Grand Rapids Herald-Review Newspaper, August 18, 1900, Page 3

BRYAN IS NOTIFIED @ORMAL CEREMONY OCCURS AT INDIANAPOLIS, Made the Occasin of a Popular Dem- onstration—Marks the Beginning of the Democratic National Cam- paign — Stevenson 16 Also In- formed of His Nomination — Mr. Bryan in His Speech Promised, if Elected, to Convene Congress Im- mediately to Remedy the Philip- pine Situation, Indianapolis, Ind., Aug. 10.—Hon. W. J. Bryan and Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson were yesterday in this city officiaily and formally notified of their nomina- tions by the Democras at their re- cent Kansas City convention to the of- fices respectively of president and vice; president of the United States. ne ceremony was made the occasion of a popular demonstration, and with it the Democrats may be fairly said to have begun their national campaign. The notification occurred in the mili- tary park, a beautifully shaded tract of ground in the center of the city. The park contains probably thirty acres of ground, and it was well Covered With People. The ceremony was preceded by a parade through the principal streets of the city, which was participated in by a number of visiting and local Demo- cratic clubs. Th acted as an es- cort to the notification party, and the cavaleade was an imposing one. The meeting began a few minutes after 3 o'clock and concluded at 5:40. In this period of time five speeches were made. Mayor Taggart added a wel- coming address to the two notifica- tion speeches of Representatives Rich- ardson and Thomas and the responses made by Mr. Bryan and Mr. Steven- son. The meeting was called to order in a brief speech of welcome by Mayor Thomas Taggart of this city, who concluded his remarks by introducing Senator James K. Jones of Arkansas. Senator Jones Presides. Senator Jones made no speech upon taking the chair, but confined his re- marks to the simple introduction of the speakers to the audience. Mr. Richardson, to whose lot as permanent chairman of the national convention fell the duty of notifying Mr. Bryan of his nomination, made the first of the notification addresses. Probably no man ever made an important speech under greater difficulties than those which beset Mr. Richardson, but he acquitted himself creditably under the circumstances. He arose to face a Sea of Upturned Faces. ‘The sun was throwing its rays directly upon many of them, and besides they were there to hear Mr. Bryan. There were loud cries of “Cut it short,” “Give Bryan a chance,” “We can't stand it here,” and other signs of im- patience. For a time Mr. Richardson did not appear perturbed by this clam- or, but when there appeared to be real danger of serious results he brought his remarks to a somewhat precipitate close, speaking for only fifteen min- utes. Notwithstanding the general confusion Mr. Richardson was ap- plauded in many places, and especially so when he referred to the “Sulu slavery and oriental harems” included in the Philippine acquisition. Mr. Bryan Introduced. There was an immediate change of deportment on the part of the crowd when Mr. Bryan arose. He was intro- duced at 3:30 by Chairman Jones, and as if ordered for the occasion, a light breeze sprang up, which evidently had the effect of bringing some relief to the overheated and much crowded mass of people. Mr. Bryan read his speech, de- parting not from his manuscript ex- cept in a word of explanation at the beginning of his address. The Demo- cratic leader never appeared to better advantage. His face was slightly flushed but his eye was clear and calm and his voice was never more completely at his command. Appar- ently No Strong Point Was Lost to any one present. Among the senti- ments of the speech which were ap- plauded with especial zest were those declaring that under existing circum- stances “we dare not educate the Filipinos lest they learn to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; that he would never agree to exchange the glory of this country for that of all the empires; that “it is not necessary to own a people in order to trade with them,” and that the command “Go ye {nto all the world and preach the gos- pel” has no gatling gun attachmént. ‘There was also general cheering over the promise to Convene Congress Immediately to remedy the Philippine situation if elected. This declaration was as fol- lows: “If elected, I shall convene congress in extraordinary session as soon as I am inaugurated, and recommend an immediate declaration of the nation’s purpose—first, to establish a ‘stable form of government in the Philippine islands, just as we are now establish- ing a stable government in the island of Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos, just as we have prom- ised to give independence to the Cu- bans; third, to protect the Filipinos from outside interference while they work out their destiny, just as we have protected the republics of Cen- tral and South America, and are, by the Monroe doctrine, pledged to pro- tect Cuba.” But no part of the address received the Earnest Commendation thst was bestowed upon the perora- tion. This called out an outburst that ;Was both tumultuous and prolonged. Mr. Bryan concluded at 4:40, and was promptly followed by Gov. C. S, Thom- as of Colorado, who introduced Mr. \Stevenson. Mr. Thomas spoke for only ten minutes, but he made a very ef- sity So speech. He received very gen- jeral attention and was given frequent jand generous applause. Mr. Stevenson ‘was