Speeches of 
 A^illiam Jennings Bryan 
 
 VOLUME I 
 
V 
 
Photograph by Walinger, unicago 
 
 rf%Z^ Olajla-^JXaaAaA.^^ /U/VU 
 
 Cty^< 
 
7 •^■" 
 
 Speeches of 
 William Jennings Bryan 
 
 Revised and Arranged by Himself 
 
 WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 
 BY MARY BAIRD BRYAN, HIS WIFE 
 
 In Two Volumes 
 VOLUME I 
 
 264 
 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK and LONDON 
 1913 
 
3"^ 
 
 % 
 
 COPTRIGHT, 1909, BT 
 WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN 
 Printed in the United States of America 
 Published November, 1909. 
 
I do not know 
 Where falls the seed that I have tried to sow 
 
 With greatest care ; 
 
 But ! shall know 
 The meaning of each waiting hour below 
 
 Some time, somewhere ! 
 
 — Rev. F. S. Browning, 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 VOLUME I 
 
 PAGE 
 
 BioGEAPuicAL Introduction xi 
 
 SPEECHES ON TAXATION AND EIMETALISM 
 
 I. The TarifE (1892) . 
 
 II. Bimetalism (1893) . 
 
 III. tJnconditional Repeal (1893) 
 
 IV. An Income Tax (1894) . 
 V. The Omnivorous West (1894) 
 
 VI. Money (1S94) . 
 
 VII. In the Chicago Convention (1S96) 
 
 VIII. The Silver Question (1896) 
 
 IX. The Tariff (1908) . . . 
 
 X. The Liquor Question in Nebraska 
 
 3 
 
 78 
 146 
 159 
 180 
 191 
 238 
 250 
 291 
 323 
 
 V'l 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION 
 
 Within the last few years Mr. Bryan has corre- 
 sponded with a number of persons bearing the 
 family name. Some of the Bryans trace their 
 ancestry to Ireland, some to Wales, while others 
 have followed the name through Irish into English 
 history. A biographical sketch written under the 
 supervision of ^iias L. Bryan states that the family 
 is of Irish extraction. 
 
 William Bryan, who lived in Culpeper County, 
 Virginia, considerably more than one hundred 
 years ago, is the first ancestor whose name is known 
 to his descendants. Where he was born, and when, 
 is a matter of conjecture. He owned a large tract 
 of land among the foothills of the Blue Ridge 
 Mountains, near Sperryville. The family name of 
 his wife is unknown. There were born to the pair 
 five children: James, who removed to Kentucky; 
 John, who remained upon the homestead; Aquilla, 
 who removed to Ohio; and Francis and Elizabeth, 
 about whom nothing is known. 
 
 John Bryan, the second son, was born about 1790, 
 and at an early age married Nancy Lillard. The 
 Lillard family is an old American family of Eng- 
 lish extraction and is now represented by numerous 
 descendants scattered over Virginia, Kentucky and 
 Tennessee. To John Bryan and wife ten children 
 
 XI 
 
XII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 were born, all of whom are deceased. The oldest, 
 William, removed to Missouri in early life and 
 lived near Troy. John and Howard died in in- 
 fancy. Jane married Joseph Cheney and lived at 
 Gallipolis, Ohio. Nancy married George Baltzell, 
 and lived in Marion County, Illinois. Martha 
 married Homer Smith, and lived at Gallipolis, 
 Ohio, later removing to Marion County, Illinois. 
 The next child, Robert, a physician, was killed in 
 a steamboat explosion while yet a young man. 
 
 Silas Lillard, father of William Jennings Bryan, 
 was born November 4, 1822, near Sperryville, in 
 what was then Culpeper, but is now a part of Rap- 
 pahannock County, Virginia. The next child, Rus- 
 sell, located at Salem, Illinois. Elizabeth, the 
 youngest of the family, married another George 
 Baltzell and removed to Lewis County, Missouri. 
 
 About the year 1828 John Bryan removed with 
 his family to the western portion of Virginia, in 
 what is now West Virginia. His last residence was 
 near Point Pleasant, where both he and his wife 
 died, the latter in 1834, the former in 1836. 
 
 Silas Lillard Bryan, when still a boy, went West 
 and made his home a part of the time with his sis- 
 ter, Nancy Baltzell, and a part of the time with his 
 brother, William. Pie was ambitious to obtain an 
 education, and after making his way through the 
 public schools, entered McKendree College, at Leb- 
 anon, Illinois, where he completed his course, grad- 
 uating with honors, in 1849. Owing to lack of 
 means he was occasionally compelled to drop out of 
 college for a time and earn enough to continue his 
 studies. At first he spent these vacations working 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xin 
 
 as a farm hand, but later, when sufficiently ad- 
 vanced in his studies, taught school. After gradua- 
 tion he studied law, was admitted to the bar, and, 
 at the age of twenty-nine, began practice at Salem, 
 Illinois. On November 4th, 1852, he married 
 Mariah Elizabeth Jennings. During the same year 
 he was elected to the State Senate and served in 
 that body for eight years. In 1860 he was elected 
 to the circuit bench, and served twelve years. In 
 1872 he was nominated for Congress upon the 
 Democratic ticket, receiving the endorsement of the 
 Greenback party. He was defeated by a plurality 
 of 240 by General James Martin, Republican can- 
 didate. As a member of the convention of 1872, 
 which framed the present Constitution of Illinois, 
 he introduced a resolution declaring it to be the 
 sense of the convention that all offices, legislative, 
 executive and judicial, provided for by the new 
 Constitution, should be filled by elections by the 
 people. Before his election to the bench, and after 
 his retirement therefrom, he practised law in Mar- 
 ion and the adjoining counties. He was a member 
 of the Baptist Church, the church to which his 
 parents belonged, and was a very devout man. He 
 prayed at morning, noon and night, and was a firm 
 believer in providential direction in the affairs of 
 life. 
 
 Silas Lillard Bryan was a man of strong charac- 
 ter, stern integrity and high purpose. He took 
 rank among the best lawyers in Southern Illinois, 
 and was a very graceful and forcible speaker. His 
 mind was philosophical and his speeches argumenta- 
 tive. In politics he was a Democrat in the broadest 
 
 12 
 
XIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 sense of the word and had an abiding faith in re- 
 publican institutions and in the capacity of the 
 people for self government. He was a staunch 
 defender of higher education and gave financial as 
 well as moral support to various institutions of 
 learning. He regarded the science of government 
 as highly honorable and set apart the guest cham- 
 ber of his home for ''politicians and divines." He 
 was broad and tolerant in his religious views. It 
 was his custom, after he removed to the farm, to 
 send a load of hay at harvest time to each preacher 
 and priest in Salem. While a public man during a 
 large part of his life, he was eminently domestic. 
 He died March 30, 1880, and was buried in the 
 cemetery at Salem. His will provided that all 
 of his children should be encouraged to secure 
 "the highest education which the generation af- 
 fords." 
 
 The Jennings family has lived so long in America 
 that descendants of its pioneers do not know the 
 date of their coming to the colonies ; nor is it known 
 positively from what country they came; they are 
 believed to have been English. Israel Jennings, 
 who was born about 1774, is the earliest known an- 
 cestor. He was married to Mary Waters about 
 1799, and lived in Mason County, Kentucky. In 
 1818 he moved with his family to Walnut Hill, 
 Marion County, Illinois, where his wife died in 
 1844 and he in 1860. He was the father of eight 
 children: Israel, Jr., George, Charles Waters, of 
 whom I shall speak later; William W. ; Elizabeth, 
 who married William Davidson ; America, who 
 married George Davidson ; IMary, who married Ed- 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xv 
 
 ward White, and Ann, who married Rufus Mc- 
 Elwain. All are now dead. 
 
 Charles Waters Jennings was married to Maria 
 Woods Davidson, on December 14th, 1826, and es- 
 tablished a home adjoining the Israel Jennings 
 homestead. He diecv h\ 1872, and his wife in 1885. 
 To this pair were bori. eight sons and two daugh- 
 ters : Josephus Waters, deceased, who lived near the 
 home of his father; Harriet, who married B. F. 
 Marshall, of Salem, Illinois, both deceased; Sarah, 
 who married Robert D. Noleman, of Centralia, Illi- 
 nois, both deceased; Mariah Elizabeth, the mother 
 of William Jennings Bryan; America, deceased, 
 who married William C. Stites, then of Marion 
 County, Illinois; Nancy, who married Dr. James 
 A. Davenport and lives at Salem, Illinois; Docia, 
 who married A. Van Antwerp, and lives at St. 
 Louis, Missouri; and Zadock, who lives near Wal- 
 nut Hill. 
 
 Mariah Elizabeth Jennings, Mr. Bryants mother, 
 was born near Walnut Hill, Illinois, on May 24th, 
 1834. She attended the public schools of the neigh- 
 borhood, and when nearly grown was the pupil of 
 Silas L. Bryan, who was nearly twelve years her 
 senior. At an early age she connected herself with 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the 
 church of her parents, and remained a member 
 until about 1877, when she united with the Baptist 
 Church, at Salem, to which her husband belonged. 
 She was a woman of excellent sense and superior 
 skill in management. Her husband's frequent ab- 
 sence from home threw upon her a large portion of 
 the responsibility for the care and discipline of the 
 
x\i BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 family, and for some years after his death her en- 
 tire time was given to the nurture and education 
 of the five minor children. When the boys were 
 grown she removed from the farm to Salem, and 
 became an active worker in her church and in socie- 
 ties for social improvement. She always took a 
 deep interest in the political fortunes of her son 
 William, and for counsel and instruction he has 
 always felt indebted to her equally with his father. 
 She lived during the later years of her life in a 
 home which William bought for her use with the 
 first savings from his Congressional salary. After 
 a lingering illness, which she bore with great pa- 
 tience, she died on the 27th of June, 1896, and was 
 laid to rest by the side of her husband. 
 
