Читать книгу William Jennings Bryan - Harvey Ellsworth Newbranch - Страница 7

Table of Contents

For twenty years prior to 1896 the chief tangible point of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties was the tariff question. It was, in truth, a question on which the two great parties had always differed since the days when they were known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Democratic party, in true accord with the principles of Thomas Jefferson, has always held that government to be best which interferes least with the liberty of the individual. The purpose of government, it has held, is to protect man in his personal rights against the unjust encroachments of his neighbors. But, according to the Democratic idea, government should not interfere to arbitrarily promote the interests of any class of its citizens at the expense of any other class. All should be left, protected against illegal encroachment, but otherwise unmolested, to work out their own salvation. In other words, Democracy believes that government to be best which governs least.

The Republican theory, on the other hand, has inclined toward the exactly opposite point of view; that that government is best which governs most. It has acted consistently on the principle that it is not only permissible but advisable for government to be made an instrument for advancing the pecuniary or business interests of such of its citizens as seem most deserving or are most fortunate in winning its ear. It was this radical difference between the two parties, involving, as it did, a basic and fundamental principle, that lay at the root of the controversy regarding tariff duties.

The Democratic party, adhering to the strict letter of the Constitution, held that the tariff should be levied for one simple purpose, and that the purpose contemplated by the Constitution—to raise revenue. With this end in view, the party contended, tariff duties should be levied mostly on such articles as are not produced in this country, and, in order to equalize the burden of taxation, be imposed rather on luxuries than the strict necessities of life.

The Republican party took a more radical position. It advocated the levying of tariff duties, not primarily for the purpose of raising revenue,—that was made a secondary consideration,—but to protect from foreign competition the manufacturing and industrial enterprises of the United States. Then, it argued, these establishments, protected by the fostering arm of government, would grow great and strong, furnishing at once employment for labor at high wages, and a “home market” for the products of the American farm and mine.

Controverting this alluring argument, the Democratic party held that government had no right to compel citizens of one class or section to contribute involuntarily to the support of citizens of some other class or section of the country. The only manner in which a protective tariff could protect, it pointed out, was by enabling the home manufacturer to charge a higher price because of the duty on foreign goods. This added price, it showed, must be paid into the pocket of the American manufacturer by the American consumer. Moreover, it declared, the farmer could only share the burden without receiving any of the benefits of a high protective tariff, the price of his products being fixed in the world’s markets at Liverpool and London. And the same thing, it held, was true of the laboring man, as the rate of his remuneration was fixed mainly by “the iron law of wages.”

When Mr. Bryan was elected to Congress for his first term this question of tariff was the all-absorbing one before the people. The Republican party, in the zenith of its power, had enacted the McKinley tariff law, the embodiment of its views on this question, levying tariff duties so high as almost to exclude foreign competition. It was in this law, undoubtedly, that most of the great trusts and monopolies since formed read their birthright.

Mr. Bryan, naturally, as a Democrat and a firm believer in the principles of government laid down by Thomas Jefferson, was vigorously opposed to the theory of a high protective tariff. The Congress in which he served his first term was Democratic, the result of the enactment of the trust-breeding McKinley tariff law. The Ways and Means Committee, of which Mr. Springer of Illinois was chairman, decided that relief might best be effected by the introduction of a series of bills, transferring certain commodities to the free list.

It was in support of one of these—a bill placing wool on the free list and reducing the duties on woolen goods—that Mr. Bryan delivered his maiden speech in the House. This was on Wednesday, March 16, 1892. Like Byron, he awoke the next morning and found himself famous. The speech had attracted the admiring attention of the whole country. The young orator’s logic, acute reasoning, powers of broad generalization, and apt and homely illustration, not less than his genuine eloquence, incisive wit, and brilliant repartee, had, in one speech, won him a place at the head of the list of American parliamentary orators.

In his speech Mr. Bryan thus effectually punctured with his ridicule the Republican argument generally advanced that a high tariff makes low prices:

“Now, there are two arguments which I have never heard advanced in favor of protection; but they are the best arguments. They admit a fact and justify it, and I think that is the best way to argue, if you have a fact to meet. Why not say to the farmer, ‘Yes, of course you lose; but does not the Bible say, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”—[laughter]—and if you suffer some inconvenience, just look back over your life and you will find that your happiest moments were enjoyed when you were giving something to somebody, and the most unpleasant moments were when you were receiving.’ These manufacturers are self-sacrificing. They are willing to take the lesser part, and the more unpleasant business of receiving, and leave to you the greater joy of giving. [Loud laughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

“Why do they not take the other theory, which is borne out by history—that all nations which have grown strong, powerful, and influential, just as individuals, have done it through hardship, toil, and sacrifice, and that after they have become wealthy they have been enervated, they have gone to decay through the enjoyment of luxury, and that the great advantage of the protective system is that it goes around among the people and gathers up their surplus earnings so that they will not be enervated or weakened, so that no legacy of evil will be left to their children. Their surplus earnings are collected up, and the great mass of our people are left strong, robust, and hearty. These earnings are garnered and put into the hands of just as few people as possible, so that the injury will be limited in extent. [Great laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] And they say, ‘Yes, of course, of course; it makes dudes of our sons, and it does, perhaps, compel us to buy foreign titles for our daughters [laughter], but of course if the great body of the people are benefited, as good, patriotic citizens we ought not to refuse to bear the burden.’ [Laughter.]