apparently slightly nervous as The Time Approached for him to take the stand, but he goon gained confidence as he pro- eeeded. Mr. Bryan lead the liberal ap- plause which greeted the appearance of his fellow candidate as he advanced to the front, and many points of the speech were Hberally punctured by a repetition of applause as the speech proceeded. He read from his manu- script, but held the majority of his audience to the end. Mr. Stevenson closed amid liberal applause at 5:40 o'clock, and Senator Jones immediate- ly declared the meeting adjourned sine die. MR. BRYAN’S SPEECH. Full Text of the Speech of Accept- ance. Mr. Chairman and Members of the No- tification Committee: I shall, at an early day, and in a more formal manner, ac- cept the nomination which you tender, and I shall at that time discuss the vari- ous questions covered by the Democratic platform. It may not be out of place, however, to submit a few observations at this time upon the general character of the contest before us, and upon the ques- tion which is declared to be of paramount importance in this campaign. When I say that the contest of 1900 is @ contest between Democracy on the one hand and plutocracy on the other, I do not mean to say that all our opponents have delib- erately chosen to give to organized wealth a predominating influence in the affairs of the government, but I do assert that on the important issues of the day the Republican party is dominated by those influences which constantly tend to elevate pecuniary considerations and ig- nore human rights. In 1859 Lincoln said that the Repub- lican party believes in the man and the dollar, but that in case of conflict it be- lieved in the man before the dollar. This is the proper relation which should éxist between the two. Man, the handiwork of God, comes first; money, the handiwork of man, is of inferior importance. Man is the master; money the servant. But upon all important questions to-day Republican legislation tends to make money the master and man the servant. The maxim of Jefferson, ‘Equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” and the doctrine of Lincoln that this should be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” are being dis- regarded, and the instrumentalities of government are being used to advance the interests of those who are in a posi- tion to secure favors from the govern- ment. The Democratic party is not making war upon the honest acquisition of wealth; it has no desire to discourage in- dustry, economy and thrift. On the eon- trary, it gives to every citizen the great- est stimulus to honest toil, when it prom- ises him protection in the enjoyment of the proceeds of his labor. Property rights are most secure when human rights are respected. Democracy strives for a civil- ization in which every member of society will share according to his merits. Republicans who three years ago con- demned ‘‘forcible annexation’’ as im- moral and even criminal are now sure that: it is both immoral and criminal to oppose forcible annexation. That parti- sanship has already blinded many to pres- ent dangers is certain; how large a por- tion of the Republican party can be drawn over to the new politics remains to be seen. For a time Republican leaders were in- clined to deny to opponents the right to criticise the Philippine policy of the ad- ministration, but upon investigation they found that both Lincoln and Clay assert- ed and exerdised the right to criticise a president during the progress of the Mex- ican war. Instead of meeting the issue boldly and submitting a clear and positive plan for dealing with the Philippine question, the Republican convention adopted a plat- form the greater part of which was de- voted to boasting and self-congratulation. In attempting to press economic ques- tions upon the country to the exclusion of those which involved the very struc- ture of our government, the Republican leaders give new evidence of their aban- donment of the earlier ideals of the party and of thefr complete subserviency to pecuniary considerations. But they shall not be permitted to evade the stupendous and far-reaching issue which they have’ deliberately brought into the arena of politics. When the president, supported by a practically unanimous vote of the house and senate, entered upon a war with Spain for the purpose of aiding the struggling patriots of Cuba, the country, without regard to party, applauded. Although the Demo- erats recognized that the administration would necessarily gain political tage from the conduct of a war which, in the very nature of the case, must soon end in a complete victory, they vied with the Republicans in the support which they gave to the president. When the war was over and the Republican leaders began to suggest the propriety of a colonial policy, opposition at once man- ifested itself. When the president final- ly laid before the senate a treaty which recognized the in- dependence of Cuba, but provided for the cession of the Philippine islands to the United States, the menace of im- perialism became so apparent that many preferred to reject the treaty and risk the ills that might follow rather than take the chances of correcting the errors of the treaty by the independent action otf this country. I was among the number of those who believed it better to ratify the treaty and end the war, release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures, and then give the Filipinos the independence