The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896

Front matter

The object of "The First Battle" is to present an account of the leading events and issues of the most critical campaign in American history. The work contains an interesting description of the author's famous tour, including his most important speeches, together with the principal addresses and documents identified with the campaign of 1896; the whole embodying a faithful presentation of the rise and development of the silver movement. It also contains a review of the political situation and an analysis of the election returns. At our request the author has included a biographical sketch written by Mrs. Bryan.

The name and fame of the author may induce unscrupulous publishers to issue fraudulent imitations of "The First Battle". We desire to state that this book will appear under no other title than "The First Battle", copyrighted by William J. Bryan and bearing the imprint of W. B. Conkey Company.

—The Publishers.

Chapter 1: My Connection with the Silver Question Begins

On the 30th day of July, 1890, I was nominated for Congress in the First Nebraska District by the Democratic party. The platform adopted by the nominating Convention contained the following silver plank:

We demand the free coinage of silver on equal terms with gold and denounce the effort of the Republican party to serve the interests of Wall street as against the rights of the people.

I wrote the plank and it expressed my views at that time. The Democratic party in Congress had, only a short time before the holding of our Convention voted strongly in favor of free coinage and my opponent, Hon. W. J. Connell, had voted with the Democrats. Since we agreed upon the silver question, we confined our campaign almost entirely to the discussion of the McKinley tariff act, for which he had voted. When I spoke upon the silver question at all it was only briefly and the argument made was, in substance, that we needed more money rather than less and that the use of both metals for standard money would give more money than the use of one alone.

After the election I determined to make a thorough study of the money question. The first thing read was a little pamphlet issued by the Bimetallic League and entitled "Silver in the Fifty-first Congress." Professor Laughlin's book on bimetallism was next read and afterwards, the "Report of the Royal Commission of England" and the works of Jevons, Bonamy Price, Cernuschi, De Laveleye, Chevelier, Jacobs and others. By this time the agitation upon the question had reached a point where people were dividing upon the subject and I was pained to find my opinion running contrary to the opinions of many with whom I have been politically intimate, but the more I investigated the question the deeper my convictions became.

In April, 1891, I attended the Western States' Commercial Congress in session at Kansas City, Mo., and there voted for free coinage and also introduced, and secured the adoption of, the following declaration:

Resolved, That it is the sense of this congress that all legal tender money of the United States should be made a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, any condition in the contract to the contrary notwithstanding; provided that this should not affect contracts already in existence.

On the 17th of September, 1891, I attended the Democratic State Convention held at Grand Island, Nebraska, and, as a member of the committee on resolutions, secured the adoption of the following plank:

We favor the free coinage of silver and demand that it shall be made a full legal tender for all debts, public and private; and we denounce as unjust and dishonest the provioins of the law recently enacted allowing parties to stipulate against payment in silver and silver certificates, thus setting up one standard for the rich man and another for the poor man.

The latter part of the plank reproduced the idea set forth in the resolution adopted by the Western States' Commercial Congress.

In the Spring of 1892 I attended the Democratic State Convention which was held at Omaha on April 14th. This Convention was called to select delegates to the Democratic National Convention. There was a strong sentiment in favor of Mr. Cleveland's renomination and the Convention was organized against silver but Mr. Cleveland's friends, knowing his position, were satisfied to avoid the question. I was made a member of the Resolutions Committee by a vote of the Convention and presented the following minority report:

We declare ourselves in favor of the free coinage of silver.

We had a warm contest over this plank, the vote when finally taken being so close that both sides claimed a majority and the roll was called a second time. On the second roll call the silver plank was declared lost but we have since had reason to believe that it was carried by a small majority. This Convention may be considered the beginning of the contest in Nebraska between the two wings of the Democratic party. I was at that time opposed to Mr. Cleveland's renomination because of his attitude on the money question and favored the nomination of Governor Boies, of Iowa, who was, in my judgment, nearest to our position.

I was renominated for Congress on the day before the meeting of the National Convention. My platform declared for free coinage and the question was made a special feature in the Congressional campaign. Just before the adjournment of the first session of the Fifty-second Congress, my attention was called to a bill introduced by Senator Sherman on the 14th day of July, 1892. The bill will be found in my third speech against unconditional repeal.