“Why do they not do that? They simply come to you and tell you that they want a high tariff to make low prices, so that the manufacturer will be able to pay large wages to his employees. [Laughter.] And then, they want a high tariff on agricultural products so that they will have to buy what they buy at the highest possible price. They tell you that a tariff on wool is for the benefit of the farmer, and goes into his pocket, but that the tariff on manufactured products goes into the farmer’s pocket, too, ‘and really hurts us, but we will stand it if we must.’ They are much like a certain maiden lady of uncertain age, who said, ‘This being the third time that my beau has called, he might make some affectionate demonstration’; and, summing up all her courage, she added, ‘I have made up my mind that if he does I will bear it with fortitude.’” [Great laughter and applause.]

He thus pleaded for the protection of the greatest of “home industries,”—the home-building of the common people:

“I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that this Republican party, which is responsible for the present system, has stolen from the vocabulary one of its dearest words and debased its use. Its orators have prated about home industries while they have neglected the most important of home industries—the home of the citizen. The Democratic party, so far from being hostile to the home industries, is the only champion, unless our friends here, the Independents, will join with us, of the real home industry of this country.

“When some young man selects a young woman who is willing to trust her future to his strong right arm, and they start to build a little home, that home which is the unit of society and upon which our Government and our prosperity must rest—when they start to build this little home, and the man who sells the lumber reaches out his hand to collect a tariff upon that; the man who sells paints and oils wants a tariff upon them; the man who furnishes the carpets, tablecloths, knives, forks, dishes, furniture, spoons, everything that enters into the construction and operation of that home—when all these hands, I say, are stretched out from every direction to lay their blighting weight upon that cottage, and the Democratic party says, ‘Hands off, and let that home industry live,’ it is protecting the grandest home industry that this or any other nation ever had. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.]

“And I am willing that you, our friends on the other side, shall have what consolation you may gain from the protection of those ‘home industries’ which have crowned with palatial residences the hills of New England, if you will simply give us the credit of being the champions of the homes of this land. [Applause on the Democratic side.] It would seem that if any appeal could find a listening ear in this legislative hall it ought to be the appeal that comes up from those co-tenants of earth’s only paradise; but your party has neglected them; more, it has spurned and spit upon them. When they asked for bread you gave them a stone, and when they asked for a fish you gave them a serpent. You have laid upon them burdens grievous to be borne. You have filled their days with toil and their nights with anxious care, and when they cried aloud for relief you were deaf to their entreaties.”

The conclusion of Mr. Bryan’s speech is here reproduced. It is of greater length than would ordinarily justify its incorporation in a volume of this size, but the objection is outweighed by the fact, that, in most beautiful English, it outlines the idea of government which has since been the beacon light that has guided Mr. Bryan’s career:

“We can not afford to destroy the peasantry of this country. We can not afford to degrade the common people of this land, for they are the people who in time of prosperity and peace produce the wealth of the country, and they are also the people who in time of war bare their breasts to a hostile fire in defense of the flag. Go to Arlington or to any of the national cemeteries, see there the plain white monuments which mark the place ‘where rest the ashes of the nation’s countless dead,’ those of whom the poet has so beautifully written:

‘On Fame’s eternal camping ground

Their silent tents are spread.’

Who were they? Were they the beneficiaries of special legislation? Were they the people who are ever clamoring for privileges? No, my friends; those who come here and obtain from Government its aid and help find in time of war too great a chance to increase their wealth to give much attention to military duties. A nation’s extremity is their opportunity. They are the ones who make contracts, carefully drawn, providing for the payment of their money in coin, while the government goes out, if necessary, and drafts the people and makes them lay down upon the altar of their country all they have. No; the people who fight the battles are largely the poor, the common people of the country; those who have little to save but their honor, and little to lose but their lives. These are the ones, and I say to you, sir, that the country can not afford to lose them. I quote the language of Pericles in his great funeral oration. He says:

‘It was for such a country, then, that these men, nobly resolving not to have it taken from them, fell fighting; and every one of their survivors may well be willing to suffer in its behalf.’

That, Mr. Chairman, is a noble sentiment and points the direction to the true policy for a free people. It must be by beneficent laws; it must be by a just government which a free people can love and upon which they can rely that the nation is to be preserved. We can not put our safety in a great navy; we can not put our safety in expensive fortifications along a seacoast thousands of miles in extent, nor can we put our safety in a great standing army that would absorb in idleness the toil of the men it protects. A free government must find its safety in happy and contented citizens, who, protected in their rights and free from unnecessary burdens, will be willing to die that the blessings which they enjoy may be transmitted to their posterity.

“Thomas Jefferson, that greatest of statesmen and most successful of politicians, tersely expressed the true purpose of government when he said:

“’With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens: a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.’

“That is the inspiration of the Democratic party; that is its aim and object. If it comes, Mr. Chairman, into power in all of the departments of this government it will not destroy industry; it will not injure labor; but it will save to the men who produce the wealth of the country a larger portion of that wealth. It will bring prosperity and joy and happiness, not to a few, but to every one without regard to station or condition. The day will come, Mr. Chairman—the day will come when those who annually gather about this Congress seeking to use the taxing power for private purposes will find their occupation gone, and the members of Congress will meet here to pass laws for the benefit of all the people. That day will come, and in that day, to use the language of another, ‘Democracy will be king! Long live the king!’” [Prolonged applause on the Democratic side.]