promotes the fruitfulness of industry, not the term in which that system may be described.

Socialism and individualism are features of our existence now. No one can attempt to gratify individual desires without serving society at large. Wherever a man labors to improve his own condition, he contributes to the welfare of the entire race. Can you or I do one thing for individual benefit without benefiting all our fellows? Can vanity indulge itself, can pride. gratify itself, can appetite satisfy itself, without paying a tribute to the universal partnership in which we are all engaged? The man who builds a palace to gratify pride, must employ ten thousand hands in every quarter of the globe. The woman who buys a robe to indulge vanity, must employ hundreds of her fellow-creatures throughout the world. The miser, seeking to raise the rate of interest on his capital from 5 to 6 per cent must serve his fellows in doing so. There is but one way in which he can increase the profits of his capital, and that is by an increase of its productivity. If his capital be employed in making tables, more tables must be produced; if in building, more houses must be erected; if in agriculture, the area of tillage must be increased. In doing all these things more labor must be employed, and thus hundreds of dollars will be distributed in wages for every one that is gained by capital. Our pride, our hopes, our fears, our ambitions are but illusions which spur us to activity in the service of others,-traces that bind us to the car of human progress, making of all our activities forces to move it onward and upward. The questions which perplex the civilization of this age arise from freedom and the ever-swelling tide of prosperity, of which freedom is the fountain. The triumph of Christianity led inevitably to the establishment of this republic. A government based on the equality of all men in the eye of the law was the necessary fruit of a religious belief in the equality of all men in the sight of God.

The economic effect of Christianity was the substitution of free labor for slave labor. The removal of manacles from the hands of man has worked an extraordinary change in his condition. It has wonderfully increased his productivity, extended the scope of his powers, multiplied his possessions, lengthened the span of his days, widened the horizon of his ambitions. But out of the very prosperity which it has created, a difficulty has sprung. The slave was willing to accept from the hands of his master a crust of bread as a reward for his labor, glad to escape the lash, but the free laborer demands a fair share of the property

which has been created by his toil. The adjustment of this demand, the fair distribution of the commodities created by the coöperative industry of every man, is the problem of this age. I do not think it is an insuperable or even a very difficult question. Its solution in my judgment, will be found by recognizing in our industrial systems, the partnership of man as we have recognized in our political system, the equality,-the brotherhood of man. While the relations of men are governed by the principles of justice and morality which underlie this government, and indeed the whole fabric of Christian civilization,—I have no fear of the future. Words cannot disturb me while every fact in history encourages me. This civilization which has created our marvelous prosperity, will defend it and maintain it. I have no sympathy with those timid souls who see in our splendid growing civilization a dizzy eminence from which the race is in constant peril of falling back into the darkness and ignorance from which it has risen. I prefer to regard man as a reasonable being, pursuing by the light of experience an ever-ascending pathway of progress, proving by what he has done, his capacity for greater deeds, surveying from the heights which he has achieved, with courage, with determination, and with confidence, the still nobler heights which are accessible.

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.

Several times during his address the speaker was interrupted by bursts of applause, but especially was this noticeable when he referred to Col. Bryan in a brief but glowing eulogy. As he took his seat the demonstration was punctuated by calls for the noted Nebraskan who, after much pressure, stepped forward and said:

I am denying myself a great pleasure when I refuse to respond to your very cordial invitation. When I came this afternoon and found that Mr. Cockran and I were to speak together this evening, or it had been so announced, I consulted with him and with those who were in charge, and it was the decision that anything like a debate would not be in keeping with the purpose of this conference.

"We are not here to arouse partisan feeling by standing as representatives of different ideas. We are here to take part in a conference, to give expression to our views, and to gather as much information as we can from the views expressed by others, and it

was decided that it was better that Mr. Cockran should have this evening by himself and that I should speak to-morrow at 10 o'clock and give my views. And while, as I say, I am denying myself a great pleasure in refusing to speak to this magnificent audience, I am sure that you upon reflection will agree that our decision is the correct one and that the purpose of this conference shall be carried out and that we shall avoid as far as possible anything that might seem like partisanship or an attempt to array one part of the body against another part.

"I don't know to what extent Mr. Cockran represents the views of the delegates here. I don't know to what extent I represent the views of the delegates in what I shall say, but to-morrow at 10 o'clock I shall submit some remarks in regard to the subject of monopoly and make some suggestions as to methods by which monopoly can be eliminated. I am one of those who believe that monopoly in private hands is indefensible in a free country.