As soon as I saw this bill I concluded that the next move of the opponents of free coinage would be to secure the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law, thus leaving no provision for an increase in silver coinage. Taking a copy of the bill with me throughout my District I pointed out the probable attempt which would be made and pledged myself to resist it to the extent of my ability. My fears proved well founded, since it was only a little more than a year afterward that Mr. Wilson introduced the Administration bill for unconditional repeal at the opening of the extraordinary session of the Fifty-third Congress. His bill will also be found in the speech above referred to.

From a comparison of these two bills it is evident that they come from the same source; they were identical in purpose and almost identical in language.

I did not go out of my District during the campaign of 1892 and took no further part in the discussion of the silver question until the matter came up in the House of Representatives during the closing days of the second session of the Fifty-second Congress.

↑ Top Table of contents → Next chapter

Chapter 2: : Unconditional Repeal

On February 9th, 1893, the House having under consideration the following resolution:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House proceed to consider H. R. 10143, "A bill to increase the circulation of national banks and for other purposes," and if such bill shall not be disposed of on said day, then the consideration thereof shall be continued during the next legislative day.

I made my first speech against unconditional repeal. It is given below:

This was the first effort made to secure unconditional repeal, and there was coupled with it a proposition to allow banks to issue notes up to the par value of their bonds and to reduce the tax on circulation. It is significant that in recent years the effort to degrade silver has gone hand in hand with the effort to increase the control of national banks over the issue of paper money.

A little later in the same month, February 27th, an effort was made to secure authority for the issue of short time, low rate bonds. This I believed to be a part of the general plan to secure a legislative declaration favorable to gold and I therefore opposed the measure.

From what had already taken place I felt sure that the great contest over the money question was approaching and after the adjournment of Congress devoted myself to preparation for it. I was not surprised, therefore, when the President called Congress together in extraordinary session on the 7th day of August, 1893. Mr. Wilson of West Virginia, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, introduced the Administration measure, to which I have heretofore referred, and the great parliamentary struggle began. I then asserted, and still believe, that the debate over the repeal bill was the most important economic discussion which ever took place in our Congress. On the 16th day of August, 1893, near the close of the debate, I delivered the following argument in opposition to unconditional repeal.

The bill passed the House by a considerable majority and after nearly two months of debate in the Senate, came back to the House with an amendment.

On Nov. 1st, 1893, I again spoke on this question:

I attempted to prevent a vote by making dilatory motions, not in the hope of preventing the passage of the bill but for the purpose of driving the majority to secure repeal without any concession, real or apparent, on the part of the friends of free silver. There were but few, however, who were willing to engage in obstruction and when action could be no longer delayed, I obtained the floor and placed on record the following:

↑ Top Previous chapter Table of contents Next chapter

Chapter 3: : Bolting Discussed

While the repeal bill was under discussion in the Senate, I visited Nebraska as a delegate to the Democratic State Convention which met at Lincoln on the 4th of October, 1893. Outside of my own District (nearly every county of which sent silver delegates) no organized fight was made by the silver Democrats to control the Convention and when I reached Lincoln I found a large majority of the Convention favorable to the President's policy, but nearly, if not quite, half of the delegates to the Convention were willing to assist the President in carrying out his policy to the extent of filling Nebraska's quota of the Federal offices. I was selected by the delegates from my own District as their member of the Committee on Resolutions, but the chairman of the Convention, Hon. T. J. Mahoney of Omaha, then a candidate for United States District Attorney, in deference to the wishes of the Administration Democrats, refused to appoint me. One silver Democrat, Mr. Robert Clegg, was made a member of the Committee, however, and presented the following minority plank on the silver question:

We are opposed to the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law and demand that the repealing act shall carry out the remainder of the plank in the National Democratic platform of 1892 and provide for the "coinage of both gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage."

By courtesy of Mr. Clegg I obtained the floor and spoke against the majority platform.

The silver plank was defeated by a large majority and the gold Democrats were so delighted with their victory that Messrs. Euclid Martin, W. D. McHugh and three others joined in a telegram to Secretary Morton notifying him of the resolutions passed and sending greeting to the President. Mr. Cleveland has since appointed Mr. Martin postmaster at Omaha and Mr. McHugh United States Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Since the gold standard Democrats have referred to my convention speech as an abandonment of the Democratic party, I reproduce the criticised portion of it from the columns of the Lincoln Weekly Herald of that date:

