ENGLISH 6.

Question: "Resolved, That all Gold Democrats should vote for McKinley."

Brief for the Affirmative.G. GLEASON and E. M. GREGORY.Best general references: Andrew D. White, letter, Boston Herald, July 16; Forum, September, 1896; speech Bourke Cochran, Kansas City Star, October 8; editorial, Boston Herald, August 21; Harper's Weekly, August 8; Public Opinion, September 17, October 8; Platform, St. Louis Convention; Platform, Indianapolis Convention.

All Gold Democrats should vote for McKinley.

I. In doubtful states it would be unpatriotic to vote any other way.- A. All believers in the gold standard feel sure that the necessity of maintaining the gold standard transcends all questions of party policy. (Cochran's speech, Kansas City Star, October 8.)

II. In states regarded as solid for McKinley it would be dangerous to vote for Palmer.- A. The small number of votes cast for Palmer might lose McKinley the election.- (1) In a similar manner the small vote of a third party caused the unexpected defeat of Clay in 1844, Cases in 1848, and Blaine in 1884. (Public Opinion, October 8, 1896, p. 457.)

III. To give silver such an overwhelming defeat that the question will not again be made a national issue, all sound money votes should be cast for the Republican candidate.- A. The votes cast for Palmer would not help defeat Bryan.- (1) Palmer has no chance of election. (Harper's Weekly, August 8, 1896. (2)-McKinley would be weakened by the votes cast for Palmer. (Public Opinion, September 17, 1896.)

IV. It would be for the best interests of Sound Money Democracy, (A) While maintaining the principles of sound money by electing McKinley, the Gold Democrats could still effectively oppose McKinley's tariff policy. (1) In the few remaining months of the present Congress no general tariff act could pass (Harper's Weekly, Aug. 12, '96). (2) The next Congress which convenes Dec., '97, might, if an energetic campaign were made, be controlled by those who favor a moderate tariff, (Harper's Weekly, Aug. 12, '96). (B) The opposition of the Gold Democrats to high protective tariff would be more effective if they had voted for McKinley. (1) By pointing to their own patriotism in subordinating their other views to the demands of sound money, they might more easily gain concessions from the Republican party in regard to the tariff.

Brief for the Negative.H. W. FOOTE and G. H. DORR.General references: The Republican and Indianapolis Platforms.

I. The aims of gold Democrats are two fold. (A) To defeat Bryan. (B) To uphold the Democratic principles of (1) A single gold standard, (2) Reform of the currency. (3) A tariff for revenue only. (4) International arbitration. II. In doubtful states to accomplish the first they must give up the second. III. In states not doubtful they can accomplish both by voting for Palmer and Buckner, for, (A) in this way they administer a sharper rebuke to the silverites than in voting for McKinley, for (1) a vote for McKinley is liable to be misunderstood. It is doubtful whether it represents (a) a high protectionist. (b) a Republican who has not usually voted, (c) a Democrat, (2) a vote for Palmer and Buckner cannot be mistaken for it is evidently cast by a Democrat, (a) against Bryan and his silver platform, (b) for gold or good government. B. They vote for an unmorlulatec candidate upon a platform which represents their convictions, as stated in I B, rather than (1) dallying with international bimetallism. (2) Maintenance of the present costly and unstable currency system. (3) Tariff legislation for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. (4) A jingo foreign policy. IV. In voting for Palmer and Buckner gold Democrats seek to form the nucleus of a solid organization, (A) by being recognized as a nation party, (B) by obtaining control of state organizations, (C) for the interests of sound finance, (D) for opposition to McKinleyism.