 To Silas Lillard and IMariah Elizabeth Bryan 
 w^ere born nine children. Of these Virginia, John 
 and Hiram died in infancy. Russell Jones, born 
 June 12th, 1864, died at the age of 17, on the eve 
 of his departure for college ; and Nancy Lillard 
 died at the age of 34. Four children are now liv- 
 ing, namely: Frances Mariah. born March 18th, 
 1858; William Jennings, born March 19th, 1860; 
 Charles Wayland, born February 10th, 1867 ; Mary 
 Elizabeth, born May 14th, 1872. Francis M. 
 Bryan (now Baird), lives at Shaw, Mississippi, 
 and Charles W. and Mary Elizabeth Bryan (now 
 Allen) live in Lincoln, Nebraska. 
 
 The Bryan, Lillard, Jennings and Davidson fami- 
 lies all belonged to the middle classes. They were 
 industrious, law-abiding. God-fearing people. No 
 member of the family ever became very rich, and 
 none ever abjectly poor. Farming has been the 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTKODUCTION xvii 
 
 occupation of the majority, while others have fol- 
 lowed the legal and medical professions and mercan- 
 tile pursuits. 
 
 William Jennings Bryan, as a boy, was sturdy, 
 round-limbed and fond of play. There is a tradi- 
 tion that his appetite developed very early. The 
 pockets of his first trousers were always filled with 
 bread, which he kept for an emergency. One of 
 the memories belonging to this period is that he 
 was ambitious to be a minister, but this soon gave 
 place to a desire to be a farmer, and that to a deter- 
 mination to become a lawyer "like father." This 
 purpose became the controlling one, and his educa- 
 tion was directed toward that end. 
 
 Mr. Bryan's father purchased a farm of five 
 hundred acres, one mile from the village, and vrhen 
 William was six years old the family removed to 
 this new home. Here he studied, worked and 
 played, until ten years of age, his mother being his 
 teacher. He learned to read quite early. After 
 committing lessons to memory he would stand upon 
 a little table and speak them to his mother. This 
 was his first recorded effort at speech-making. His 
 work was to feed the deer which his father kept in 
 a small park, and help care for the horses, cows, 
 pigs and chickens; in short the variety of work 
 known as "doing chores." His favorite sport was 
 rabbit hunting with dogs. I am not sure that 
 these expeditions were harmful to the game, 
 but they have furnished his only fund of hunt- 
 ing adventures for the amusement of our chil- 
 dren. 
 
 At the age of ten W^illiam entered the public 
 
xvni BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 school at Salem. During his five years* attendance 
 he was not an especially brilliant pupil, tho he 
 never failed in examinations. In connection with 
 his studies he developed an interest in the work of 
 literary and debating societies. His father's Con- 
 gressional campaign in 1872 led to his first political 
 awakening. From that time he always cherished 
 the thought of entering public life. His idea was 
 first to win a reputation and secure a competency 
 at the bar, and then to enter politics, but he seized 
 an unexpected opportunity which came to him in 
 1890. 
 
 At fourteen Mr. Bryan became a member of the 
 Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Later he joined 
 the First Presbyterian Church at Jacksonville, Illi- 
 nois, and upon our removal to Nebraska, brought 
 his "letter" to the First Presbyterian Church of 
 Lincoln, and later took his "letter" to the West- 
 minster Presbyterian Church of the same city, to 
 which he still belongs. As a matter of convenience, 
 however, he and his family attend the Normal 
 Methodist Church near his farm. 
 
 At fifteen Mr. Bryan entered Whipple Academy, 
 the preparatory department of Illinois College, at 
 Jacksonville, and with this step a changed life be- 
 gan. Vacation found him at home, but for eight 
 years he led the life of a student, and then took up 
 the work of his profession. Six years of his school 
 life were spent in Jacksonville, in the home of Dr. 
 Hiram K. Jones, a relative. The atmosphere of this 
 home had its influence upon the growing lad. Dr. 
 Jones was a man of strong character, of scholarly 
 tastes, and of high ideals, and during the existence 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 of the Concord School of Philosophy was a lecturer 
 upon Platonic Philosophy. Dr. Jones's wife, too, 
 was a woman of rare attainments, and having no 
 children, they gave the youth a home in the fullest 
 sense of that word. 
 
 Mr. Bryan's parents wished him to take a classi- 
 cal course and while sometimes he grumbled over 
 his Latin and Greek, he has since recognized the 
 wisdom of their choice. Of these two languages, 
 Latin was his favorite. He had a strong preference 
 for mathematics, and especially for geometry, and 
 has believed that the mental discipline acquired in 
 this study has since been useful in argument. He 
 was also an earnest student of political economy. 
 This entrance into college life brings to mind an 
 incident which shows both the young man's rapid 
 growth and his father's practical views. During 
 the first year of his absence from home he discov- 
 ered, as his holidays drew near, that his trousers 
 were becoming too short, and wrote home for money 
 to buy a new pair. His father responded that, as 
 it was so near vacation, he need not make any 
 purchase until he reached home, and added : ^ ' My 
 son, you may as well learn now, that people will 
 measure you by the length of your head, rather 
 than by the length of your breeches." 
 
 In college athletics, while he played very little at 
 baseball or football, he was fond of foot-racing and 
 jumping. Three years after graduation, on Osage 
 Orange Day, he won a medal for the broad or stand- 
 ing jump, in a contest open to students and alumni. 
 The medal records twelve feet and four inches as 
 the distance covered. 
 
^ 
 
 XX BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 A prize contest always fired Mr. Brj^an's ambi- 
 tion. It may interest boys who read these pages 
 to know of his record then in contest, and to note 
 his gradual rise. During his first year at the Acad- 
 emy he declaimed Patrick Henry's masterpiece and 
 not only failed to win a prize, but ranked well down 
 in the list. Nothing daunted, the second year found 
 him again entered with ''The Palmetto and the 
 Pine" as his subject. This time he ranked third. 
 The next year, when a Freshman, he tried for a 
 prize in Latin prose, and won half the second 
 prize. Later in the year he declaimed ''Bernardo 
 del Carpio," and gained the second prize. In his 
 Sophomore year he entered another contest, with 
 an essay on the not altogether novel subject, *' La- 
 bor." This time the first prize rewarded his work. 
 In the Junior year an oration on *' Individual 
 Power" gave Jiini the first prize. A part of this 
 prize was a volume of Bryant's poems. Mr. Bryan 
 afterwards gave me this book, his first gift, because 
 it contained his favorite poem, ** An Ode to a Water- 
 fowl, ' ' which concludes : 
 
 He who, from zone to zone. 
 
 Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight, 
 In the long way that I must tread alone, 
 
 Will lead my steps aright. 
 
 The winning of the Junior prize entitled him to 
 represent Illinois College in the intercollegiate ora- 
 torical contest which was held at Galesburg. Illinois, 
 in the fall of 1880. His oration was on ' ' Justice, ' ' 
 and was awarded the second prize of fifty dollars. 
 Gen. John C. Black, of Illinois, was one of the 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxi 
 
 judges in this contest and marked ^Ir. Bryan one 
 hundred in delivery. Upon invitation of Mr. Black, 
 the young man called on him at his hotel and re- 
 ceived many valuable suggestions on the art of 
 speaking. At the time of graduation he was elected 
 class orator and, having the highest rank in schol- 
 arship during the four years' course, delivered the 
 valedictory. Upon entering the academy he had 
 joined the Sigma Pi society, and was an active 
 member for six years, profiting much by the train- 
 ing in essay, declamation and debate. 
 
 My personal knowledge of ^Ir. Bryan dates from 
 September, 1879. He was then entering his Junior 
 year. At the risk of departing from the purpose of 
 this biography, I shall speak of my first impres- 
 sions. I saw him first in the parlors of the young 
 ladies * school which I attended in Jacksonville. He 
 entered the room with several other students, was 
 taller than the rest, and attracted my attention at 
 once. His face was pale and thin ; a pair of keen, 
 dark eyes looked out from beneath heavy brows; 
 his nose was prominent — too large to look well, I 
 thought ; a broad, thin-lipped mouth and a square 
 chin, completed the contour of his face. He was 
 neat, though not fastidious in dress, and stood 
 firmly and with dignity. I noted particularly his 
 hair and his smile, the former black in color, plen- 
 tiful (it is thinner now), fine in quality, and parted 
 distressingly straight; the latter, expansive and 
 expressive. In later years his smile has been the 
 subject of considerable comment, but the well- 
 rounded cheeks of Mr. Bryan now cheek its onward 
 march. No one has seen the real breadth of his 
 
XXII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 smile who did not see it in tiie early days. Upon 
 one occasion, a heartless observer was heard to re- 
 mark, * ' That man can whisper in his own ear, ' ' but 
 this was a cruel exaggeration. 
 