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Convention: We are confronted tonight by as important a question as ever came before the Democracy of the State of Nebraska. It is not a personal question, it is a question which rises above individuals. So far as I am personally concerned, it matters nothing whether you vote this amendment up or down; it matters not to me whether you pass resolutions censuring my course or endorsing it. If I am wrong in the position I have taken on this great financial question, I shall fall, though you heap your praises upon me; if I am right, and in my heart, so help me God, I believe I am, I shall triumph yet, although you condemn me in your convention a hundred times. Gentlemen, you are playing in the basement of politics—there is a higher plane. You cannot settle the great political questions in this way. You think you can pass resolutions censuring a man and that you can humiliate him. I want to tell you that I shall still "more true joy in exile feel" than those delegates who are afraid to vote their own sentiments or represent the wishes of the people, lest they may not get a federal office. Gentlemen, I know not what others may do, but duty to country is above duty to party, and if you represent your constituents in what you have done and will do—for I do not entertain the fond hope that you who have voted as you have today will change upon this vote—if you as delegates properly reflect the sentiment of the Democratic party which sent you here; if the resolutions which have been proposed and which you will adopt, express the sentiments of the party in this State; if the party declares in favor of a gold standard, as you will if you pass this resolution; if you declare in favor of the impoverishment of the people of Nebraska; if you intend to make more galling than the slavery of the blacks, the slavery of the debtors of this country; if the Democratic party, after you go home, endorses your action and makes your position its permanent policy, I promise you that I will go out and serve my country and my God under some other name, even if I must go alone.

But, gentlemen, I desire to express it as my humble opinion that the Democratic party of Nebraska will never ratify what you have done here in this convention. In this city, when we had our primaries, there were bankers who called sons of their debtors in and told them how they must vote, but there are too many men in Nebraska who cannot be driven or compelled to vote as somebody else dictates.

The Democratic party was founded by Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Jefferson dared to defy the wealth and power of his day and plead the cause of the common people, and if the Democratic party is to live it must still plead the cause of the man who wears a colored shirt as well as the man who wears a linen collar. You must choose today what kind of democracy you want. For twenty years the party has denounced the demonetization of silver; for twenty years it has proclaimed it the "crime of the age;" it has heaped upon the Republican party all the opprobrium that language could express because of its connection with demonetization; if you are ready to go down on your knees and apologize for what you have said, you will go without me. On the 14th day of July, 1892, Senator Sherman, of Ohio, introduced in the Senate of the United States a bill substantially like the Wilson bill as it passed the House. Mr. Sherman is the premier of the Republican party, their leader upon financial questions, and you come into this convention and attempt to thrust his bill down the throats of Democrats as a Democratic measure. There sits in Columbus, in the State of Ohio, one long known as "the noblest Roman of them all." He has won and held the affection of the American people as few citizens have done; in the evening of life, crowned with a nation's gratitude, he awaits the summons that will call him home—where I know there is a reward for men who sacrifice for their country's good—and from the solitude of his retreat Allen G. Thurman says that he is opposed to unconditional repeal, and when I must choose between Senator Sherman, of Ohio, and Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, I shall take my democracy from the latter.

Do you say that this is Democracy? Was it in the national platform? Read the platform. Can you find authority for unconditional repeal there? You find a demand for a repeal, but you find a matter far more important than a "cowardly make-shift," you find a demand that we shall coin both "gold and silver without discrimination against either metal or charge for mintage." Are you going to snatch away a fragment of the platform and call that Democratic, while you turn your backs upon the declarations which have been in our platforms for the last twenty years? The Democratic party in Congress has on many occasions expressed itself and until this year there was never a time but that a majority of the Democrats in both House and Senate voted for the free coinage of silver at 16 to 1 by this country alone, and in this Congress, when the question came up in the House, a majority of the Democrats voted to substitute the Bland law for the Sherman law, showing that they were not in favor of unconditional repeal. If they had favored unconditional repeal, would they have voted to continue the purchase of silver, as provided by the Bland act?

In that speech I took the position which I have announced since on several occasions, namely, that I would not support for the Presidency an advocate of the gold standard. On the 26th of February, 1896, the Omaha World-Herald published an editorial written by me which covers this subject and I reproduce it for the purpose of setting forth my views, and for the further purpose of pointing out that the subsequent action of the gold standard Democrats was expected and counted upon. I have omitted the name of the paper referred to in the editorial because its side of the controversy is not given.

↑ Top Previous chapter Table of contents Next chapter

Chapter 4: : Seigniorage, Currency and Gold Bonds

Some weeks elapsed after the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman Act before there was any further discussion of financial legislation, but in February the seigniorage bill was brought before the House and passed. I voted for the measure and made a speech in support of it.

