cities everywhere, in every part of the land, in which we feel that, not
the interests of the public, but the interests of special privileges, of
selfish men, are served; where contracts take precedence over public
interest. Not only in big cities is this the case. Have you not noticed
the growth of socialistic sentiment in the smaller towns? Not many months
ago I stopped at a little town in Nebraska, and while my train lingered I
met on the platform a very engaging young fellow dressed in overalls who
introduced himself to me as the mayor of the town, and added that he was
a Socialist. I said, "What does that mean? Does that mean that this town
is socialistic?" "No, sir," he said; "I have not deceived myself; the vote
by which I was elected was about 20 per cent. socialistic and 80 per cent.
protest." It was protest against the treachery to the people of those who
led both the other parties of that town.

All over the Union people are coming to feel that they have no control
over the course of affairs. I live in one of the greatest States in the
union, which was at one time in slavery. Until two years ago we had
witnessed with increasing concern the growth in New Jersey of a spirit of
almost cynical despair. Men said: "We vote; we are offered the platform we
want; we elect the men who stand on that platform, and we get absolutely
nothing." So they began to ask: "What is the use of voting? We know that
the machines of both parties are subsidized by the same persons, and
therefore it is useless to turn in either direction."

This is not confined to some of the state governments and those of some of
the towns and cities. We know that something intervenes between the
people of the United States and the control of their own affairs at
Washington. It is not the people who have been ruling there of late.

Why are we in the presence, why are we at the threshold, of a revolution?