 During the summer of 1880 Mr. Bryan was 
 hooked for his first political meeting. I record the 
 details of this gathering for the encouragement of 
 young speakers. He was to make a Democratic 
 speech at a farmer's picnic near Salem, and the 
 bills announced two other speakers, Mr. Bryan 
 standing third on the list. On reaching the grove 
 he found the two speakers an*d an audience of four, 
 namely, the owner of the grove, one man in control 
 of a wheel of fortune, and two men in charge of a 
 lemonade stand. After waiting an hour for an 
 audience which failed to come, the meeting ad- 
 journed sine diey and Mr. Bryan went home. Later 
 in the fall, however, he made four speeches for Han- 
 cock and English, the first being delivered in the 
 court house at Salem. 
 
 The graduating exercises of Illinois College oc- 
 curred in June, 1881. Mr. Bryan's oration and 
 valedictory address will be found in this collection 
 of speeches. When the autumn came he entered 
 the Union College of Law at Chicago. Out of 
 school hours his time was spent in the office of ex- 
 Senator Lyman Trumbull, who had been a political 
 friend of Mr. Bryan's father. This acquaintance, 
 together with the fact that a warm friendship ex- 
 isted between Mr. Bryan and his law school class- 
 mate, Henry Trumbull, the judge's son, led to the 
 establishment of a second foster home — a home in 
 which he and his family ever found a cordial 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxiii 
 
 welcome. In this home, then lately bereft of its 
 head, he spent his first Sabbath after the Chicago 
 Democratic National Convention of 1896. 
 
 Mr. Bryan ranked well in the law school, taking 
 an especial interest in constitutional law. He was 
 connected with the debating society of the college, 
 and took an active part in its meetings. At gradu- 
 ation his thesis was a defense of the jury system. 
 His first fee was earned in the County Court at 
 Salem. 
 
 To these years of study belong many things which 
 are of interest to us, but which are too trivial for 
 the public eye. I shall venture upon one, how- 
 ever. Many people have remarked upon the fond- 
 ness which Mr. Bryan shows for quoting Scripture. 
 This habit is one of long standing, as the follow- 
 ing circumstance shows. The time came when it 
 seemed proper to have a little conversation with 
 my father and this was something of an ordeal, as 
 my father was a rather reserved man. In his dilem- 
 ma, William sought refuge in the Scriptures, and 
 began: *'Mr. Baird, I have been reading Proverbs 
 a good deal lately, and find that Solomon says: 
 'Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and 
 obtaineth favour of the Lord!' '' Father, being 
 something of a Bible scholar himself, replied : * ' Yes, 
 I believe Solomon did say that, but Paul suggests 
 that, while he that marrieth doeth well, he that 
 marrieth not doeth better." This was dishearten-^ 
 ing, but the young man saw his way through. 
 "Solomon," he rejoined, "would be the better 
 authority upon this point, because Paul was never 
 married, while Solomon had a number of wives." 
 
XXIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 After this friendly tilt the matter was satisfactorily 
 arranged.* 
 
 On July 4, 1883, Mr. Bryan began the practise of 
 his profession in Jacksonville. Desk room was ob- 
 tained in the office of Brown & Kirby, one of the 
 leading firms in the city, and the struggle encoun- 
 tered by all young professional men began. The 
 first six months were rather trying to his patience, 
 and he was compelled to supplement his earnings 
 by a small advance from home. Toward the close 
 of the year he entered into correspondence with his 
 former law school classmate, Henry Trumbull, then 
 located at Albuquerque, New Mexico, and discussed 
 with him the advisability of removing to that Terri- 
 
 * Readers will like to have printed here a note, obtained 
 by tJie publisher, as to the lady whom Mr. Bryan married. 
 Mary Baird Bryan was the only child of John and Lovina 
 Baird. John Baird was a prosperous merchant of Perry, 
 Illinois. Mrs. Bryan was born June 17, 1861. After a 
 course in the public schools she attended for one year 
 Monticello Seminary, at Godfrey, Illinois, and for two years 
 the Presbyterian Academy at Jacksonville, Illinois, gradu- 
 ating from the latter institution with first honors in June, 
 1881. She has continued her studies since graduation, giv- 
 ing special attention to German. After her marriage, in 
 1884, she read law, with her husband as instructor, taking 
 the course prescribed in the Union College of Law of Chi- 
 cago. She was admitted to practise in the Supreme Court 
 of Nebraska in November, 1888. This course of study was 
 not taken up with a view to entering practise, but in order 
 to put herself in closer relations with her husband, to whom 
 she has been a real helpmeet in every sense of the term. 
 He has often acknowledged his indebtedness to her for con- 
 stant and valuable assistance in his work. She is devoted 
 to her home, and to her children has been both mother and 
 companion. She became a member of the Methodist Church, 
 the church of her parents, in early life, but after her mar- 
 riage took a "letter" to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTIOiN xxv 
 
 tory. After the 1st of January, however, clients 
 became more numerous, and he felt encouraged to 
 make Jacksonville his permanent home. The fol- 
 lowing spring he took charge of the collection de- 
 partment of Brown & Kirby's office, and in a little 
 more than a year his income seemed large enough 
 to support two. During the summer of 1884 a 
 modest home was planned and built, and on Octo- 
 ber 1, 1884, we were married. 
 
 During the next three years we lived comfort- 
 ably, tho economically, and laid by a small amount. 
 Politics lost none of its charms, and each campaign 
 found Mr. Bryan speaking, usually in our own 
 county. Three years after graduation he attended 
 the commencement at Illinois College, delivered 
 the Master's oration, and received the degree. His 
 subject on that occasion was ''American Citizen- 
 ship." In the summer of 1887 legal business called 
 him to Kansas and Iowa, and a Sabbath was spent 
 in Lincoln, Nebraska, with a law school classmate, 
 Hon. A. R. Talbot. 
 
 Mr. Bryan was greatly imprest with the beauty 
 and business enterprise of Lincoln, and with the ad- 
 vantages which a growing capital furnishes for a 
 young lawyer. He returned to Illinois full of 
 enthusiasm for the West, and perfected plans for 
 our removal thither. No political ambitions entered 
 into this change of residence, as the city, county 
 and State were strongly republican. He arrived 
 in Lincoln, October 1, 1887, and a partnership was 
 formed with Mr. Talbot. As Mr. Bryan did not 
 share in the salary which Mr. Talbot received as a 
 railroad attorney, he had to begin again at the 
 
XXVI BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 bottom of the ladder. During this winter our 
 daughter Ruth and I remained in Jacksonville. 
 In the following spring a second house was built 
 at 1625 D street, and the family was reunited in its 
 Western home. The practise again became suffi- 
 cient for our needs, and during the three years 
 which followed we were again able to add to our 
 reserve fund. I might here suggest an answer to a 
 hostile criticism, namely, that Mr. Bryan did not 
 distinguish himself as a lawj^r. Those who thus 
 complain should consider that he entered the prac- 
 tise at twenty-three and left it at thirty-one, and 
 during that period began twice, and twice became 
 more than self-supporting. At the time of his 
 election to Congress his practise was in a thriving 
 condition, and fully equal to that of any man of 
 his age in the city. 
 
 Mr. Bryan often met such demands as are com- 
 monly made upon lawyers in the way of short ad- 
 dresses, toasts, etc. Some of this post-prandial 
 oratory was employed in the discussion of questions 
 of public importance. The following was a toast 
 upon ''The Law and the Gospel," delivered in the 
 spring of 1890 at a banquet given by the St. Paul 
 Methodist Church of Lincoln, in honor of some 
 distinguished visitors : 
 
 It is rather by accident than by design that this senti- 
 ment has fallen to me. Had not my law partner been 
 called unexpectedly from the State he would have responded 
 with more propriety and more ability to "The Law and 
 the Gospel." 
 
 These are important words ; each covers a wide field by 
 itself and tosrether they include all government. Th^re is 
 not between them, as some suppose, a wide gulf fixt. ]Many 
 have commenced with us only to be called to a higher sphere, 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxvii 
 
 and a few ministers have come to us when they were con- 
 vinced that they had answered to another's call. 
 
 In the earlier days the prophet was also the lawgiver. 
 He who wore the priestly robe held in his hands the scales 
 of justice. But times are changed. For the good of the 
 State and for the welfare of the church, the moral and the 
 civil law have been separated. To-day we owe a double 
 allegiance, and "render unto Caesar the things that 
 are Caesar's, and unto God the things that arp 
 God's." Their governments are concentric circles and 
 can never interfere. Between what religion commands 
 and what the law compels there is, and ever must be, 
 a wide margin, as there is also between what religion 
 forbids and what the law prohibits. In many things we 
 are left to obey or disobey the instructions of the Divine 
 Ruler, answerable to Him only for our conduct. The 
 gospel deals with the secret purposes of the heart as well 
 as with the outward life, while the civil law must content 
 itself with restraining the arm outstretched for another's 
 hurt or with punishing the offender after the injury is 
 done. 
 
 Next to the ministry, I know of no more noble profession 
 than the law. The object aimed at is justice, equal and 
 exact, and if it does not reach that end at once it is because 
 the stream is diverted by selfishness or checked by igno- 
 rance. Its principles ennoble and its practise elevates. If 
 you point to the pettifogger, I will answer that he is as 
 much out of place in the temple of justice as is the hypo- 
 crite in the house of God. You will find the "book on tricks" 
 in the library of the legal bankrupt — nowhere else. In no 
 business in life do honesty, truthfulness and uprightness of 
 conduct pay a larger dividend upon the investment than in 
 the law. He is not only blind to his highest welfare and 
 to his greatest good, but also treading upon dangerous 
 ground, who fancies that mendacity, loquacity and perti- 
 nacity are tlie only accomplishments of a successful lawyer. 
 
