“ Schurz's position is that he is willing to take the awful risk of intrusting the preservation of the gold standard to a man who declares that he will destroy it at the earliest possible moment. Unless Mr. Schurz believes Bryan to be an impostor he must admit that if he should find the power to destroy the gold standard he would forthwith destroy it. That power he might, in four years, find put into his hands. Mr. Schurz recklessly trusts the country's credit and prosperity to the sound-money majority in the Senate for the next two years. The people remember that a President serves four years. ”

“ MR. SCHURZ'S SURREJOINDER.
Mr. Gage would be happier and Mr. Schurz less jubilant if that interview of July 15 had been altogether suppressed. It is exceedingly awkward to be publicly exhibited as saying on Aug. 25 that direful things would happen which on July 15 you had said could not happen at all. Indeed, one of the handiest ways of flooring an adversary is to confront him with his own words in deadly parallel columns, making him confute himself and destroy his own arguments. ”

“ Bryan to change the standard. We do not think such a preposterous argument was ever before used in serious political controversy. He virtually asks Mr. Gage to say to the people, “You may go ahead and elect Bryan if you like him better than you like McKinley, and you need have no fear about the gold standard. We will take care of that in the short session of Congress.”
Intelligent voters are not influenced by such arguments. They are absurd. We doubt whether they are not immoral. ”