Imagination. The facts thus set forth show plainly the spirit and feeling of the large majority of the convention and indicate clearly whether the Democratic party can be trusted on the money standard.

THE TARIFF DECLARATION.

On other questions besides that of the money standard the action of the Committee on Resolutions shows dangerous tendencies and the platform is full of peril. This is especially true of the tariff. The subcommittee had sought to allay apprehension of violent disturbance in the event of Democratic success. Its draft declared in favor of a revision of the tariff, but indicated that it should be a "conservative revision," "keeping also in view, as men of common sense should, existing conditions, however wrongfully, mistakenly, or unjustly brought about, and the danger to the cause of tariff reform itself of abrupt and revolutionary reversal of policy." This saving clause, designed to reassure the business interests against fear of sweeping changes, was repeated in the further declaration in the same connection: "We should bear in mind the equal truth that in the assertion of any general principle and in reaching any ultimate end, however sacred and logically unavoidable, due regard, but only due regard, must and should be. paid to actually existing conditions."

These reservations respecting the character of the tariff revision were embodied in the draft of the subcommittee with the plain purpose of winning the confidence of the business elements. But when they were reported to the full committee that body deliberately struck out all of these saving clauses, and not only that, but it adopted the most extreme and unqualified denunciation of the whole protective principle. That declaration, as reported to and accepted by the convention and as it now stands in the platform, is in these words: "We denounce protection as a robbery of the many to enrich the few, and we favor a tariff limited to the needs of the Government economically administered."

No more radical utterance could be made. The denunciation is directed not merely against a particular tariff or schedule in which it might be claimed there were wrongs, but against the whole idea and purpose of protection. It condemns any and all protection and insists that the tariff should be framed solely for revenue without any protective effect. There is no reservation or qualification. All protection is assailed as "robbery." The policy under which the greatness and prosperity of the Republic have been created is stigmatized as "robbery of the many to enrich the few." The declaration commits the Democratic party to the overthrow of the whole protective system, and, in the event of Democratic success, means just such a destruction of confidence and paralysis of industry and stagnation of business as followed the election of Cleveland in 1892.

TO DESTROY POWER OF THE COURTS.

The dangerous spirit of the Committee on Resolutions embodied in the platform was shown in another matter. One of the most reprehensible and obnoxious declarations of the Democratic platforms of 1896 and 1900 was the denunciation of what was called "government by injunction." The time-honored right of the courts to guard against and prevent the perpetration of wrongs by the process of injunction or mandamus is one of the sacred defenses of liberty and social order. The power to punish for contempt is the indispensable accompaniment and bulwark of this right. The Democratic platforms of 1896 and 1900, under Mr. Bryan's influence, condemned such judicial process and added: "We approve the bill passed at the last session of the United States Senate, and now pending in the House, relative to contempts in Federal courts and providing for trial by jury in certain cases of contempt."

The subcommittee at St. Louis did not include in its draft any declaration on this subject. But the full committee under Mr. Bryan's inspiration adopted, and there appears in the platform, what is practically a repetition of the odious utterance of 1896 and 1900 in these words: "We approve the measure which passed the United States Senate in 1896, but which a Republican Congress has ever since refused to enact, relating to contempts

In Federal courts and providing for trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt." The measure thus approved would nullify, and is intended to nullify, the power of the courts to punish for contempt and so would destroy its power to protect the public peace by judicial process. The renewed declaration for it shows that

the virus of Bryanism still thoroughly taints the party.

THE PHILIPPINES.