 YoTi cannot judge a man's life by the success of a moment, 
 by the victory of an hour, or even by the results of a year. 
 You must view his life as a whole. You must stand where 
 you can see the man as he treads the entire path that leads 
 from the cradle to the grave — now crossing the plain, now 
 climbing the steeps, now passing througli pleasant fields, 
 now wending his way with difficulty between rugged rocks 
 — tempted, tried, tested, triumphant. The completed life 
 of every lawyer, either by its success or failure, emphasizes 
 
xxvm BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 the words of Solomon — "The path of the just is as a shiDing 
 light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day," 
 
 By practising upon the highest plane the lawyer may 
 not win the greatest wealth, but he wins that which wealth 
 cannot purchase and is content to know and feel that "a 
 good name is rather to be chosen than great riches ; and 
 loving favor rather than silver and gold." 
 
 There are pioneers of the gospel whose names you speak 
 with reverence, Calvin, Knox, the Wesleys and Asburj^ 
 besides many still living, and you loTe them not wirhout 
 cause. There are those in our profession whom we delight 
 to honor. Justinian and Coke, Blackstone and Jay, Mar- 
 shall and Kent, Story and Lincoln, men who have stood in 
 the thickest of the fight, have met every temptation peculiar 
 to our profession, and yet maintained their integrity. 
 
 It is a fact to which we point with no little pride, that 
 with a history of a hundred years no member of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States has ever been charged with 
 ♦corrupt action altho untold millions have been involved 
 in the litigation before the court. Nor do I now recall 
 any member of the supreme court of any State who has 
 been convicted of misusing his oiBce. 
 
 "The Law and the Gospel." Great in their honored 
 names, great in their history, great in their influence. To 
 a certain extent they supplement each other. The law 
 asks of the gospel counsel, not commands. The gospel goes 
 far beyond the reach of law, for while the law must cease 
 to operate when its subject dies, the gospel crosses the 
 dark river of death and lightens up the world which lies 
 beyond the tomb. The law is negative, the gospel positive ; 
 the law says "do not unto others that which you would 
 not have others do unto you," while the gospel declares that 
 we should "do to others that which we would that others 
 should do unto us." 
 
 "The Law and the Gospel." They form an exception 
 to the rule that in union there is strength, for each is 
 strongest when alone. And I believe that the greatest pros- 
 perity of the State and greatest growth of the church will 
 be found when the law and the gospel walk, not hand in 
 hand but side by side. 
 
 Mr. Bryan became actively connected with the 
 Democratic organization in Nebraska immediately 
 after coming to the State, his first political speech 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxi:{ 
 
 of importance being made at Seward in the spring 
 of 1888. Soon afterward he went as a delegate to 
 the State Convention ; this gave him an acquaint- 
 ance with the leading Democrats of the State and 
 resulted in a series of speeches. He made a canvass 
 of the First Congressional district that fall in be- 
 half of Hon. J. Sterling Morton, and also visited 
 some thirty counties throughout the State. Mr. 
 Morton was defeated by thirty-four hundred, the 
 district being normally republican. 
 
 When the campaign of 1890 opened there seemed 
 small hope of carrying the district and there was 
 but little rivalry for the nomination. Mr. Bryan 
 was selected without opposition, and at once began 
 a vigorous campaign. An invitation to joint de- 
 bate was issued by his committee and accepted by 
 his opponent, Hon. W. J. Connell, of Omaha, who 
 then represented the district. These debates ex- 
 cited attention throughout the State. I have always 
 regarded the first debate of this series as marking 
 an important epoch in Mr. Bryan 's life. The meet- 
 ing took place in Lincoln. I had never before seen 
 Mr. Bryan so pre-occupied and so intent on making 
 his effort acceptable. He had the opening and the 
 closing speeches. The hall was packed with 
 friends of both candidates and applause was quite 
 evenly divided until the closing speech. I dare not 
 describe this scene as it stands out in my memory. 
 The people had not expected such a summing-up 
 of the discussion ; each sentence contained an argu- 
 ment ; the audience was surprised, pleased and en- 
 thusiastic. The occasion was a Chicago convention 
 in miniature, and delighted Mr. Bryan's support- 
 
 13 
 
XXX BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ers. In addition to these eleven joint contests, Mr. 
 Bryan made a thorough canvass, speaking about 
 eighty times and visiting every city and village in 
 the district. Tho these debates were crisp and 
 sharp in argument, they were marked by the utmost 
 friendliness between the opponents. At the close 
 of the last debate, Mr. Bryan presented Mr. Con- 
 nell a copy of Gray 's Elegy in a brief speech which 
 will be found in this collection. 
 
 When the returns were all in, it was found that 
 Mr. Bryan was elected by a plurality of 6,713. De- 
 siring to give his entire time to his Congressional 
 work, he, soon after election, so arranged his affairs 
 as to retire from practise, altho retaining a nominal 
 connection with the firm. 
 
 In the speakership caucus with which Congress 
 opened, Mr. Bryan supported Mr. Springer, in 
 whose district we had lived when at Jacksonville ; 
 in the House, he voted for Mr. Crisp, the caucus 
 nominee, and in the Fifty-third Congress voted for 
 Mr. Crisp both in the caucus and in the House. 
 Mr. Springer was made chairman of the Conmiit- 
 tee on Ways and Means, and it was largely through 
 his influence that Mr. Bryan was given a place 
 upon that committee. His first speech of conse- 
 quence was the tariff speech of March 16, 1892. 
 This was the second important event in his career 
 as a public speaker. The place which he held upon 
 the Ways and Means Committee is rarely given to 
 a new member, and he wished the speech to justify 
 the appointment. It is perhaps unnecessary for 
 me to comment at length upon the reception ac- 
 corded this speech, as the press at the time gave 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxi 
 
 such reports that the occasion will probably be re- 
 membered by those who read this sketch. 
 
 This speech increased his acquaintance with pub- 
 lie men, and added to his strength at home. More 
 than one hundred thousand copies were circulated 
 by members of Congress. 
 
 Upon his return to Nebraska he was able to secure 
 reelection in a new district (the State having been 
 reapportioned in 1891) which that year gave the 
 Republican State ticket a plurality of 6,500. His 
 opponent this time was Judge A. W. Field, of our 
 own city. The Democratic committee invited the 
 Republicans to join in arranging a series of debates, 
 and this invitation was accepted. This was even a 
 more bitter contest than the campaign of 1890, 
 Mr. McKinley, Mr. Foraker and others being called 
 to Nebraska to aid the Republican candidate. Be- 
 sides the eleven debates, which aroused much enthu- 
 siasm, Mr. Bryan again made a thorough canvass 
 of the district. The victory was claimed by both 
 sides until the Friday following the election, when 
 the result was determined by official count, Mr. 
 Bryan receiving a plurality of 140. 
 
 In the Fifty-third Congress Mr. Bryan was reap- 
 pointed upon the Ways and Means Committee and 
 assisted in the preparation of the Wilson bill. He 
 was a member of the sub-committee (consisting of 
 Representatives MacMillan, Montgomery and him- 
 self) which drafted the income tax portion of the 
 bill. In the spring of 1893, through the courtesy 
 of the State Department, Mr. Bryan obtained a 
 report from the several European nations which 
 collect an income tax, and the results of this re- 
 
XXXII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 search were embodied in the Congressional Records 
 during the debate. He succeeded in having incor- 
 porated in the bill a provision, borrowed from the 
 Prussian law, whereby the citizens who have tax- 
 able incomes make their own returns and those 
 whose incomes are within the exemption are re- 
 lieved from annoyance. On behalf of the commit- 
 tee, Mr. Bryan closed the debate, replying to Mr. 
 Cockran with the speech given in this volume. 
 
 During the discussion of the Wilson bill, Mr. 
 Bryan spoke in its defense. His principal work of 
 the term, however, was in connection with monetary 
 legislation. His speech of August 16, 1893, in oppo- 
 sition to the unconditional repeal of the Sherman 
 law (printed in this volume) brought out even 
 more hearty commendation than his first tariff 
 speech. Of this effort, it may be said that it con- 
 tained the results of three years of study upon the 
 money question. While in Congress he made a fruit- 
 less effort to secure the passage of the following bill : 
 
 Be it enacted, etc. : That section SOO of the Revised Stat- 
 utes of the United States, of 1878, be amended by addin.? 
 thereto the words "In civil cases the verdict of three-fourths 
 of the jurors constituting the jury shall stand as the verdict 
 of the jury, and such a verdict shall have the same force 
 and effect as a unanimous verdict." 
 
 The desire to have the law changed so as to per- 
 mit less than a unanimous verdict in civil cases, was 
 one which he had long entertained. In February, 
 1890, in response to a toast at a bar association 
 banquet in Lincoln, he spoke upon the jury system, 
 advocating the same reform. His remarks were 
 as follows : 
 
 One of the questions which has been for some time discust, 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxiii 
 
 and which is now the subject of controversy, is, "Has the 
 jury system outlived its usefulness?" 
 
 I think I voice the opinion of most of those present when 
 to the question I answer an emphatic No. 
 
 To defend this answer it will not be necessary to recall 
 the venerable age of the system, its past achievements, or 
 the splendid words of praise which have been uttered in its 
 behalf. It finds ample excuse for its existence in the needs 
 of to-day. 
 
 The circumstances which called it into life have passed 
 away and many of its characteristics have been entirely 
 changed, but never, I am persuaded, in the history of the 
 English speaking people, has the principle which underlies 
 the trial by jury been more imperatively demanded than it 
 is to-day. 
 