which might. be forced from Spain by a new treaty. Even now we are beginning to see the paralyzing influence of imperialism. Heretofore, this nation has been prompt to express its sympathy with those who were fighting for civil liberty. While our sphere of activity has been limited to the Western hemisphere, our sympathies have not been bounded by the seas. We have felt it due to ourselves and to the world, as well as to those who were struggling for the right to govern them- selves, to proclaim the interest which our people have, from the date of their own independence, felt in every contest between human rights and arbitrary power. Our opponents, conscious of the weak- ness of their cause, seek to confuse im- perialism with expansion, and have even dared to claim Jefferson as a supporter of their policy. Jefferson spoke so freely and used language with such precision that no one can be ignorant of his views. On one occasion he declared: “If there be one, principle more deeply rooted than another in the mind of every Ameri- can, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.” And. again he said: “Conquest is not our principles; it is inconsistent with our government.” The forcible annexation of territory to | be governed by arbitrary power differs advan- | as much from the acquisition of terri to be built up into states as monarchy differs from a democracy. cratic.party does not oppose expansion, when expansion enlarges the area of the republic and incorporates lands which can be settled by American citizens, or adds to our population people who are willing to become citizens and are capable of dis- charging their duties as such. The ac- quisition of the Louisiana territory, Flor- ida. Texas and other tracts which have been secured from time to time, enlarged the republic, and the Constitution fol- lowed the flag into the new territory. It is now proposed to seize upon distant territory already more densely populated than our own country, and to force upon the people a government for which there is no warrant in our Constitution or our laws. A colonial policy means that we shall send to the Philippines a few traders, a few task-masters and a few officeholders and an army large enough to support the authority of a small fraction of the peo- ple while they rule the natives. If we have an imperial policy we must have a large standing army as its natural and necessary complement. The Republican platform assumes that the Philippine islands will be retained under American sovereignty, and we have a right to demand of the Republican leaders a discussion of the future status of the Filipino. Is he to be a citizen or a subject? Are we to bring into the body politic eight or ten’million Asiatics, so different from us in race and history that amalgamation is impossible? Are they to share with us in making the laws and shaping the destiny of this nation? No Republican of prominence has been bold enough to advocate such a proposition. The McEnery resolution, adopted by the senate immediately after the ratifica- tion of the treaty, expressly negatives this idea. The Democratic platform describes the situation when it says that the Filipinos cannot be citizens without endangering our civilization. Who will dispute it? And what is the alternative? If the Filipino is not to be a citizen, shall we make him a subject? On that question the Democratic platform speaks with em- phasis. It declares that the Filipino can- not be a subject without endangering our form of government. A republic can have no subjects. A subject is possible only in a government resting upon force; he is unknown in a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the gov- erned. The Republican platform says that “the largest measure of self-govern- ment consistent with their welfare and our duties shall be secured to them (the Filipinos) by law.” This is a strange doc- trine for a government which owes its very existence to the men who offered their lives as a protest against govern- ment without consent and taxation with- out representation. The whole difference between a mcen- archy and a republic may be summed up in one sentence. In a monarchy the king gives to the people what he believes to be a good government; in a republic the people secure for themselves what they believe to be a good government. The Republican party has accepted the Euro- pean idea and planted itself upon the ground taken by George IIl. and by every ruler who distrusts the capacity of the people for self-government or denies them a voice in their own affairs. The Republican platform promises that some measure of self-government is to be given the Fillpinos—by law; but even this pledge is not fulfilled. Nearly six- teen months elapsed after the ratification of the treaty before the adjournment of congress last June, and yet no law was passed dealing with the Philippine situa- tion. The will of the president h4s been the only law in the Philippine islands wherever the American authority ex- tends. Why does the Republican party hesitate to legislate upon the Philippine question? Is the sunlight of full citizenship to be enjoyed by the people of the United States and the twilight of citizenship endured by the people of Porto Rico, while the thick darkness of perpetual vassalage covers the Philippines? The Porto Rican Tarif’ Law asserts the doctrines that the operation of the constitution is confined to the forty-five states. The Democratic party disputes this