One thousand secrets of wise and rich men revealed

by C. A. Bogardus

Let me again implore you to lay aside party prejudice and look matters squarely in the face, and we will immediately see, that not only did Mr. Wolcott and his party make a signal failure in procuring international bimetallism, but by the very terms of the St. Louis platform it was impossible for him to succeed in his alleged purpose. Now, my friends, let us suppose Mr. Wolcott and his two associates are in England talking with the rich moneyed men for international bimetallism and Mr. Wolcott is dealing out sledge-hammer argument in favor of international bimetallism, using the same argument in England the Bryan Democrats used in the campaign of 1896 in the United States. The financial men of England would then say to Mr. Wolcott, did you say that bimetallism in the United States meant 50-cent dollars? Mr. Wolcott would answer, "Yes, I said that;" whereupon the Englishman would say, "Then international bimetallism would mean international 50-cent dollars." Question No. 2. Mr. Wolcott, did not you say bimetallism in the United States meant repudiation? Yes, would come from Mr. Wolcott. Then the Englishman would reply, "Would not international bimetallism mean international repudiation?" Question No. 3. "Mr. Wolcott, did you not tell the people of the United States that free silver over there meant anarchy and lost confidence?" Again Mr. Wolcott is forced to admit that was just what he said here in 1896. In a triumphant air the Englishman would say international free silver would mean international anarchy and international lost confidence. (Laughter and applause). If Mr. Wolcott should further continue the argument, what could the poor fellow say if the Englishman would draw the Republican platform of '96 on him and read the following: "And until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved." Johnny Bull would add, "You Americans served notice on us that all we had to do was to stick to the gold standard and you would also stick to it."

"Now, we money men of England think we can get more bushels of corn, oats, rye and barley, more days labor of you fellows for what you owe us under the gold standard than we could under international bimetallism. We know it is hard on you, but it is the making of us, and we will stick to the gold standard; and as you said you would stick to it if we did, all we can do for you, Mr. Wolcott, is to serve you a fine wine supper, and tell you to return to America and stick to the gold standard." (Great applause.)

My friends, the most ridiculous proceeding I ever heard of was the Republican party sending commissioners abroad to procure international bimetallism with that plank staring them in the face. I want to ask you if you do not think that if Mr. Wolcott would have taken a carload or two of the Republican literature of 1896 and handed out the pamphlets to the Englishmen, saying this is what we think of free silver in the United States, will you help us to have it by an international action? Would not that kind of literature hurt the cause instead of helping it? For my part, I have no objections to the President sending a Senator from Colorado to the foreign countries to advocate bimetallism, but I do insist that he sent the wrong senator. Most certainly Mr. Teller could have gone abroad with a little handful of free silver literature that was left over in the campaign of '96 and accomplished more, in a day's honest consistent work, for bimetallism, than could Senator Wolcott with the tons of gold standard pamphlets published by the Republican party. (Great applause.)

A noticeable fact is that one of the greatest job lots of political trickery and deception that was ever attempted in America has been practiced in the United States since the month of June, 1896.

Later in the season the so-called Gold-standard Democrats conventioned in Indianapolis; their money plank reads, "We assert the necessity of such intelligent currency reform as will confine the government to its legitimate functions, completely separated from the banking business, and afford to all sections of our country a safe, uniform and elastic bank currency, under government supervision, measured in volume by the need of business." Strange as it may seem, while Mr. Wolcott was abroad, pretendingly for the purpose of procuring bimetallism by international agreement, the President and Secretary of the Treasury were working up a scheme to have the gold standard adopted according to the tenor of the Indianapolis platform. When we consider 7,000,000 voted for international free silver, and 6,500,000 voted for independent free silver, we see the United States has 13,500,000 bimetallists; only 134,000, or less than one per cent, voted the Gold-standard Democratic ticket. Yet, my friends, we today find Mr. Gage trying to overrule the desire of more than ninety-nine per cent and put into law the will of less than one per cent of our voting population. And what amount of money do the gold standard people want? They say they want it safe, uniform and elastic, measured in volume by the need of business. Will you tell me by whose business they wish to measure the volume of money? It cannot be the farmers' business and the merchants' business they would have to measure the volume by, for that would make a double standard of measurement, and they tell us we cannot have but one standard of measurement.