 This is an age of rapid accumulation of wealth, and the 
 multiplication of corporations gives to money an extraardi- 
 nary power. 
 
 One million dollars in the hands of one man or one com- 
 pany will outweigh, in the political and social world, ten 
 times that sum divided among a thousand people. Can 
 the temple of justice hope to escape its polluting touch 
 without some such barrier as that which the jury system 
 raises for its protection? Is there not something significant 
 in the direction from which much of the complaint against 
 the system comes? 
 
 If the question, "Shall the jury be abandoned or retained?" 
 were submitted to a vote, we would find prominent among 
 the opposing forces the corporate influences, the wealthy 
 classes, and those busy citizens to whom jury service, or 
 even the duty of an elector, is a burden. 
 
 While the great mass of its supporters would be found 
 among those who are compelled to fight the battle of life 
 unaided by those powerful allies — social position, political 
 influence and money — men whose only sword is the ballot, 
 and whose only shield, the jury. The jury system is not 
 perfect — w^e do not look for perfection in government — but 
 it has this great advantage, that if the verdict falls to one 
 side of the straight line of the law it is usually upon the 
 side of the poorest adversary. 
 
 All stand equal before the law, whether they be rich or 
 poor, high or low, weak or strong : but no system has yet 
 been devised which will insure exact justice at all times 
 between man and man. 
 
 We choose not between a perfect system and an imper- 
 
XXXIV BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 feet one, but between an imperfect system and one more 
 imperfect still. And if the scales of justice cannot be per- 
 fectly poised, the safety of society demands that they tip 
 most easily toward the side of the weak. 
 
 Faith in trial by jury implies no reflection upon the in- 
 tegrity of the bench. We recall with pardonable pride the 
 names of our illustrious judges whose genius and learning 
 have given luster to our professions and whose purity and 
 probity have crowned it with glory. 
 
 But they won their distinction in expounding the law and 
 left the decision of the facts to those fresh from contact 
 with the busy world. 
 
 If to the present duties of the judge we add those now 
 discharged by the jury, is it not possible that the selection 
 of a judge will be secured because of his known sympathies? 
 Will not the standard be so lowered that we may see upon 
 the bench an agent instead of an arbiter? 
 
 In what position will the suitor be who finds, when called 
 before a biased tribunal, that he has neither peremptory 
 challenge nor challenge for cause. No more fatal blow could 
 be struck at our national welfare than to give occasion for 
 the belief that in our courts a man's redress depends upon 
 bis ability to pay for it. 
 
 If the jury can guard the court room from the invasion 
 of unfair influences it will be as valuable for what it pre- 
 vents as for what it gives. 
 
 Time does not admit of extended reference to those faults 
 in the system which givo occasion for just criticism, faults 
 which its friends are in duty bound to prune away from it. 
 The requirement of an unanimous verdict causes many mis- 
 trials. In civil causes, where a decision follows the evi- 
 dence, it is difiicult to see why substantial justice would 
 not be done by a majority, or, at most, a two-thirds major- 
 ity verdict ; but we cannot abandon the old rule in criminal 
 cases without trespassing on the sacred right of the accused 
 to the benefit of every reasonable doubt ; for a divided jury, 
 in itself, raises a doubt as to his guilt. The law recently 
 passed making it a misdemeanor for a man to ask for 
 appointment as a juror, or for an attorney to seek a place 
 for a friend, is a step in the right direction. 
 
 Between a partisan juror and a professional juror it is 
 only a choice between evils. If to fill the panel with by- 
 standers means to fill it with men standing by for the 
 purpose of being called, we are ready for a law which will 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxv 
 
 compel the sheriff to seek talesmen bejoud the limits of the 
 court house. Any change, the aim of Avhich is to compel 
 the selection of men of ordinary intelligence and approved 
 integrity as jurors, will be acceptable to the people. But 
 now that all men read the news, the information thus ac- 
 quired should no longer render them incompetent for jury 
 service. It is a premium upon ignorance which we cannot 
 a fiord to pay. Instead of summoning a juryman for a 
 whole term we should limit his service to one or two weeks. 
 This would lighten the burden without impairing the prin- 
 ciple. To that argument, however, which assumes that 
 business men can afford no time for jury service there can be 
 but one answer, No government can long endure unless its 
 citizens are willing to make some sacrifice for its existence. 
 
 In this, our land, we are called upon to give but little 
 in return for the advantages which we receive. Shall we 
 give that little grudgingly V Our definition of patriotism is 
 often too narrow. 
 
 Shall the lover of his country measure his loyalty only 
 by his service as a soldier? No! Patriotism calls for the 
 faithful and conscientious performance of all of the duties 
 of citizenship, in small matters as well as great, at home 
 as well as upon the tented field. 
 
 There is no more menacing feature in these modern times 
 than the disinclination of what are called the better classes 
 to assume the burdens of citizenship. If we desire to pre- 
 serve to future generations tjae purity of our courts and 
 the freedom of our people, v^ must lose no opportunity to 
 impress upon our citizens the fact that above all pleasure, 
 above all convenience, above all business, they must place 
 their duty to their government; for a good government 
 doubles every joy and a bad government multiplies every 
 sorrow. Times change but principles endure. The jury 
 has protected us from the abuse of power and it is still 
 needed. 
 
 While human government exists the tendency to abuse 
 power will remain. This system, coming down from former 
 generations crowned with the honors of age, is today and 
 for the future our hope. 
 
 Let us correct its defects with kindly hands, let us purge 
 it of its imperfections and it will be, as in the past, the 
 bulwark of our liberties. 
 
 Besides the \\'^rk which I have mentioned, Mr. 
 
 Bryan spoke briefly upon several other questions, 
 
XXXVI BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 namely, in favor of the election of United States 
 Senators by a direct vote of the people, and in 
 favor of the anti-option bill; in opposition to the 
 railroad pooling bill and against the extension of 
 the Pacific liens. In the Fifty-third Congress the 
 Democrats adopted a rule which was somewhat simi- 
 lar to the one in force under Speaker Reed, pro- 
 viding for the counting of a quorum. Mr. Bryan 
 opposed this rule, the reasons which he then gave 
 in support of his position being set forth in a speech 
 which will be found in this collection. 
 
 In the spring of 1894, Mr. Bryan announced that 
 he would not be a candidate for reelection to Con- 
 gress, and later decided to stand as a candidate for 
 the United States Senate. He was nominated for 
 that office by the unanimous vote of the Democratic 
 State Convention. While the Republicans made no 
 nomination, it seemed certain that Mr. Thurston 
 would be their candidate and the Democratic com- 
 mittee accordingly issued a challenge to him for a 
 series of debates. The Republicans were also in- 
 vited to arrange a debate between Mr. McKinley 
 and Mr. Bryan, Mr. Kinley having at that time an 
 appointment to speak in Nebraska. The latter in- 
 vitation was declined, but two meetings were ar- 
 ranged with Mr. Thurston. These were the largest 
 political gatherings that had ever been held in the 
 State and were as gratifying to the friends of Mr. 
 Bryan as his previous debates. During the cam- 
 paign Mr. Bryan made a canvass of the State, 
 speaking four or five hours each day, and some- 
 times riding thirty miles over rough roads between 
 speeches. At the election, Nebraska shared in the 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxvii 
 
 general landslide ; the Republicans had a large ma- 
 jority in the Legislature and elected Mr. Thurston. 
 This defeat was a disappointment, but it did not 
 discourage Mr. Bryan, as is evident from an ad- 
 dress to his supporters, extracts from which fol- 
 low : 
 
 The Legislature is Republican, and a Republican Senator 
 will now be elected to represent Nebraska. This may be I 
 mortifying to the numerous chairmen who have introduced 
 me to audiences as "the next Senator from Nebraska," but 
 it illustrates the uncertainty of prophecies. 
 
 I appreciate more than words can express the cordial good 
 will and the loyal support of the friends to whom I am 
 indebted for the political honors which I have received. I 
 am especially grateful to those who bear without humilia- 
 tion the name of the common people, for they have been 
 my friends when others have deserted me. I appreciate 
 also the kind words of many who have been restrained 
 by party ties from giving me their votes. I have been a 
 hired man for four years and, now that the campaign is 
 closed, I may be pardoned for saying that as a public servant 
 I have performed my duty to the best of my ability, and 
 am not ashamed of the record made. 
 
 I stept from private life into national politics at the 
 bidding of my countrymen ; at their bidding I again take 
 my place in the ranks and resume without sorrow the 
 work from which they called me. It is the glory of our 
 institutions that public officials exercise authority by the 
 consent of the governed rather than by divine or hereditary 
 right. Paraphrasing the language of Job, each public ser- 
 vant can say of departing honors ! The people gave and 
 the people have taken away, blessed be the name of the 
 people. 
 
 Speaking of my own experience in politics, T may again 
 borrow an idea from the great sufferer and say : What, 
 shall we receive good at the hands of the people, and shall 
 we not receive evil? T have received good even beyond my 
 deserts, and I accept defeat without complaint. I ask my 
 friends not to cherish resentment against any one who may 
 have contributed to the result. 
 
 The friends of these reforms have fought a good fight; 
 they have kept the faith, and they will not have finished 
 
XXXVIII BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 their course until the reforms are accomplished. Let us 
 be g:rateful for the proa^ress made, and "with malice toward 
 none and charity for all" begin the work of the next cam- 
 paign. 
 