Notwithstanding the seigniorage bill had a considerable majority in both Houses, and a still larger majority among the Democratic Representatives in the House and Senate, the President vetoed the measure and thus thwarted the first effort put forth to relieve the people from the financial conditions which, already bad, were aggravated by the repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman law. Quite a number of the public men who supported unconditional repeal were anxious to secure the passage of the seigniorage bill in order to put themselves in better position before their constituents.

The last session of the Fifty-third Congress witnessed a renewal of the discussion of monetary topics. President Cleveland presented to Congress a plan for reforming the currency and Mr. Springer of Illinois, chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, introduced the Administration measure. This bill had for its object the withdrawal of a portion of the greenbacks and Treasury notes and the extension of the national bank system. I opposed it it in a speech of considerable length.

The bill failed of passage and the President then recommended the retirement of the greenbacks and Treasury notes with an issue of gold bonds. Mr. Springer prepared and brought forward a measure carrying out the recommendation. Mr. Reed, on the part of the Republicans, proposed a substitute which authorized the issue of low rate bonds payable in coin. I offered the following amendment to Mr. Reed's substitute:

Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed as surrendering the right of the Government of the United States to pay all coin bonds outstanding in gold or silver coin at the option of the Government, as declared by the following joint resolution, adopted in 1878 by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, to wit:

"That all the bonds of the United States issued or authorized to be issued under the said act of Congress hereinbefore recited are payable, principal and interest, at the opion of the Government of the United States, in silver dollars of the coinage of the United States, containing 412½ grains each of standard silver; and that to restore to its coinage such silver coins as a legal tender in payment of said bonds, principal and interest, is not in violation of the public faith nor in derogation of the rights of the public creditor."

My amendment was voted down without discussion, then Mr. Reed's substitute was rejected and Mr. Springer's bill defeated. Immediately after the defeat of the gold bond proposition the President entered into the Rothschild-Morgan contract and notified Congress in a special message that he had made the contract and at the same time called attention to the fact that he had reserved the right to substitute gold bonds at a lower rate of interest, and asked authority for the issue of such bonds. The Ways and Means Committee reported a bill granting to the President the authority for which he asked. To me fell the honor of preparing a minority report against this bill. Hon. Justin R. Whiting joined in the report; the other members of the minority explaining their positions upon the floor in the course of the debate. I give below the minority report and also a copy of the contract which gave rise to the discussion:

I felt that the issue of bonds payable specifically in gold would establish a very dangerous precedent, and therefore took a deep interest in the defeat of the proposition. I believed that the issuance of gold bonds would be followed by a demand upon the part of the bond holding class for another credit strengthening act, like the one passed in 1869, except that this one would declare all bonds payable in gold. On February 14, 1895, I submitted the following argument in opposition to the bill:

There was great rejoicing among the opponents of the measure when the vote disclosed its defeat.

Just before the close of the session the Speaker appointed Hon. David Culberson, of Texas, and Hon. Robert E. Hitt, of Illinois, as the House members of a commission to attend an international monetary conference which then seemed about to be called. The House by unanimous vote made Speaker Crisp a member of the commission. The appointment of this commission aroused some discussion in regard to international bimetallism and on the last day of the session, a little before adjournment, I made my last speech in the House of Representatives. I said:

↑ Top Previous chapter Table of contents Next chapter

Chapter 5: : Pioneer Work in Nebraska

One evening in May, 1894, a few Nebraska Democrats assembled at the Paxton Hotel in Omaha, the following persons being present: Judge Joseph E. Ong of Geneva, Hon. J. B. Kitchen of Omaha, Hon. C. J. Smyth of Omaha, Judge J. H. Broady of Lincoln, Hon. William H. Thompson of Grand Island, Hon. James C. Dahlman of Chadron, Hon. John Thomsen of Fremont, Hon. G. A. Luikart of Norfolk, Hon. John C. Van Housen of Schuyler, Hon. C. V. Casper of David City, Hon. Edward Falloon of Falls City, Hon. W. H. Kelligar of Auburn, Frank J. Morgan, Esq., of Plattsmouth, and Richard L. Metcalfe of the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald.