Among the most positive utterances of the platform is the promise of independence to the people of the Philippine Islands. "It is our duty," says the platform, "to make that promise now, and upon suitable guarantees of protection to citizens of our own and other countries resident there at the time of our withdrawal set the Filipino people upon their feet, free and independent to work out their own destiny." The unfortunate and mischievous effect of such a promise at this time cannot be fully estimated. Whatever may be our ultimate purpose, such an expression just now can only have an injurious influence. The administrations of Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt have given the Filipinos the largest measure of freedom and home rule compatible with their safety and welfare. The work of educating and training them for self-government is going on. Their self-rule has been steadily extended as they were fitted for it. Every observer knows that these millions of ignorant people only recently emerged from centuries of barbarism, are not yet prepared for independence, and that to "set them upon their feet free and independent to work out their own destiny, would be to plunge them into internecine war, to deliver them over to every kind of internal strife, and to make them the prey of some other power, which would eagerly seize what we should abandon. Whatever may be deemed best when the preparation and advancement of these people have been carried further, a present and premature promise can only be hurtful to themselves. Besides, such a policy would be disastrous to our national prestige and influence in the East. Our country has gained great eclat in the Orient and high standing among the great nations in determining the affairs of that portion of the world. It took a leading part in the Boxer difficulties of 1900 and prevented the dismemberment of China. has secured the principle of "the open door" in the East. It led the nations at the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war in obtaining a guarantee of the neutrality of China and in localizing the war to the immediate belligerents. Through this new position in the East we have the assurance of great commercial advantages. All this has come through our possession of the Philippines, which made the United States an eastern power. If now there were Democratic success with this promise it would impair our standing beyond calculation. The nations would feel that the American people were of infirm and unstable purpose. They would regard it as unsettling our whole policy in the East, and the loss of influence, respect, and advantage would be immeasurable.

EVASION OF THE TRUST QUESTION.

It

The declaration of the platform respecting trusts and combinations is naturally of an indefinite character. As the Democratic party has never done anything against trusts either in legislation or in administration, it could not be expected to say anything of a specific nature. All that has been done on the subject by either the enactment or the enforcement of law has been done by Republicans. This is clearly shown in other chapters of this volume. The only definite proposition of the Democratic platform is a demand for "the enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the end that the traveling public and shippers of this country may have prompt and adequate relief from the abuses to which they are subjected in the matter of transportation." Just such a measure, enlarging the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission, was passed by a Republican Congress and approved by the President February 19, 1903. strengthens the provision against rebates, increases the penalty, assures swifter prosecution, and establishes more complete safeguards. The record shows that the Republicans have acted while the Democrats have only talked.

It

The remainder of the platform consists only of empty expressions. It favors the upbuilding of a merchant marine, but

denounces every measure for accomplishing it. It deprecates the race question, but condemns any proceeding against the disfranchisement of a race. It holds up the promise of pensions to the ear, but breaks it to the hope of any practical step. leading features the platform shows that the Democratic party is unchanged.

ST. LOUIS-ESOPUS EPISODE.

In all its

EVASION OF LEADING ISSUES BY PLATFORM, CONVENTION, AND

CANDIDATE.

In order that the real meaning of the joint performance at St. Louis with reference to the relation of the Democratic party and its candidate to the currency question may be understood, the incidents pertaining thereto are here enumerated in their chronological order. That it was the deliberate purpose to deceive the voters of the United States with reference to the real attitude of the Democratic party on the currency question cannot be doubted. Indeed Mr. Bryan, who has been on two previous occasions the spokesman of that party and whose personality absolutely dominated and controlled the convention upon this question, says openly "It was a plain and deliberate attempt to deceive the party."

Taking up the matter chronologically, the first subject for consideration is Judge Parker's history with reference to politics. The New York Tribune of July 13, 1904 says:

"While Judge Parker was still a young man and free to choose the political leaders and associates to whom he might look for preferment, he consented to manage Hill's first campaign for Governor and was rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court bench. * * In due time he became Hill's candidate for Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals."

EVASION ON THE SILVER QUESTION.