doctrine and denounces it as repugnant to both the letter and spirit of our organic law. There is no place in our system of government for the de- posit of arbitrary and _ irresponsible power. That the leaders of a great paity should claim for any president or cdn- gress the right to treat millions of pdo- ple as mere ‘possessions’ and dealing with them unrestrained by the Constith- tion or the bill of rights shows how far we have already .departed from the ab- cient landmarks, and indicates what may be expected if this nation deliberatey enters upon a career of empire. | The territorial form of government & temporary and preparatory, and the chief security a citizen of a territory has i found in the fact that he enjoys the sam? constitutional guarantees and is sfbject to the same general laws as the citizea of a state. Take away this security and his rights will be violated and his inter- est sacrificed at the demand of those who have political influence. This is the evil of the colonial system, no matter by what | nation it is applied. Let us consider briefly the reasons which have been given in support of aa | imperialistic policy. Some say that it out duty to hold the Philippine islands. But duty is not an argument; it is a conclu sion. To ascertain what our duty is i2 any emergency we must apply well set- tled and generally accepted principles. Who will draw a line between the natural rights of the Cubans and the Filipinos? Who will say that the for mer have a right to liberty and the latter have no rights which we are bound to re spect? And if the Filipinos “are ani of right ought to be free and indepenc- ent,” what right have we to force our government upon them without ther consent? Before our duty can be ascer tained, and when their rights are one determined, it is as much our duty Aas! spect those rights as it was the duty Spain to respect the rights of the peop! of Cuba, or the duty of England to spect the rights of the American col nists. Rights never conflict; duties ney clash. Can it be our duty to usurp litical rights which belong to others? C: it be our duty to kill those who, followi: the example of our forefathers, love erty well enough to fight for it? Well, It Is “True to Itself.” If it is said that we have assumed fore the world obligations which make government ard the s1 tution of doc- trines against which our whoie national our obligations to the Filipinos, who in- habit theeislands, are greater than any obligation which we can owe to foreign- ers who have a temporary residence in: the Philippines or desire to trade there. It is argued by some that the Filipinos are incapable of self-government and that, therefore, we owe it to the world to take control of them. Admiral Dewey, in! an official report to the navy department, declared the Filipinos more capable of self-government than the Cu>ans, and said that he based his opinion upor a | knowledge of both races. But [ wili rest the case upon the relativé advarcement of the Filipinos. Henry Clay, in defend- ing the rights of the people vf South America to self-government, said: “It is the doctrine of thrones that man is too, ignorant to govern himself. Their partisans assert his incapacity in refer- ence to all nations; if they cannot com- mand universal assent to the proposition, it is then remanded to particular nations; and our pride and our presumption too often make converts of us. I contend that it is to arraign the disposition of Providence himself to suppose that he has created beings incapable of governing themselves, and to be trampled on by kings. Self-government is the natural wovernment of man.” Clay was right. There are degrees of proficiency in the art of self-government, but it is a reflection upon the Creator to say that he denied to any people the capacity of self-government. I am not willing to believe that an all-wise and alkloving God created the Filipinos and then left them thousands of years help- less until the islands attracted the atten- tion of European nations. Republicans ask: “Shall we haul down_ the flag that floats over our dead in the | Philippines?” The same question might have been asked when the American flag floated over Chapultepec and waved over the dead who fell there; but the tourist who visits the City of Mexico finds there a national cemetery owned by the United States and cared for by an American citizen. “Can we not govern colonies?” we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the Constitu- tion. I repeat, the nation can do wéat- ever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct. “Would we tread in the paths of tyranny, Nor reckon the tyrant's cost? Who taketh another's liberty His freedom {s also lost. Would we win as the strong have ever won, Make ready to pay the debt. For the God who reigned over Babylon Is the God who is reigning yet.” Some argue that American rule in the Philippine islands will result in the bet- ter education of the Filipinos. Be not deceived. If we expect to maintain a colonial policy we shall not find it to our advantage to educate the people. The ed- ucated Filipinos are now in revolt against us, and the most igndrant ones have made the least resistance to our domination, The principal arguments, however, ad- vanced by those who enter upon a de- fense of imperialism are: First—That we must improve the pres- ent opportunity to become a world power and enter into international politics. Second—That our commercial interests in the Philippine