 Mr. Bryan received the votes of all the D-^moerats 
 and of nearly half of the Populist members. It 
 might be suggested here that while Mr. Bryan had 
 never received a nomination from the Populist 
 party, he had been, since 1892, materially aided by 
 individual members of that organization. In Ne- 
 braska the Democratic party has generally been 
 in the minority, and as there were several points 
 of agreement between it and the Populist party, 
 Mr. Bryan advocated cooperation between the 
 two. In the spring of 1893 he received the sup- 
 port of a majority of the Democratic members of 
 the Legislature, but, when it became evident that 
 no Democrat could be elected, he assisted in the 
 -election of Senator Allen, a Populist. Again, in 
 1894, in the Democratic State Convention, he aided 
 in securing the nomination of a portion of the 
 Populist ticket, including Mr. Holcomb, Populist 
 candidate for Governor. The cordial relations which 
 existed between the Democrats and Populists in 
 Nebraska were a potent influence in securing his 
 nomination at Chicago. 
 
 On September 1, 1894, Mr. Bryan became chief 
 of the editorial staff of the Omaha World-Herald, 
 and from that date until the national convention 
 of 1896 gave a portion of his time to this work. 
 This position enabled him daily to reach a larger 
 number of people in the discussion of public ques- 
 tions and also added considerably to his income. 
 While the contract fixt a certain amount of editorial 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xxxix 
 
 matter as a minimum, his interest in the work was 
 such that he generally exceeded rather than fell 
 below the required space. 
 
 After the adjournment of Congress Mr. Bryan, 
 on his way home, lectured at Cincinnati, Nashville, 
 Tenn., Little Rock, Ark., and at several points in 
 Missouri, the beginning of his career as a lecturer, 
 arriving in Lincoln March 19, his thirty-fifth birth- 
 day. The Jefferson Club tendered him a reception, 
 and an opera house packed with an appreciative 
 audience rendered this a very gratifying occasion 
 to Mr. Bryan. As he was no longer in public life, 
 and could show no favors in return, the disinter- 
 ested friendship shown will always be remembered 
 with pleasure. He chose as his theme, '* Thomas 
 Jefferson Still Lives," and, after reviewing the 
 work of the Fifty-third Congress, discust at length 
 the principles of his patron saint. 
 
 Mr. Bryan intended to resume the practise of 
 law and reopen his office. At this time, however, 
 the contest for supremacy in the Democratic party 
 had begun in earnest and calls for speeches were 
 so numerous and so urgent that it seemed best to 
 devote his time to lecturing and to the public dis- 
 cussion of the money question. In view of the 
 suggestions which have been made that Mr. Bryan 
 was in the pay of the silver league, I will be par- 
 doned for speaking of the earnings during these 
 months. His editorial salary formed the basis of 
 his income. When lecturing before Chautauqua 
 and similar societies he was paid as other lecturers. 
 Never at any time was he under the direction of, 
 or in the pay of, any silver league or association of 
 
XL BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 persons pecuniarily interested in silver. During 
 the interim between the adjournment of Congress 
 and the Chicago convention he spoke in all the 
 States of the West and South, and became ac- 
 quainted with those most prominently connected 
 with the silver cause. 
 
 He spoke on several occasions outside of Con- 
 gress, once at the National Cemetery at Arlington. 
 May 30, 1894. The scene was impressive and the 
 audience representative. President Cleveland and 
 four of his Cabinet being in attendance. This 
 speech will be found in this collection. 
 
 I shall not discuss the incidents leading up to 
 Mr. Bryan's nomination for the Presidency farther 
 than to say that, while the nomination was unex- 
 pected to the public at large, Mr. Bryan had already 
 received a number of letters from delegates suggest- 
 ing his nomination. That Mr. Bland, whose lead- 
 ership Mr. Bryan followed in Congress, recognized 
 Mr. Bryan as an available candidate is shown by 
 the following letter: 
 
 Lebanon, Mo., April 28, 1896. ' 
 
 Friend Bryan: 
 
 Yours of the 23d inst., containing report of your con- 
 vention, received. I am quite sure your convention would 
 have paid you the high compliment you so well deserve 
 of indorsing you and recommending your nomination at 
 Chicago, but for the fact, as you state in your letter, 
 that you yourself intervened to prevent it ; that you 
 believe you would be in a better position without indorse- 
 ment to fight for the main cause, the adoption of a free 
 coinage platform at Chicago. I entertained the same opinion 
 myself in Missouri, but was overruled. At the same time, 
 I have insisted to now, and shall insist, that nothing shall 
 be done in my interest that will in the least degree impede 
 or in any manner interfere with the accomplishment of 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xli 
 
 our snccess in wliippin,? Gold Bugs in the matter of plat- 
 form in the National Convention. 
 
 I am glad to know that you are going to Iowa and to 
 Illinois, as well as to Michigan, I see by the papers that 
 Michigan is already sure. I hope you will aid ex-Governor 
 Boies in Iowa, for I am taking great interest in that State, 
 as well as in the State of Kentucky. If these two States 
 go free coinage. I think our victory is assured. If we can 
 succeed in adopting a free coinage platform at Chicago, 
 there will be no trouble to get a man to fit the platform. 
 And whether it should be myself or you or E'x-Govemor 
 Boies, or any other, whose record shows that the people 
 can expect their will to be carried out by the man elected, 
 we will certainly win a great victory at the polls. 
 
 As for myself I have no greater ambition in the matter 
 than to see the cause for which I have battled so long 
 triumphant, and that I may witness during my lifetime 
 beneficial results to the people of my country. 
 Sincerely your friend, 
 
 R. P. Bland. 
 
 While Mr. Bryan's nomination has often been 
 credited to his speech in the convention, it must 
 be remembered that he had been in nearly all of 
 the States helpins: to organize the fight, and was 
 personally acquainted with a great many dele- 
 gates. I recall that he was anxious for me to go to 
 the convention because, while he regarded the pros- 
 pect of his nomination as remote, he believed that 
 the conditions were such as to bring it within the 
 range of possibilities. The Populist party and the 
 silver Republican party also nominated Mr. Bryan, 
 the Silver* Republicans endorsing the Democratic 
 candidate for Vice-President, Arthur Sewell, the 
 Populist convention nominating Thomas E. Wat- 
 son, of Georgia, for the second place. 
 
 The campaign of 1896 was a hotly contested one, 
 and Mr. Bryan traveled farther, made more 
 speeches and addrest more people than any man 
 
XLii BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 had ever done before in the same length of time. 
 The election showed a rearrangement of the politi- 
 cal map. A number of the Western States went 
 Democratic for the first time, while the Republi- 
 cans carried all the Eastern States by large majori- 
 ties. The Republican majority in the Electoral 
 College was ninety-five, but there was such a tre- 
 mendous increase in the popular vote that, altho 
 the Democratic vote was increased about one million 
 over the vote of that party in 1892, the Republicans 
 had a popular majority of some six hundred thou- 
 sand. The vote was so close, however, in a number 
 of States that a change of twenty thousand from 
 one side to the other, properly apportioned in the 
 close States, would have changed the result of the 
 election. 
 
 At the close of the campaign Mr. Bryan decided 
 to continue his political work instead of returning 
 to the law. To practise his profession he would ba 
 compelled to disappoint the expectations of those 
 who had become his co-workers in the field of poli- 
 tics, and he therefore decided to suspend for a while 
 longer the practise of law. He returned to the lec- 
 ture field, and since then has derived his income 
 from his lectures and his writings. It may be 
 added, however, that he does not receive compensa- 
 tion for political speeches, and that he delivers 
 more speeches without remuneration than he does 
 for pay. His book, "The First Battle, '* issued 
 soon after election, had a large sale. 
 
 On the day that war w^as declared against Spain 
 Mr. Bryan sent the following telegram to the Presi- 
 dent. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xi.ni 
 
 April 25, 1898. 
 Hon. William McKixley, President. 
 
 My Dear Sir: — I hereby place my services at yoar com- 
 mand durinjf the war with Spain and assure you of my 
 willini^ness to perform, to the best of my ability, any duty 
 to which you, as tlie commander in chief of the army and 
 navy, may see fit to assign me. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 W. J. Bryan. 
 
 Governor Holcomb of Nebraska afterward asked 
 him to raise a regiment. A similar invitation was 
 received from Governor Stephens of Missouri. JMr. 
 Bryan at once responded to Governor Holcomb, and 
 in a short time was commissioned as colonel of the 
 Third Nebraska Infantry. His regiment was or- 
 dered to report to General Fitzhugh Lee, the com- 
 mander of the Seventh Army Corps, camped at 
 Panama Park, near Jacksonville, Florida. At this 
 place, at Pablo Beach, Fla., and at Savannah, Ga., 
 Mr. Bryan spent the five months which he devoted 
 to military life. He saw no service in the field, but 
 the sickness which the men suffered in camp ac- 
 quainted him with the fact that even camp life calls 
 for sacrifice from the soldier. Mr. Bryan suffered 
 from malarial fever and later had a slight attack of 
 typhoid. After the suspension of hostilities, and 
 while the terms of the treaty were being agreed 
 upon, the Government began to dismiss regiments, 
 and an inquiry was addrest to Mr. Bryan, as to 
 other regimental commanders, asking w^hether his 
 regiment desired to be dismissed. Believing that 
 the enlisted men as well as the officers should have 
 a voice in the decision of this question, he made the 
 following reply to the brigade commander : 
 
XLiv BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Headquaeters 3, Nebraska Yol. Inft. 
 