It was during this candidacy for the Judgeship of the Court of Appeals, in 1897, a candidacy made, according to the above quotation, under Mr. Hill's management, that Judge Parker made his first "record" on one of the vital subjects of this campaign. At that time the Bryan silver influence in New York was very strong and was represented by Hon. Elliott Danforth, Chairman of the Democratic State Committee. In order, apparently, to placate that element, Mr. Danforth urged Mr. Parker to express himself on the silver question and he did so in the following letter declaring that he had supported Bryan and free silver in both national campaigns. It will be seen by an examination of the letter that it was prepared with the especial purpose of giving his opinion to that element of the party in New York which he designates as "the sincere friends of Mr. Bryan.” "New York, Sept. 20, 1897. "The Hon. Eliot Danforth, Chairman of the Democratic Committee: "My Dear Mr. Danforth-It was entirely right for you to bring to my attention the question which the sincere friends of Mr. Bryan are pressing upon you. I can say to you frankly and sincerely that you can assure them that I voted for the last national nominees of the Democratic party, as I have voted for all the regular Democratic nominees since I had a vote.

It will be noted that while this letter states that he "voted for the last national nominees of the party," it is singularly like the recent telegram to St. Louis in that it omits any expression of his personal views on the real question at issue.

EVASION ON THE TRUST QUESTION.

Judge Parker's next record was made by the platform of the New York State convention of 1904, in the preparation of which he personally aided, and which the New York Evening Post (Democratic) says he revised and attested. The New York Times said of the platform, "It is understood to have full approval of Judge Parker."

That platform, like the one at St. Louis, was silent on the money question and upon the question of trusts was "State's rights" to a degree which must have delighted the heart of the southern element which supported him so cordially at the St. Louis convention. It stated explicitly that "corporations chartered by the state must be subject to just regulation by the state."

This proposition with reference to trusts-to relegate the entire question to the states-means of course to do nothing, and is as complete an evasion of the trust question on the part of democracy of New York as was the evasion of the St. Louis platform on the money question. For three months Judge Parker stood contentedly on this platform made by his friends and by the state convention which nominated him as its candidate for the Presidency, uttering no word of dissatisfaction with its evasions of the chief issues of the campaign. So unsatisfactory, was this platform and the candidate whose views it was understood to represent that Mr. Bryan, in an address at Chicago on April 23, 1904, denounced him as unfitted to receive the support of the party, saying that "the Democrats of the nation ought to defeat as an aspirant for the Democratic nomination any man who would be willing to have it go forth as a declaration of his views on public questions" and added that in his opinion, "Judge Parker is not a fit man to be nominated by the Democratic party."

MORE EVASION ON THE MONEY QUESTION.

Mr. Hill went to St. Louis prior to the opening of the convention as Judge Parker's accredited representative. When the Committee on Platform met, Mr. Hill and other representatives of Judge Parker urged the adoption of the plank on the money question as follows:

"The discoveries of gold within the past few years and the great increase in the production thereof, adding two thousand million dollars to the world's supply, of which seven hundred millions falls to the share of the United States, has contributed to the maintenance of a money standard of value no longer open to question, removing that issue from the field of political contention."

The above statement was, by implication at least, false and misleading. The Democratic party in 1900 reiterated its declaration in behalf of the free and unlimited coinage of silver, basing that proposition upon the claim that only by the unlimited use of silver as money metal could the world's requirement for currency metal be properly met. Since that declaration of 1900 the world's production of gold has, according to the annual estimates of the Director of the Mint, amounted to $1,142,000,000 or only $112,000,000 more than during the four years immediately preceding the declaration of 1900 when the Democratic party demanded the free and unlimited coinage of silver upon the theory that the gold supply was insufficient. In other words, the plank proposed by Mr. Hill attempted to show that the change of sentiment in the party since its last declaration was due to an enormous increase in the production of gold, while in fact the increase in the production of gold since that last declaration in 1900 has been only $112,000,000 more than that of the four years preceding the declaration of 1900. The world's production of gold in the four years immediately preceding the Democratic convention of 1900 which declared for the free and unlimited coinage of silver upon the claim that the production of gold was insufficient to meet the requirements, amounted to $1,030,000,000 while in the four years since the Democratic convention of 1900 the world's gold production has been $1,142,000,000.

