idea of the gold standard. Show me those who have preyed upon the public, show me those who have used the instrumentalities of government for private gain, and I will show you the men who think my election will be dangerous to this country. I am not surprised that in Minnesota and elsewhere Republicans are leaving the Republican party when they find that it is drawing to it all those Democrats whom the Republicans in the past have been in the habit of denouncing. I am glad that we have the support of these Republicans. I am glad that, when some of our political leaders are deserting us, so many Republicans are coming forward to fill up the ranks and carry on this fight. The Republican who is near by in such a fight as this is better than the Democrat who is afar off.

The Republicans who are joining with us in this campaign have the consolation of knowing that in doing so they are not compelled to abandon the convictions which they have followed in times past. There is a wide difference between the Republicans who come to us and the Democrats who go from us. The Democrats who go from us must fall upon their knees and beg pardon to Senator Sherman for all the bad words the Democratic party has spoken against him, while the Republicans who come to us can come bringing in their hands the Republican platform which was adopted in this very hall four years ago. That platform said, 'The American people, from tradition and interest, favor bimetallism.' Do traditions change in four years? No, my friends, you cannot change traditions in so short a time, neither can you forget them. Do the interests of the people change in four years? No, their interests are the same now that they were four years ago, and if the Republican party declared four years ago that the American people, from tradition and interest, favor bimetallism, the Republican bimetallist have a right to stand on the same declaration today even though the Republican party may retreat from its position and go across the ocean to find its inspiration.

There is an important difference between those who espouse the cause of bimetallism and those who desert bimetallism. The man who comes to us is always willing to rise before any audience and describe the road by which he came and the arguments which converted him, but the Democrat who goes from us never states the real cause which dragged him out of the Democratic party. I think it was Senator Morgan who stated that there are two kinds of conversion. He mentioned Saul of Tarsus as illustrating one kind. Saul at first persecuted the Christians and afterward became a preacher of the Christian faith. Aaron was cited as an illustration of the second kind of conversion. He started out a worshiper of the true God and afterward set up a golden calf. Now, if you will remember, Saul, when he became Paul the apostle, gloried in relating his experience. He told how he was stricken with blindness, and how at last the scales fell from his eyes and he saw, but Aaron always was ashamed of that calf business. And on, my friends, with those who come to us they have nothing to conceal; they are perfectly willing to tell where they stand and why they stand there; they are among the most zealous of our recruits. I used to think it might be well to have a mourners' bench for those who were coming to us, but they do not come mourning; they come rejoicing. They are not sorry at all, they are happy. They come with the enthusiasm of missionaries who go forth to preach the gospel to others, while those who go from us are only able to say in explanation of their conduct that if we had the free coinage of silver, it would be awful. Some of them are so under the control of the financiers that we have reason to doubt whether their change is found in the head or is merely a device for extending their notes at the bank.

There are reasons for bimetallism, and those reasons are so plain and simple that they can be easily understood, and when we preach bimetallism we are able to give a reason for our faith.

We are told that all we need is confidence. This confidence idea, my friends, is not a new one; it is at least eighteen hundred years old. I find in the Bible a rebuke of the same kind of confidence which is being preached today. I read there these words, "If a brother or sister be naked or destitute and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and fed, notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the body, what does it profit?" If you tell our opponents that laborers, who are idle in the streets because the gold standard has made it more profitable to hoard money than to employ labor in the development of the resources of the country, are naked and hungry, their only answer is, 'Be ye clothed and fed;' but they give them nothing to eat or to wear. Tell these financiers that the farmer has found his prices falling when he sold his products, without his taxes, debts and fixed charges falling; tell them that the farmer has reached a point where the income from his farm is not more than sufficient to pay his debts, his taxes and his fixed charges; tell them that falling prices have about extinguished the farmer's living expenses, and that he is needing food and clothing, and they say to the farmer, 'Be ye clothed and fed' without giving him anything to eat or wear. They are preaching the same doctrine that was rebuked eighteen hundred years ago, and it should be rebuked now. It is a confidence game, my friends. If you ask them to have confidence in you, you will find that confidence is very one sided in this game. If you say to the men who have accumulated their money among you, 'Can't you trust us to make laws? Can't you trust those who produce wealth to have a voice in the Government?' and some of them will reply to you that the people are a rabble, and that they doubt their capacity to make laws. If you have a farm which is worth half what it used to be and try to borrow on it, the banker will tell you that it is not worth as much as it used to be; and if you ask him to have confidence that the price will go up, what will he say? He will reply, 'Wait until the price goes up and then I will have confidence.' If you ask the financier to loan you money on the prospect of better times, he will tell you to wait until the good times come. He will compel you to wait until you have some security. They are asserting that the restoration of confidence is the only belief that can come to this country, while we are trying to secure a foundation for confidence to rest upon.