Then I ask, whose business will measure the amount under such a law? To me the answer comes back in reverberating tones repeated with emphasis, measured in volume according to the bankers' business, of course. Our philosophers tell us there are two kinds of elasticity—elasticity by compression and elasticity by expansion. Thus an elastic substance after being either compressed or expanded when released, returns to its original shape and size, so when the bankers want money expanded in volume according to the need of their business, they would expand it, and whenever their business ends are best accomplished by contraction; then, of course, contraction is the program with them. While the government is completely separated from the banking business so they can furnish no relief, we might compare that system with an alligator on the banks of a Louisiana river lying out to sun himself; he gets the bankers' elastic idea in his head, and his upper jaw flies over his back, and his mouth is twice as large as when it is closed, elasticity by expansion. (Laughter.) A sweet substance gathers on his open mouth, and the flies light there to eat it (just as the people will gather around the bankers for money when there is no other place to procure it). The flies gather thicker and thicker, and the mouth gets bigger and bigger, more and more elasticity by expansion; finally the alligator, like the banker, happens to think that there is another kind of elasticity, when down comes the upper jaw on the lower jaw and the flies are caught in the trap, and the Government shall go out of the banking business to furnish no relief or escape (cries of good, and cheers). My friends, if I mistake not, every cry of the Republican party from the time of John C. Fremont until the campaign of 1896 has been against banks issuing paper money except that the Government was strictly in the banking business. Have not they always told us, that when state or other banks issue paper money without the Government in the banking business to back up the issue, such money in case of a failure of the issuing bank became wild-cat money, and did they not say to us wild-cat money made paupers? Now they go squarely back on all they have taught us on the money question, and advocate the wild-cat money system themselves according to their own statements. One thing I will concede is, that the Republicans and gold standard Democrats are certainly on their past statements entitled to the $1,000,000 offered by the United States patent office for the invention of a perpetual motion, would not they have a complete and perpetual motion in their bank issuing money with the Government completely separate from the banking business, for we see the bank issue would be made of paper, so we have the perpetual motion in this simple problem. Rags make paper, paper makes money, money makes banks, banks make paupers, and paupers make rags. Rags make paper, paper makes money (great cheer and laughter).

Now, my friends, let me read you a plank in a platform that contains the spirit upon which our forefathers freed the thirteen American colonies from England, the spirit on which their descendants maintained American liberty and builded from 3,000,000 population along the Atlantic shores in 1781, a nation of 70,000,000 grand Anglo-Americans, with their half a hundred states and territories extending from the rock bound coast of the pine tree state to the golden gates of California, stretching over a vast area of more than 3,000,000 square miles, with great cities, towns, villages and hamlets, with our colleges and universities that are equaled by none in Europe. I will now read you the money plank of the Chicago platform, which contains the spirit represented by the statute at New York, of liberty enlightening the world. It is as follows: "We demand a free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender equally with gold, for the payment of all debts public and private, and we favor such legislation as will in the future prevent the demonetization of any kind of legal tender money by private contract." While bimetallism is the theme this evening, you will excuse me for intruding on your time long enough to briefly comment on the spirit of that plank that shines prominently above all other issues in the Chicago platform—it is these simple words, "Without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation." I want to ask you, what would have been the result if our forefathers in 1776 had adopted any other spirit than this? Does not the answer immediately echo that we would be today English?

History tells us that while the British red coats with their muskets were invading the colonies, a handful of bold liberty loving men met at Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence. You may read that instrument and you will see that it declares for American liberty from an American point of view, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. When bold old non-international agreement John Hancock read that declaration, he made a speech to the multitude in front of Liberty hall, in which he implored them to throw aside trivial differences, and on the main question of independence, all good liberty loving people should hang together. Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must all hang together or we will all hang separate." In Franklin's witticism, I think I can see the solution of our present financial trouble—the good people of all parties must solve the problem, then we must all hang together or we will all hang separately to the tail of the old British lion, and while we voters are thus suspended, the cubs of that lion will devour the young Anglo-American eagles before they scarcely have time to scream for mercy.

Not only did that spirit of independence pervade in Philadelphia in 1776, but it was foremost at Bunker Hill. But Benedict Arnold and Major Andre seemed to have taken a different view, and the former fled to English assistance, the latter was executed because of his attempt to do likewise. But the spirit of independence, without waiting for the consent of any other nation, shone forth like a plumed knight or a mighty gladiator on the 19th day of October, 1781, at Yorktown, when the British gave up their swords and surrendered to the liberty loving fathers of America. Do you think Cornwallis would have surrendered to Washington if the Colonial Congress had declared that they would promote independence by international agreement, and until such agreement could be obtained, the existing will of King George must be maintained, and if Washington and his army had fought for English instead of American supremacy?

I want to say to you that it was not the international agreement spirit that won in the war of 1812 at New Orleans. General Jackson told his Kentucky riflemen to keep their powder dry and guns well loaded, and when they were close enough to see the white of the enemies' eyes to shoot directly between them. History tells us that the third volley charmed and the British surrendered to the American army once more without an international agreement.