GOLD PLANK REJECTED BY MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS VOTE. The above plank proposed by Mr. Hill and other supporters of Judge Parker, declaring that the increased production of gold removes the money question from the field of political contention, was rejected by the committee, after a 19-hours' struggle, by a vote of 35 to 15, and an agreement was reached that the platform should contain no reference to the money question.

NEWS MUST HAVE REACHED ESOPUS EARLY ON FRIDAY.

This rejection of the gold plank and conclusion to omit the money question from the platform occurred according to the New York Evening Post at 4.40 o'clock on Friday morning as a result of the all-night session of the committee. The news was flashed over the country by telegraph with remarkable promptness and was in the mouths of the people in every part of the United States as soon as the business of the day had opened. It was known in the newspaper offices of New York and Albany by the time Judge Parker had breakfasted on Friday and had of course

been telephoned and telegraphed to the bevy of newspaper correspondents which constantly surrounded Judge Parker's house, and it seems impossible to suppose that the information should have failed to reach him personally very early on Friday morning, either through those correspondents or by personal communications from his friends in St. Louis or from the newspaper offices, especially those supporting his candidacy and which were able to communicate instantly with him on that important subject. It was the talk of the town early in the forenoon of Friday in all New York, in Washington and every other city in which any interest was felt on the subject. The New York Evening Post, the most urgent of his supporters, in its issue of that date, announced in startling headlines: "No Money Plank." Thus people of all classes in the United States who were at all interested in this subject knew, in the early part of Friday, that the Platform Committee had decided, by a more than two-thirds vote, to recommend that no utterance be made on the money question and there was reason to believe that the convention would adopt that proposition, and it seems impossible to suppose that Judge Parker could have failed to receive this information very early in the day on Friday. The New York and Albany afternoon papers containing the announcement were doubtless at Esopus long before the close of the day and certainly during many hours of Friday afternoon and night during which the convention was in session.

PARKER PRESS URGING ACTION ON FRIDAY NIGHT.

The editors of the New York papers which had been supporting his candidacy wrote on Friday night, for their Saturday morning issues, vigorous editorials, not only denouncing the omission of the money question from the platform, but stating that such omission would destroy the possibility of party success. The New York World said "to reject this resolution and refusing to make any utterance on the question that has twice defeated the party is to invite another overthrow."

The New York Sun said that "Hill's sinister methods have intervened at the critical moment to overcloud hopes that were bright and to turn possible victory into probable defeat.”

Even the New York Evening Post of Friday had said: "On anything but an affirmation of the gold standard Judge Parker cannot stand; short of it the party has not a gleam of hope before it."

But most striking of all these demands which his editorial friends wrote on Friday night, while he persisted in remaining silent, was that of the New York Times, which said:

"On Bryan's platform Judge Parker will never be elected. He must make his own and make it promptly if he would stay the tide of defection. The convention expressly refused to declare for gold, thereby confessing that the Democracy is not cured of the free silver craze. * * The blunder can be amended, so far as it is amendable at all, only by the candidate-and at this hour of writing, before the taking of the ballot, we are assuming the nomination of Parker. He must at once declare * that the gold monetary standard, as now established by law, is permanent and no longer open to question. We do not say that by such a declaration Judge Parker would avert defeat; we fear it is too late for that."

Note the similarity of the wording of this declaration, demanded while the nomination was pending, and complied with after the nomination had been secured. The demand is that he "AT ONCE" declare that "the monetary standard, as now established by law, is permanent and no longer open to question." The next day, after the editorial had been read and digested, and the nomination had been secured, Judge Parker followed the advice in almost the language dictated, by declaring that "I regard the gold standard as firmly and irrevocably established."

It can scarcely be possible that while these personal friends and supporters of Judge Parker were writing these things about him on Friday afternoon and evening they failed to communicate their views to him in a personal way. Reports of the incidents at Judge Parker's home during this time, published in the New York papers. indicate that messages were being constantly received in his house by telephone, thus indicating that he was not at any moment so isolated from the public as to prevent his receiving full information of what was in progress either