 Panama Pabk, Aug. 23, 1898. 
 To Col. W. H. Montgomery, 
 Commanding 1st Brig., 3d Div., 
 7th Army Corps, 
 Panama Park, Fla. 
 
 Sir: — In reply to your request that I ascertain the senti- 
 ment of the 3d Reg. Neb. Vols., respecting future service, I 
 have the honor to report that I am not informed as to the 
 proper method to be employed in securing an expression 
 from the members of the regiment. 
 
 Speaking for myself, I prefer to express no choice as 
 to service, but beg to place myself at the disposal of the 
 government and to assure the government, through you, 
 that I am ready to perform any duties assigned to me. I 
 have no doubt that the other officers stand in the same 
 attitude. If you desire me to make a canvass, I shall 
 promptly ascertain in such manner as you may direct the 
 wishes of the officers alone or the sentiment of the entire 
 regiment, including enlisted men. 
 
 I have the honor to remain, 
 
 Respectfully, etc., 
 
 W. J. Bryan, 
 Col, 3d Neh. Vol 
 
 The information which he asked was never fur- 
 nished by the War Department, but the president 
 later, acting upon Mr. Bryan's advice, authorized 
 him to discharge about a third of the regiment, and 
 he, in making the discharges, gave preference, first, 
 to married men, second, to sons of widows, and 
 third, to families which furnished more than one 
 son. As soon as the terms of the treaty were 
 agreed upon, Mr. Bryan forwarded his resignation 
 to Washington. Below will be found his resigna- 
 tion with the endorsement made upon it by his 
 superior officers. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlv 
 
 Camp Onward. 
 Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
 Adjt. Gen. U. S. A., 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Sir: — The dispatches from Paris announce that the terms 
 of the treaty between the United States and Spain have 
 been fully agreed upon, and that the Commissioners will 
 sign the same as soon as it can be engrossed. 
 
 Believing that, under present conditions, I can be more 
 useful to my country as a civilian than as a soldier, I 
 hereby tender my resignation, to take effect immediately 
 upon its acceptance. 
 
 Respectfully, etc., 
 
 W. J. Bryan, 
 Col. 3d Reg., Neh, Vol. Inft. 
 
 Headquarters 1st Brigade, 
 1st Div., 7th Army Corps, 
 Camp Onward. 
 
 Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
 Respectfully for'd. It is with sincere regret that the 
 1st Brigade should lose the services of so efficient an officer. 
 
 W. H. Mabry, 
 Col. 1st Texas Vol. Inft., 
 Commanding. 
 
 Headquarters 1st Div. 7th A. C, 
 Camp Onward. 
 
 Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
 Respectfully forwarded through Headquarters of the A. C. 
 It is with regret that this resignation is forwarded approved. 
 Col. Bryan's regiment the 3d Neb. Vol. Inft., is in a high 
 state of efficiency and discipline, and his efforts for its wel- 
 fare and improvement have been untiring. 
 
 Floyd Wheaton, 
 Brig. Gen. U S. A., 
 
 Commanding. 
 
 Headquarters U. S. Forces, 
 Camp Onward, Savannah, Ga. 
 Dec. 10, 1898. 
 Respectfully forwarded approved. I deeply regret that 
 Col. Bryan is called on to tender his resignation. I concur 
 in what is said in the foregoing endorsements. 
 
 J. Warren Keifer, 
 Maj. Gen. Commanding. 
 
 14 
 
XLTi BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Savannah, Ga., Dec. 10, 1898. 
 Having turned over the command of the troop here to 
 Gen. Keifer, I will not be prevented — as Col. Bryan's for- 
 mer commander — on the eve of my departure for Cuba, from 
 saying I greatly regret that the Colonel has decided to 
 sever his relation with my 7th Corps, for our relations 
 have been very agreeable and he has ever been most faith- 
 ful and conscientious in all duties confided to him. 
 
 FiTZHUGH Lee, 
 Maj.-Gen. U. 8. A. 
 
 The resignation was accepted on the day the 
 treaty was signed. It required more courage to 
 resign than to enlist, but Mr. Bryan believed, as he 
 said in his resignation, that he could be more useful 
 to his country as a civilian than as a soldier, and 
 he was fortunate in having as Lieut.-Col. of his 
 regiment Victor Vifqain, a superb soldier, who 
 won the brevet of Brigadier-General in the Civil 
 "War. Mr. Bryan at once took up the fight against 
 a colonial policy. 
 
 In December, 1903, he made his first trip to 
 Europe, taking our son Avith him, and visiting ten 
 of the principal capitals. On this trip he called 
 upon Tolstoy at his countrj^ home near Moscow, 
 and was deeply imprest by his day spent with the 
 Russian philosopher. 
 
 He was renominated for President in 1900 by ac- 
 clamation (his nomination was again indorsed by 
 the Populist and Silver Republicans), and was 
 again defeated. Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illi- 
 nois, Vice-President from 1893 to 1897, was his 
 running mate. In this campaign some of the 
 Western States returned to their allegiance to the 
 Republican party, but the Democrats made gains 
 in the East. Imperialism was the paramouiijt issue 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlvii 
 
 in that campaign. Mr. Bryan's speech of accept- 
 ance, which will be found in this collection, deals 
 with fundamental questions and he regards it as 
 one of the most, if not the most, important of his 
 political speeches. The total vote cast in 1900 was 
 substantially the same as that cast in 1896, the Re- 
 publican party gaining about one hundred and fifty 
 thousand, and the Democratic party losing about 
 that number. 
 
 After the election Mr. Bryan established The 
 Commoner, a weekly paper devoted to political sci- 
 ence, political economy and sociology. He still con- 
 tinues its publication and through it has been able 
 to keep in touch with the political thought of the 
 country. The more important editorials are re- 
 ported to the dailies by wire on the morning the 
 paper reaches, its subscribers, while some three 
 thousand Democratic papers receive it in exchange. 
 
 Mr. Bryan announced immediately after the elec- 
 tion of 1900 that he would not be a candidate in 
 1904, but would make no pledge as to the campaigns 
 beyond that. He attended the St. Louis Conven- 
 tion in 1904 at the head of his State delegation, 
 and as a member of the Committee on Resolutions, 
 took an active part in the sixteen hours ' session that 
 resulted in the presentation of a harmonious plat- 
 form. The speech which he delivered at that con- 
 vention will be found in this collection, and it sets 
 forth his position more elaborately than it can be 
 done in this brief sketch. He did not approve of 
 the nomination, but he tendered his services to the 
 National Committee and through his paper and on 
 the stump did what he could for the national ticket. 
 
XLViii BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 After the election of 1904 it became apparent 
 that there was a reaction in favor of the progress- 
 ive element of the party. The shrinkage of a mill- 
 ion and a quarter in the party vote led many edi- 
 tors to predict the nomination of Mr. Bryan in 
 1908. Two years later, while Mr. Bryan was out of 
 the country, about half of the Democratic State con- 
 ventions adopted resolutions urging his candidacy. 
 
 On the 21st day of September, 1905, Mr. Bryan 
 and I, accompanied by the two younger children, 
 left home for a tour of the world. Leaving San 
 Francisco on September 27th we visited Japan, 
 Korea, China, the Philippine Islands, Java, India, 
 Egypt, the Holy Land, and most of the countries 
 of Europe, completing the journey in sixteen days 
 less than a year. During the trip Mr. Bryan wrote 
 forty-six letters which were published in a syndi- 
 cate of dailies and reproduced in The Commoner. 
 These letters, together with ten letters written dur- 
 ing his former trip to Europe, have since been 
 published in a book entitled ''The Old World and 
 Its Ways." While on this trip he wrote a little 
 book entitled, ''Letters to a Chinese Official," in 
 defense of Christian civilization. The book is an 
 answer to a book published a few years ago under 
 the title of "Letters of a Chinese Official." 
 
 During the progress of this journey we had an 
 opportunity to study the customs of the people of 
 the various nations, the social conditions existing 
 throughout the world, forms of government and 
 systems of religion. Mr. Bryan has since drawn 
 largely from the fund of information accumulated. 
 While in England he attended the Fourth of July 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION xlix 
 
 dinner given by the American Society in London 
 and also the London session of the Interparliamen- 
 tary Union. The speeches which he delivered on 
 these occasions will be found in this collection. 
 
 While in Egypt he received and accepted an 
 invitation from the officers of the Traveling Men's 
 Bryan Club of New York to attend a reception 
 which the club desired to give upon his arrival in 
 New York. It was supposed at the time that it 
 would be like the reception tendered upon his re- 
 turn from his first trip to Europe — that is, held in 
 one of the hotels and attended by a few friends — 
 but the endorsements given by the various States 
 had created so much enthusiasm that the reception 
 became national instead of local, and was held in 
 Madison Square Garden. There was scarcely a 
 State that was not represented by prominent Dem- 
 ocrats, and many States sent large delegations. 
 The speech delivered on this occasion was an out- 
 line of the questions which seemed likely to enter 
 into the approaching campaign, and was regarded 
 as a statement of Mr. Bryan's position upon these 
 questions. A brief reference to the subject of gov- 
 ernment ownership, however, excited so much com- 
 ment that the other questions were to a large ex- 
 tent overlooked, and he soon afterwards in a speech 
 at Louisville, Ky., answered the misrepresentations 
 that had been directed against the reception speech. 
 Both of these speeches will be found in this collec- 
 tion, as will also the speech delivered at the recep- 
 tion tendered him by the people of his home city. 
 