islands and in the Ori- j} ent make it necessary for us to hold the islands permanently. Third—That the spread of the Christian religion will be facilitated by a colonial policy. Fourth—That there is no honorable re- treat from the position which the nation has taken. The first argument is addressed to the nation’s pride, and the second to the na- tion’s pocketbook. The third is intended for the church member and the fourth for the partisan. Already a World Power. It is a sufficient answer to the first argument to say that for more than a century this nation has been a world power. For ten decades it has been the most potent influence in the world. Not only has it been a.world power, but it has done more to affect the politics of the human race than all the other nations of the world combined. Because our Dec- laration of Independence was promulga- ted, others have been promulgated; be- cause the patriots of 1776 fought for lib- erty, others have fought for it; because our Constitution was adopted, other con- stitutions have been adopted. The growth of the principle of self-govern- ment, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century. The chairman of the last Republican national convention presented the pecuniary argu- | ment in all its baldness, when he said: “We make no hypocritical pretense of being interested in the Philippines sole- ly on account of others. While we re- gard the welfare of those people as a sacred trust, we regard the weifare of the American people first. We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every le- gitimate means within the province of | the government and the Constitution we | mean to stimulate the expansion of cur tradé and open new markets.” This is the commercial argument. It | is based upon the theory that war can | be rightly waged for pecuniary ad- | vantage, and that it is profitable to pur- | chase trade by force and violence. Frank- lin denied both of those propositions. I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who would put a price upon the head of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The Democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would ex- tend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not Willing to make merchandise of human blocd. ' But a war of conquest is as unwise as is is unrighteous. A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer permanent fin which civil and religious liberty stimu- every trade and military necessity, and guch a concession could have been se- cured at any time without difficulty. Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the shipowners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the fran- chises, ang it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man, and to the yast majority of people engaged in other People who receive least beneiit from im- perialism will be injured most by the The ‘Demo- | life has been a protest. And, second, that} military burdens which accompany it. In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the labor- ing man will be the first to suffer if Ori- ental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if Amerizaa cap- ital leaves our shores to employ Wriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the iirst to suffer from the violence which the mil!- tary spirit arouses, and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are ap- plied to our own government. It is not strange, therefore, that labor organiza- tions have been quick to note the ap- proach of these dangers and pro-apt to protest against both militarism and im- perialism. The religious argument varies in posi- tiveness from a passive belief that provi- dence delivered the Filipinos into our hands for their good and our glory, to the exultation of the minister who said that we ought to “thrash the nafives (Filipinos) until théy understand who we are,” und that “every bullet sent, every cannon shot and every flag waved means righteousness.” ‘We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood cf the hand it will ultimately reach the Heart. Loye, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was his method of reaciiing tne numan heart. A missionary recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his lite because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it. The argument, made by some, that it was unfortunate for the nation that n ‘had anything to do with the Philippine islands, but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of these islands necessary, is also un- sound. The victory at Santiago did not compel us to hold Cuba. The shedding of Amerfean blood in the Philippine isl- ands “oes not make it imperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan hill and El Caney, and yet the president has promised the Cubans independence. The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to ex- ercise perpetual, sovereignty over the isl- ands; the flag waves cver Havana to-day, but the president has promised to haul it down when the flag of the Cuban re- public Is ready to rise in its place. Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the fdea of self-government than that the flag of this republic should become the flag of an empire. There is an easy, honest, honorable so- lution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in ...e Democratic platform and it is submitte. with confidence to the American people. This plan I unresery- edly indorse. If elected, I shall convene congress in| extraordinary session as soon as I am in- augurated, and recommend an immediate declaration of the nation’s purpose—first, | to establish a stable form of government | in the Philippine islands, just as we are | now establishing a stable form of govern- ment in the Island of Cuba; second, to give independence to the Filipinos, just as we have promixed to give indepe.ilence | to the Cubans; third, to protect the Fili- Pinos from outside interference while | Teaqueg Jo soyqndes ay} pajoazeud eany | eM SB ysnf ‘AUYSIP Alay Inv yom AIqy and South America, and are, by the Mon- roe doctrine, pledged to protect Cuba. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the| Committee: T can never fully cischarge | the debt of gratitude which I owe to my | countrymen for the honors which they | have so generously bestowed uron me; | but, sirs, whether it be my lot to cccupy | the high office for which she convention | has named me, or to spead the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my | constant ambition and my controlling | purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and | sacrifices brought this republic into ex- istence. 1 ean conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past—a destiny which meets the re- sponsibilities of to-day and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Be- hold a republic resting securely upon the foundation. stones quarried by Revolu- tionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth—a republic applying in prac- tice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that theyfare endowed with inalienable rights; that govern- ments are instituted among men to se- cure these rights; that governments derive their just powers from the con- sent of the governed. Behold a republic late all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor’s injury—a republic in which every citizen is a sovereign, but in | which no one cares to wear a crown. Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments—a republic whose flag !s loved while ether flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood —a republic which shakes thrones and discgives aristocractes by {:s silent ex- ample, and give light and inspfration to those who sit in darkness. Behold a republic gradually but surely becoming the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world’s disputes—a republic whose his- tory, like the path of the just, “is as the shining light that shineth more and More into the perfect day.” ——__.+—_—_ MR. STEVENSON SPEAKS. Soe SVR Vice Presidential Candidate cepts. : Mr. Bryan concluded at 4:40 and was promptly followed by Gov. C. S. Thomas of Colorado, who introduced Mr. Steven- son, Mr. Thomas spoke for only ten minutes. He felicitated Mr. Stevenson on his nomination and praised his loyalty to the Democratic party. Mr. Stevenson was apparently slightly nervous as the time approached for him to take the stand, but he soon gained confidence as he proceeded. Mr. Bryan led the liberal applause which greeted the appearance of his fellow candidate as he advanced to the front and many points of the speech were liberally punc- Ac- tuated by a repetition of applause as the speech proceeded. He read from his manuscript, but held the majority of his audience to the end: The substance of necessary for us to permanently maii-| occupations, it would bring expenditure | his speech was as follows: tain a government in the Philippi islands, I reply, first, that the highest o! ligation of this nation is to be true jo itself. No obligation to any part .natien, or to all nations combined, car without return and risk without reward. Farmers and laboring men have, as @ rule, small incomes and, under systems which place the tax upon consumption, pay more than their fair share of the “Deeply {mpressed with a, sense of the responsibility assumed by such a can- didacy, I accept the nomination so gen- erously tendered me. Should the act’on of the convention meet the approval of require the abandonment of our theory pf| expenses of government. Thus the very the people in November, it will be my earnest endeavor to discharge with fidel- ity the duties of the great office. Clearly and unequivocally the Democratie con- vention has expressed its sympathy with - the burghers of the South African repub- lics in their heroic attempts to maintain free governments. In this*the convention not only voiced the sentiments of Amer- ican Democrats, but of liberty-loving men everywhere. It is not strange that those who have kept the political faith of the authors of the Declaration of Indcpen- dence should express their abho-r2nce at the effort of a great European power to subjugate a people whose oriy crime is a death struggle to maintain their liberties. The earnest utterances of the csayention that our sympathies are with the Boers in their unequal struggle mee-s a hearty response from all who venerate the prin- ciples of our fathers. “The lavish appropriations by the pres- ent Republican congress should challenge the attention of all thoughtful men. Sub- sidy bills and all unnecessary taxes are condemned by our platform. The accu- mulation of surplus revenues is too often the pretext for wasteful appropriations of the public money. The millions of sur- plus now accumulating in the treasury should remain in the pockets of the peo- ple. To this end the Democratic party demands a reduction of war taxes to the actual needs of the