I have given the names of these gentlemen because they were pioneers in a great movement and originated a plan which was afterward successfully applied to national politics. They were all men of standing in the State and most of them men of considerable property. Messrs. Thomsen, Luikart, Van Housen and Casper were members of the State Legislature; Judge Broady had been upon the district bench. (He was a candidate for Congress in 1896 and came within three hundred votes of election.) Mr. Smyth had been a member of the Legislature and has since been elected attorney general of the State. Mr. Thompson (of Grand Island) is the present Democratic national committeeman for the State of Nebraska and Mr. Dahlman is the present chairman of the Democratic State Committee. Mr. Metcalfe is now editor-in-chief of the World-Herald. I cannot say with whom the idea first originated, but these congenial spirits, on the evening mentioned, decided to call a conference of silver Democrats to be held at Omaha on the 21st of June, 1894. While I had discussed with some of the gentlemen the necessity of making a fight for the control of the party organization in the State, I knew nothing of this plan until the conference had been called. Upon invitation, I visited Nebraska and addressed this conference. A few days before leaving Washington, I received a letter from a Nebraska friend who suggested that a few silver Democrats had expressed themelves in favor of a demand for bimetallism without naming any ratio. Believing it necessary to make a bold and emphatic declaration, I at once telegraphed that the subject of my address would be:

We favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.

I found upon my arrival that the Committee on Resolutions had decided to embody my subject in the platform, but before the platform was ready to report some one asked me whether the words "present ratio" meant the present legal ratio or the present bullion ratio, and, to avoid ambiguity, the declaration was to amended as to read:

We favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.

The platform also announced to the Democrats of the State that the silver question would be submitted to the primaries for the decision of the voters. The conference resulted in a complete organization among the silver Democrats, reaching from a State executive committee down to a committeeman in each County and, where possible, in each precinct. The Democratic State Committee was asked to set an early date for the convention, but, being controlled by the gold element, refused this request and delayed the State Convention until September. This delay, however, instead of injuring, really benefited the silver Democrats and enabled them to make a more complete canvass of the State. When the convention met, the silver Democrats were in control by a vote of nearly three to one. Mr. Euclid Martin, the chairman of the State committee, called the convention to order and, at the request of the committee, suggested a temporary chairman. The silver Democrats had asked for the selection of one of their number and when their request was refused moved to substitute the name of their candidate, Hon. Ed. P. Smith, for the one suggested by the committee. After some debate, the candidate suggested by the committee withdrew his name and Mr. Smith was elected without further opposition. I wrote the money plank adopted by the convention; it reads as follows:

We indorse the language used by Hon. John G. Carlisle in 1878, when he denounced the "conspiracy" to destroy silver money as "the most gigantic crime of this or any other age," and we agree with him that "the consummation of such a scheme would ultimately entail more misery upon the human race than all the wars, pestilences and famines that ever occurred in the history of the world." We are not willing to be parties to such a crime, and in order to undo the wrong already done, and to prevent the further appreciation of money, we favor the immediate restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.

We regard the right to issue money as an attribute of sovereignty and believe that all money needed to supplement the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and to make the dollar so stable in its purchasing power that it will defraud neither debtor nor creditor, should be issued by the general Government, as the greenbacks were issued; that such money should be redeemable in coin, the Government to exercise the option by redeeming in gold or silver, whichever is most convenient for the Government. We believe that all money issued by the Government, whether gold, silver, or paper, should be made a full legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that no citizen should be permitted to demonetize by contract that which the Government makes money by law.

The platform also declared in favor of the income tax, arbitration and the foreclosure of the Pacific liens. In fact, in 1894 the Democrats of Nebraska contended for substantially the same policies which were embodied in the Democratic National Platform of 1896. To carry the parallel a little further, it may be remarked that the Republicans won in Nebraska in 1894; in 1896, however, they lost. In 1894 they secured a two-thirds majority in the Legislature and elected all the State officers except governor; in 1896 the fusionists secured a two-thirds majority in the Legislature and elected every State official.

But to return to the convention. After the adoption of the platform and the nomination of a candidate for the United States Senate, the convention proceeded to nominations for State officers. Hon. Silas A. Holcomb, who had been previously nominated by the Populists, was, by a large majority, made our nominee for Governor and several other Populist nominees were placed upon our ticket. A few of the gold Democrats, after taking part in the convention during its temporary organization, during the adoption of the platform, during the nomination of a candidate for the United States Senate and during the selection of the State committee, left the hall as soon as Mr. Holcomb was nominated. These, together with a few who had, at the primaries, failed of election as delegates, assembled in a room of the Paxton Hotel and organized a new party. They called themselves "straight Democrats" and their candidates for State offices were placed upon the official ballot by petition.