"While I agree with much that Mr. Cockran has said to-night, agree with some of the remedies proposed, I cannot fully agree with all that he has said, and to-morrow instead of attempting to answer any part in which I may differ, I expect to present this subject as it appears to me in order that I may contribute my part toward the solution of this great question."

At 10:50 o'clock the conference adjourned until 10:30 o'clock the following morning.

MORNING SESSION, SEPTEMRER 16.

It was 10:05 o'clock when Chairman Howe called to order the first of the two last sessions of the conference. In anticipation of Col. William J. Bryan's reply to Mr. Cockran's address of the preceding evening the hall was again packed to the doors, and many of the scenes of the previous evening were reënacted.

Moved by Gaines, of Tennessee, seconded by Davis, of Arkansas, that a committee of five on finance and publication be appointed by the chair. Carried.

W. E. STANLEY.

Governor of Kansas.

Chairman Howe introduced Governor Stanley, of Kansas, who

said:

More than three years ago in this city a great political party met in convention, and in less than an hour changed their policy and entrusted their banner and chances of success into the hands of a new and untried champion. The campaign that followed was one of the most memorable-aye, the most memorable in the history of American politics. We did not all agree with the wonderful man who led over 7,000,000 voters with him in that fight; but we did all admire his matchless eloquence and brilliant leadership.

It is not necessary for me to introduce him to any American audience. I take pleasure, however, in presenting to this audience Col. W. J. Bryan, who will now address you.

WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.

Col. Bryan was as enthusiastically received as he had been when he entered the hall on the preceding evening. As soon as the applause, which was long and vigorous, had subsided he began his address, saying:

I appreciate the very kind words spoken by Governor Stanley in presenting me to this audience. I am glad I live in a country where people can differ from one another, differ honestly, express their convictions boldly, and yet respect one another and acknowledge one another's rights. I am not vain enough, however, to think that any good will which has been expressed by the people toward me is due to personal merit. If I have had political friends it is because people believe with me in certain ideas or rather because I believe with them in certain ideas. It is the idea that makes the man. The man is only important as he helps the idea.

I come this morning to discuss in your presence a great question-a question of growing importance to the American people. The trust principle is not a new principle, but the trust principle is manifesting itself in so many ways and the trusts have grown so rapidly that people now feel alarmed about trusts who did not feel alarmed three years ago. The trust question has grown in

importance, because within two years more trusts have been organized, when we come to consider the capitalization and the magnitude of the interests involved, than were organized in all the previous history of the country, and the people now come face to face with this question: Is the trust a blessing or a curse? If a curse, what remedy can be applied to the curse?

I want to start with the declaration that a monopoly in private hands is indefensible from any standpoint, and intolerable. I make no exceptions to the rule. I do not divide monopolies in private hands into good monopolies and bad monopolies. There is no good monopoly in private hands. There can be no good monopoly in private hands until the Almighty sends us angels to preside over the monopoly. There may be a despot who is better than another despot, but there is no good despotism. One trust may be less harmful than another. One trust magnate may be more benevolent than another, but there is no good monopoly in private hands, and I do not believe it is safe for society to permit any man or group of men to monopolize any article of merchandise or any branch of industry.

What is the defense made of the monopoly? The defense of the monopoly is always placed on the ground that if you will allow a few people to control the market and fix the price they will be good to the people who purchase of them. The entire defense of the trusts rests upon a money argument. If the trust will sell to a man an article for a dollar less than the article will cost under other conditions, then in the opinion of some that proves a trust to be a good thing. In the first place I deny that under a monopoly the price will be reduced. In the second place, if under a monopoly the price is reduced the objections to a monopoly from other standpoints far outweigh any financial advantage that the trust could bring. But I protest in the beginning against settling every question upon the dollar argument. I protest against the attempt to drag every question down to the low level of dollars and cents.

In 1859 Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to the Republicans of Boston who were celebrating Jefferson's birthday, and in the course of the letter he said: "The Republican party believes in the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict it believes in the man before the dollar." In the early years of his administration he sent a message to Congress, and in that message he warned his countryman against the approach of monarchy. And what was it that alarmed him? He said it was the attempt to put capital upon an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government, and in that attempt to put capital even upon an