When money goes up, property goes down. A dollar cannot buy more unless property sells for less. You can make a dollar buy as much as you like. If the dollar does not buy enough now, you can make it buy more. A dollar is a creature of law. When we talk about legislation in regard to money, cur opponents tell us that commerce regulates money. I ask them why they did not trust commerce to demonetize silver in 1873? Why was it that they invoked the law to strike silver down at that time? We have as much right to invoke the law to restore silver as they had to degrade it. The silver dollar was worth three cents more than the gold dollar in 1873, and if you ask our opponents why they demonetized silver, they will probably tell you that it was because silver was worth too much, and if you ask them why they do not remonetize it, they will tell you that it is not now worth enough. They will tell you that they demonetized silver because it was going abroad, and they refuse to remonetize it for fear it will come back again. The opponents of silver have invoked the law at every opportunity, but they always dispute the efficacy of law when we desire to legislate. They invoked the law in 1893 when they wanted to repeal the purchasing clause of the Sherman law, and what reason did they give? They said that the purchase of silver was making gold go abroad, and yet, after they repealed the Sherman law, gold went abroad faster than it did before. When gold went abroad before 1893 we were issuing paper money in its place, but when they repealed the law and stopped the issue of money, gold still went abroad and we had nothing to take its place. According to the Treasury report we have $150,000,000 less in actual circulation than we had two years ago, whereas we ought to have an increase. Notwithstanding this actual decrease in the circulation within two years, the Republican party is offering no plan to stop the decrease. In 1890, when Senator Sherman spoke in favor of the Sherman law, he gave for the reason of its adoption that it added to the currency something like $54,000,000 a year, and he submitted an argument to prove that the country needed that amount of new money every year. If we need $50,000,000 of new money each year to keep pace with population and industry, and instead of having $50,000,000 a year for the last two years, have had a deficiency of $150,000,000, then we now have $250,000,000 of money less in circulation than we should have according to Senator Sherman's estimate. But Mr. Sherman does not stand alone. Other Republicans have made the same argument in favor of an increase of the currency. Read for instance the speech made in the House of Representatives by the Republican candidate for the presidency in defense of that same Sherman bill. He stated in that speech that we need more money. The Bland act was then furnishing about $24,000,000 a year of new money, but Mr. McKinley said we needed more than that, and voted to increase the amount to $54,000,000 per year, and yet at this time when, instead of having $24,000,000 a year increase, we have a decrease of $75,000,000 a year, he says that we do not need more money but only need to put the money we now have at work. Why should money go to work when it is more valuable in a vault than when invested in enterprise? We are told that we should open the mills instead of the mints. My friends, your mills could be opened now if the people were able to buy what the mills produce. What is the use of opening mills when the people are not able to buy the output? If you cannot dispose of what you produce, you have simply to follow the opening process with the closing process. You have here a great city and adjoining you another great city-the twin cities of the northwest. These cities rest upon your broad and fertile plains. If you make it impossible for the farmer to buy, I ask you how are the merchants of Minneapolis and St. Paul going to sell? If you destroy the value of farm products, you lessen the amount of money brought into this country by exports, and when you lessen the amount of money derived from the sale of these products, you lessen the amount of money which the farmers have to expend in the purchasing of the things which you have for sale. Are St. Paul and Minneapolis going to be made prosperous by making the foreign financier prosperous? It is your farmers who are going to buy the things which you produce, and we had better take care of them instead of making legislation to suit the financier. We are told that this is a business question. In one sense it is, and if the gold standard advocate will use his ballot to advance his interests, why should not the producers of wealth in all the States use their ballots to protect themselves from the invasion of this foreign policy? If I were to tell one of you that your house was on fire, that your family was in danger, would you be unconcerned? Suppose I told you that only one-half of your house was to be burned, would you say 'If it is only half, I do not care about that.' No, if anybody attempted to burn any part of your house you would resent it as a personal injury; the gold standard has for its ultimate object the destruction of a large part of the value of your house and of your land, and a large part of the value of your farms and factories; can you remain indifferent while this policy is marching toward you? Instead of sitting still, do you invite it to come? Instead of being inactive do you help to fasten it upon yourselves and upon your children? That is what the Republican party asks you to do. The Republican party tells you that the gold standard must be maintained until the leading commercial nations will join you in abandoning it.

