One Thousand Secrets of Wise and Rich Men Revealed by C. A. Bogardus (best management books of all time TXT) 📕

We notice that the party in drawing up this plank, says: "That they pledge themselves to promote bimetallism by agreement;" then in the next clause, say, "and until such an agreement can be obtained, the existing gold standard must be preserved."

Let me illustrate: Suppose this gentleman on my right having a horse fairly worth on the market $100, should say to the young man on my left that he desired to sell the animal. If the young man wished to buy he would ask the price of the horse. I ask, what would the owner receive for his steed, if he should reply, "Well, I ask $100, but if you will not give that much, I will take $25."

Now, my gold standard friends, do you not know that the purchaser would take advantage of the seller and only give $25 for the horse.

When the party at St. Louis pledged themselves to promote international bimetallism, and then asserted, "until such an agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved," they in effect, like the man with the horse, put their business in the other fellow's hands; for was not that clause simply another way of saying to the foreigner, if you will not give us bimetallism we will take the gold standard, although we prefer the bimetallic standard?

Fellow citizens, I ask you in the name of American independence, does it not appear as though there was a colored gentleman somewhere in the background? Let us examine further, and we will see that the colored man wears a British coat of arms, and has his American office on Williams street, New York city.

We will make no mistakes in our conclusion if we understand the facts, and to more clearly appreciate the full international effect, of the plank under examination, let us draw another picture from human nature. We will imagine you people of Jacksonville to be a little sporty, and that you have in your midst a prize fighter of whom you are quite proud; we will suppose that Springfield has a character of the same kind, and the St. Louis Athletic club should offer $50,000 as a purse for a fistic contest between these two champions, $40,000 to be the reward of the winner and $10,000 to soothe the wounds of the defeated pugilist. We will suppose the fight is arranged and the men go into careful training, the time for the mill has at last arrived, the ring is complete, and all details perfect. A large audience has assembled and betting is liberally indulged in; of course Jacksonville sports back their home man. At the appointed hour the contestants enter the ring. Then you see your Jacksonville man is much the superior in appearance to the Springfield upstart. Your man being the quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is the more scientific. (America is quicker and stronger, has a longer reach, and is more scientific than any other nation on earth.) You feel sure your man will win the fight on short notice, in fact you almost pity the man from Springfield, to see that he must compete in a fistic combat with such a giant as the Jacksonville Gladiator. The referee announces that Marquis of Queensbury's rules are to govern, he looks at his watch and announces that in one minute the fight will be on, the fighters raise their hands to position. When just a few seconds of time still remains before the slugging is to commence, your Jacksonville man says to his opponent, hold on, if you don't run, I will. What, I ask you, would you think of your prize fighter then? Think of the United States training for a century for supremacy of American self-government over foreign monarchical governments, then when all things are completed for the final fight of the survival of the fittest, a great party saying to the monarchies of Europe, "we know bimetallism is right, but if you will not consent to it, then we will stick to the gold standard. If you don't run, we will." (Great laughter and applause.)

Party prejudice prevailed and through the misrepresentations of the papers and certain unscrupulous politicians the party making those representations carried the election. International bimetallic commissioners were sent to the foreign countries to procure this great international agreement, and did they get it? Facts answer no.

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