to adjourn. If that motion had been carried, the Bill would have been displaced. Mr. Bland rallied, and defeated the motion, the Republicans helping him. Then Tom Johnson, of Ohio, who voted with the Free Silver men for the purpose, moved to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Burrows' motion was lost. Mr. Bland moved to table Johnson's motion. He was now in his turn defeated by a tie vote, 145 to 145, so that the anti-Silver men had another opportunity to table the Bill.

"And now came a great wrangle with the Speaker. On the previous roll-calls he had on his own motion ordered the clerk to recapitulate the vote, that is, to read it over for the correction of errors. On Johnson's motion he simply announced the vote, and declared it lost by a tie vote of 148 to 148. The announcement was greeted by a storm of indignation. Members shouted their protests. Demands for a recapitulation were made. The Speaker denied them, on the ground that they were made after the result of the vote was declared. He was reminded that he had himself ordered the recapitulation on previous votes, and that on this occasion he had given no opportunity for a demand. He was angrily told that the vote as declared was wrong. Finally Mr. Bland, with the fairness that characterized him throughout, said that if any member doubted the accuracy of the

count he hoped that there would be a recapitulation. The Speaker acceded, and the recapitulation showed errors enough to carry Johnson's motion.

"Burrows' motion then came up once more, was then lost, and after a parliamentary struggle Mr. Bland himself moved the adjournment. The Bill was subsequently killed for the session by the Speaker's refusal to apply clôture.

“In this exciting parliamentary struggle Mr. Bourke Cockran was the conspicuous figure on the Democratic side. His was the voice and presence and tireless energy. With him were Tracey, Fitch, and Warner, of New York, and George Fred Williams, of Massachusetts, while aiding him with their great parliamentary resources were ex-Speaker Reed and Burrows. It was a great victory nobly won."

A full page cartoon in Puck amusingly illustrates the public importance of Burrows' strategy. He himself gives the following explanation of the episode:

"In the Silver fight I put the motion to lay the Bill on the table. This was to place on record those Democrats who were maneuvering to side-track the Bill without committing themselves on the question at issue. Then I voted myself, and instructed my allies to vote against the motion,-that was, for the consideration of the Bill, though opposing the policy it advocated. This was to force Democrats who were

still trying to straddle the question to take a final stand, from which there would be no hope of retreat. It was urged that in this I juggled with a vital principle, but inasmuch as I knew the Bill could not become a law there was ultimately possible no sacrifice of any public interest, and the end to be gained was confusion added to the defeat of the enemy."

At the National Conventions in 1892 the platforms of both Parties were intentionally ambiguous on the subject of Free Coinage, but each demanded parity in the value of gold and silver. Almost before the National Convention had adjourned, the Senate again passed a Bill for the unlimited coinage of silver, but it was killed in the House by a vote of 154 to 136. The renomination of Cleveland for President, and his well-known views against Free Coinage, undoubtedly influenced the Democratic Representatives.

The facts connected with the panic of 1893 make it the most difficult to analyze of any of the panics which have overtaken the United States. The year 1892 was conspicuous because the volume of its business transactions went beyond that of any other year in the history of the country; all records were broken in trade with foreign countries; railroads increased their tonnage; there was a favorable money market in relation to business; and the record of business failures was the smallest for ten years. Students of