government, and a return to the policy of strict economy in .all governmental expenditures. “In apt words the Dingley tarifflaw is condemned. It is tersely characterized as legislation skillfully devised in the inter- est of a class, and to impose upon the many burdens which they should not bear. Adhering to the time-honored doc- trine of the Democratic party, we oppose all tariff legislation the necessary conse- quence of which is, at the expense of the consumer, to secure unjust advantage to the favored few. The baleful but logical result of the tariff law condemned by our platform is seen in the sudden growth of giant monopolies, combinations in re- straint of lawful trade and ‘trusts’ more threatening than foreign foe to the exist- ence of popular government. Believing that ‘wherever there is a wrong there, must be a remedy,’ the Democratic party will favor such legislation as will curb the spirit of monopoly and place an ef- fective barrier against the unlawful com- binations of capital which now prove an insuperable obstacle to legitimate enter- prise and investment. During almost four years of absolute Republican control of all departments of the government the trust evil has grown to its present over- shadowing proportions. What finger has been lifted for its suppression? With its friends again intrenched in power, what hope is held out for the future? “Questions of domestic policy, however important, may be but questions of the hour—that of imperialism is for time. In tho presence of this stupendous issue, others seem but as the dust in the bal- ance. In no sense paltering with words, it is the supreme question of republic or empire. “The Democratic platform condemns the policy pursued by the present admin- istration toward the Philippine islands.{ This policy—inspired by the great spirit of commercialism—has embroiled our gov- ernment in an unnecessary war, sacri- ficed valuable lives and placed the Amer- ican republic in deadly antagonism to our, former allies in their efforts to secure. their liberties. For the first time in our history we are boldly confronted with the question of ‘imperialism—the spirit of em- pire.” This is indeed the supreme ques- tion to which all others are of secondary importance. The Democratic party has ever been the advocate of wise terri- torial expansion. The policy of aggres- sive expansion—of subjugation of distant islands—pursued by the present adminis- tration, finds no precedent in the peace- able cession of the Louisiana country by Napoleon, that of Florida by Spain, nor that yet later of the vast western area by Mexico. Can it be that the new policy of forcible annexation of distant, islands finds precedent in the historic events I have mentioned? The answer is found in the bare statement of facts. The terri- tory acquired under Democratic adminis- tration is contiguous—the Philippins islands eight thousand miles distant. The acquisition of territory upon our own continent added little to the national ex- pense—to maintain permanent sov- ereignty over the distant islands necessi- tates immense expenditures upon our army and navy. More than that, it con- templates methods of administration that pertain, not to the republic, but to the empire. Can it be doubted that the at- tempt to stifle the spirit of Mberty abroad will imperil popular government at home? “We are told that our republic is now to become ‘a world power.’ In the high- est sense—with the Declaration of Inde- pendence as its corner stone—it has been in all its past a world power. It has been the lofty ideal to all liberty-loving people, the model for all builders of republics for more than a century. In the sense used by imperialists the expression is one of terrible significdnce. It necessitates the methods and equipments of monarchies. It means the creation and maintenance by our republic of standing armies equal to those of the world powers of Europe” At no less cost can we hold place as a world power. Study existing conditions in European nations and know what all this means to us. It means taxation to the verge of despair. It means, as has been truly said, ‘that © laborer must carry an armed soldier upon his back as he goes to his daily toil.’ All history teaches that the corner stone of imperial- ism is the force of the standing army. “We stand one hundred years from the hour when the political forces were gath- _ ering which were to result in the election of the first Democratle president. The anniversary of the masterful day in ow history was wisely chosen for the assem- bling in convention of the representatives of the historic party whose founder was Jackson and whose platform is the Dec- laration of Independence. In the great struggle now upon us we invoke the co- operation of all who revere the memory of our fathers and to whom this Declara- tion is not unmeaning parchment, but the enduring chart of our liberties. Upon the supreme issue now in the forefront—and to the end that republican government be perpetuated—we appeal to the sober judgment and patriotism of the American people.”” : Mr. Stevenson closed amid’ liberal ap- plause at 20 minutes of 6 o'clock and Senator Jones immediately declared the meeting adjourned sifte die. Mrs. Ridgely—Come, John, get up, It’s 5 o'clock. You said you wanted to get up early this morning and mow the lawn. Mr. Ridgely (yawning)—Well, I've slept on it, n’ changed min’, my G (Which, being’ explained, standa for a snore.}—Chicago Times er Cen EE EEE H Lt