into something quite other than their usual selves, into
grave law-makers. This strangeness wore away after a time and he grew
more at ease. He began to study Cushing along with the rest. It laid
the foundation for a thorough knowledge of the methods of conducting a
meeting, which was afterward of so much value to him.

His first attempt at debating was upon the question, "Should farmers be
free traders?" a question which was introduced by Milton, who was
always attempting to introduce questions which would strike fire.
Nothing pleased his fun-loving nature more than to take part in a "live
debate."

As real free traders were scarce, Mason, a brilliant young Democrat,
requested Radbourn to take the side of free trade, and he consented.
Milton formed the third part of the free trade cohort. He liked the fun
of trying to debate on the opposite side, a thing which would have been
impossible to Bradley's more intense and simple-hearted nature. What he
believed he fought for.

Mason led off with a discussion of the theory of free exchange and made
a passionate plea, florid and declamatory, which gave Fergusson, a
cool, pointed, scholarly Norwegian, an excellent chance to raise a
laugh. He called the attention of the house to the "copperhead
Democracy," which the gentleman of the opposition was preaching. He
asked what the practical application would mean. Plainly it meant cheap
goods.

"That's what we want," interrupted Mason, and was silenced savagely by
the chairman.

"England would flood us with cheap goods."

"Let 'em flood," said somebody unknown, and the chairman was helpless.

Fergusson worked away steadily and was called down at last.

He was distinguished as one of the few men who always talked out his
ten minutes.

Radbourn astonished them all by saying with absolute sincerity: "Free
trade as a theory is right. Considered as a question of ethics, as a
question of the trend of things, it's right. The right to trade is as
much my right, as my right to produce. The one question is whether it
ought to be put into operation at once. There is no reason why the
farmer should uphold protection."

From this on his remarks had a mysterious quality. "I'm a free trader,
but I'm not a Democrat. Tariff tinkering is not free trade, and I don't
believe the Democrats would do any more than the Republicans, but that
aint the question. The question is whether the farmers should be free
traders."

After the discussion a