I can appeal to Democrats as the regular nominee of the Democratic party; I can appeal to Populists as the regular nominee of that party; I can appeal to the Silver Republicans as the regular nominee of the Silver party; but I can appeal to you all on a higher ground than mere party regularity; I can urge a higher claim than mere party regularity can give-I am the only presidential candidate prominently before the people who believes that the American people are able to attend to their own financial business. Do you say that we must wait for foreign help? I reply that we have waited for twenty years. We have sent three commissions abroad and they have come back to us empty handed. Three national parties have now declared that the time for waiting has past. Three parties have declared that we shall wait no longer, and that the people of the United States, rising in their strength, shall declare for the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. You ask, "Can we do it?" Upon that question we are ready to meet the opposition. We are ready to state our reasons. There is only one way to find out and that way is by trying; our opponents will never find out by waiting. If you tell me that there is danger in our system, I reply that the worst thing which you can prophesy as a result of free coinage is better than the best thing that you can hope for under the gold standard; and more than that, we not only believe we have the strength and ability to furnish a use for silver that will take all the surplus silver upon the market and maintain the parity at 16 to 1, but we believe that the action of the United States instead of discouraging other nations, will compel them to join with us. So long as our foreign creditors can drive down the price of our products and drive up the value of the money which we pay them, they will have a selfish interest in maintaining the gold standard and depressing prices, and if-to follow up Mr. Washburn's suggestion-they are dominated by human selfishness, they will do it. What will be the result when we open our mints to the free coinage of silver? Do you say that foreign creditors will draw all their money. out of this country? If they try that, how far would they go before they got all the gold? We have not gold enough in this country to pay one-tenth of our foreign indebtedness, and if our foreign creditors attempted to collect all their debts they would have to take nine-tenths of it in silver or in products. When our foreign creditors find that the American people have opened the mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver and made silver a legal tender equal with gold, so that all coin obligations can be discharged in silver, then they will become interested with us in making the silver dollar as good as the gold dollar. We have their selfishness against us and we have suffered from it. Open the mints to the free and unlimited coinage of silver, and we will bring their selfish interests over to our side of the question. Open our mints, give us the double standard, and then we stand as the mistress of the world's commerce. We will then invite the trade of the gold standard countries and the trade of the silver standard countries also, and the other commercial nations would have to come to the double standard or be outstripped in the race. Washington, in his farewell address, not only warned our people against foreign influence in our domestic affairs, but stated what everybody must know to be true, that disinterested favors are not to be expected between nations. One nation cannot be expected to help another merely out of philanthropy, but nations will join together in the promotion of those things which are mutually beneficial. As soon as we have shown our determination to act alone and to protect ourselves against the degrading influences of a gold standard, you will find that other nations will be willing to act with us, but they will not act with us so long as they can run our finances and attend to our business for us. I believe that nothing good can come to our people until we have turned over a new leaf in our financial policy. Instead of having the financiers of Wall street call the Secretary of the Treasury before them and tell him what he must do, I believe the time has come when the Secretary, standing as the representative of seventy millions of people, ought to call the financiers before him and tell them what they must do, and then make them do it. When you know my views on this subject, you will know why I am not considered a safe man by the Wall street financiers. For twenty years the great financial influences have dominated the national conventions of the two great parties. The same financial influences have written the platforms and have nominated the candidates. Those platforms have been substantially similar, and have held out the hope of international bimetallism, while those elected have been known as 'safe men.' The financiers have nominated candidates entertaining similar views on the financial question, and then have been able to sit back and say, 'They are both good men.' The only trouble in this campaign was that they only got one good man; only one candidate for the presidency who was a safe man in the opinion of the New York financiers.

We do not expect the support of the men who have made a profit out of the disasters of the Government after they have brought those disasters upon the Government. We do not expect the support of those financiers who have been saving the honor of the nation at so much per save for the last twenty years, but when we lose them, I think, my friends, we have a right to appeal to the great majority of the people who are tired of wearing the yoke which has been fastened upon them."