 Mr. Bryan was nominated for the Presidency for 
 a third time in 1908. In some States there was a 
 
L BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 spirited contest for the control of the delegations, 
 but on roll call the vote stood about nine to one in 
 his favor. Hon. John W. Kern, of Indiana, was 
 the nominee for Vice-President, and "Shall the 
 people rule?" was declared to be the paramount 
 issue in this campaign, altho the tariff question, 
 the trust question and the guaranty of bank depos- 
 its came in for a large share of consideration. The 
 speeches on these subjects, to be found in this col- 
 lection, set forth the issues as they were presented. 
 
 For a third time he met defeat. The Republi- 
 cans increased their vote about fourteen thousand 
 over their vote of 1904, while the Democrats in- 
 creased their vote about one million three hundred 
 thousand over their vote in that year, and some 
 fifty thousand over their vote in 1900. Nebraska, 
 after going Democratic in 1896, went Republican in 
 1900, but returned to the Democratic column in 
 1908, much to the gratification of Mr. Bryan, and 
 he found scarcely less satisfaction in the fact that 
 he received a majority of 789 in the Republican 
 city of Lincoln and carried his voting precinct, his 
 county and his Congressional district as well. While 
 the local victory did not affect the national result, 
 it added to the pleasure of residence here to re- 
 ceive so complimentary a vote among those who 
 knew him best. 
 
 After the election Mr. Bryan resumed his lec- 
 turing and editorial work, devoting himself, as be- 
 fore, to the advocacy of the reforms which to him 
 seemed desirable, announcing that he hoped that it 
 would never become necessary for him to be a can- 
 didate for office aarain. 
 
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION li 
 
 A word, in closing, about his domestic life. Three 
 children have been born into eur family: Ruth 
 Baird, October 2, 1885 ; William Jennings, Jr., June 
 24, 1889, and Grace Dexter, March 17, 1891. Will- 
 iam grows more like his father in appearance while 
 Grace's resemblance to me increases. Both are now 
 in college. Our eldest daughter, who resembles 
 both of us, was married in the fall of 1903 and her 
 two children, Ruth and Bradfield Bryan, are re- 
 vealing to us the joys and responsibilities of the 
 grandparent. 
 
 On the first day of October, 1901, the seventeenth 
 anniversary of our marriage and the fourteenth 
 anniversary of Mr. Bryan's arrival in Nebraska, 
 we broke sod for a new home nearly four miles 
 from Lincoln, a little south of east. October 1, 
 1902, found the house ready to occupy, and we cele- 
 brated that anniversary in it. The house stands 
 upon a knoll and the place is called *'Fairview," 
 because of the beauty of the valley which the 
 house overlooks. Here Mr. Bryan spends the time 
 not occupied in traveling and the family enjoys 
 the advantages of both the country and the city. 
 
 To give an estimate of Mr. Bryan's character or 
 of the mental endowments which he may possess 
 would be beyond the scope of this sketch. I have 
 contented myself with the simple narration of such 
 facts as seemed necessary to an understanding 
 of the forty-nine years spanned by his life. 
 
 Mary Baird Bryan. 
 
 Fairview, Lincoln, Neb., March 1st, 1909. 
 
SPEECHES ON 
 TAXATION AND BIMETALISM 
 
I 
 
 THE TARIFF 
 
 Delivered in Congress on March 16, 1892, in the dis- 
 cussion of the tariff measures reported by the Ways and 
 Means Committee of which Mr. Bryan was a membor. 
 This is known as his first speech in Congress, altho he 
 had previously spoken for five minutes on a minor ques- 
 tion. The House was then in Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union, and had under consideration the bill 
 making wool free and reducing the duties on woolen goods. 
 
 THE gentleman from i\laine [Mr. Dingley] 
 put forward to open the debate by our 
 friends who occupy the wedge-shaped space 
 on what used to be called the Republican side, has 
 seen fit to criticize as sporadic the bills so far 
 reported by the committee. He has also found 
 fault with the method which has been adopted. 
 
 I desire to say that I am in hearty sympathy 
 with the majority of the committee in its decision 
 to attack the tariff in detail ; and I think that the 
 bills which have been reported and the bills to be 
 reported will fully answer the argument of the 
 gentleman that we are making only a slight assault 
 upon the system. 
 
 The main reason which has led me to favor this 
 method of attack is. that it is possible that some 
 of the bills reported by the committee may pass 
 the Senate and receive the sanction of the Presi- 
 dent, and if we can succeed in bringing to the 
 
 (3) 
 
4 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 people of this country relief in any form, even to 
 a small degree, we shall be accomplishing far more 
 for our country, and, as I believe, doing better for 
 our party, than if we simply attempt to make a 
 record by a general bill, with no prospect of its 
 passage. 
 
 Another reason : This will enable us to unmask 
 some of the Republicans of the North and West, 
 who have insisted to their people that they believe 
 in reforming the tariff in the interest of the con- 
 sumers, and that they were anxious to give certain 
 relief, but always shield themselves behind the 
 extended provisions of a general bill. If we are 
 thus able to put those people upon a defense before 
 their constituents, which they are poorly prepared 
 to make, we shall have done something for our 
 country. 
 
 The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley], 
 however, in that remarkable plea which he made 
 against free wool when he was discharging the 
 self-imposed task of defending the agricultural 
 classes, a spectacle as unexpected as it was absurd, 
 would have you believe that the only cause of his 
 solicitude was the fear that this bill might injure 
 the farmer. 
 
 But you who listened to him will remember that 
 the climax was reached when he turned to this side 
 of the House and with the most intense fear 
 depicted upon his features exclaimed that the 
 policy of the committee was to ^'divide and con- 
 quer.'' He had perhaps read the Home Market 
 Bulletin^ where Mr. Draper said that ** protection- 
 ists must stand together or fall separately.'' He 
 
THE TARIFF 5 
 
 had perhaps read in that same Bulletin chat the 
 * ' wool tariff is the keystone of the protective arch. ' ' 
 And we then understood from his manifestations 
 of anxiety that what he feared was not so much 
 that the farmer might be injured as that protec- 
 tion might lose one of its most ardent champions. 
 
 That was a confession, Mr. Chairman, that the 
 protective system can not stand upon its merits. It 
 was a confession that they dare not go before the 
 people and defend the tariff upon each article upon 
 the ground that it is right and needed. It was a 
 confession that this system is sustained simply by 
 the cooperation of the beneficiaries of a tariff, and 
 that they are held together by **the cohesive power 
 of plunder. '* It was a confession that the loss of 
 one defender might endanger the whole system. 
 
 If, Mr. Chairman, the fears of the gentleman 
 from Maine are realized, the committee will find 
 in that fact complete justification for its course; 
 renewed hope and encouragement will be given to 
 that large proportion of our people who have felt 
 the burdens of a protective tariff, but have been 
 unable to obtain relief because of the log-rolling 
 of those who stand behind this bulwark. 
 
 I desire to call attention first to the bill now 
 under consideration, and then to what is known 
 as the binding-twine bill ; which, tho not regu- 
 larly before the committee, has been referred to by 
 our friends on the other side ; and then, if the 
 committee is willing to listen, I should like to go 
 even further and accept the challenge of the gen- 
 tleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] to discuss the 
 principle of protection. I consider myself for- 
 
6 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tunate that I am permitted to hear protective doc- 
 trine from its highest source. Out in Nebraska we 
 are so far away from the beneficiaries of a tariff 
 that the arguments in justification of protection in 
 traveling that long distance become somewhat 
 diluted and often polluted, so that I am glad to be 
 permitted to drink the water fresh from its foun- 
 tains in Maine and Massachusetts, and I will 
 assure the gentleman [Mr. Dingley] that those of 
 us who believe in tariff reform are willing to meet 
 him upon the principle involved, not only here but 
 everywhere. 
 
 The bill under consideration provides for admit- 
 ting free of duty wool and those associated articles 
 which we know as raw material in the woolen 
 industry. It also takes away entirely those specific 
 or compensatory duties which were added to the 
 ad valorem rates to enable the manufacturer to 
 transfer to the back of the consumer the burden 
 which a tariff on raw material places upon the 
 manufacturer. We have also reduced the ad 
 valorem rates, leaving the rates ranging from 25 
 to 45 per cent., with an average of not quite 40 
 per cent., less than the Mills bill, whereas the pres- 
 ent rates average over 90 per cent. We have left 
 the tariff lowest upon the articles which are cheap- 
 est and of most necessary use. 
 
 The reason why I believe in putting raw material 
 upon the free list is because any tax imposed 
 npon raw material must at last be taken from 
 the consumer of the manufactured article. You 
 can impose no tax for the benefit of the producer 
 of raw material which does not find its way, 
 
THE TARIFF 7 
 
 through the various forms of manufactured prod- 
 uct, and at last press with accumulated weight 
 upon the person who uses the finished product. 
 
 Another reason for believing that raw material 
 should be upon the free list is because that is the 
 only method by which one business can be favored 
 without injury to another. We are not, in that 
 case, imposing a tax for the benefit of the manu- 
 facturer, but we are simply saying to the manu- 
 facturer: ^'We will not impose any burden upon 
 you.'' When we give to the manufacturer free 
 raw material and free machinery, we give to him, 
 I think, all the encouragement which a people 
 acting under a free Government like ours can 
 legitimately give to an industrj^. 
 
 The reduction which we have made in the tariff 
 upon manufactured articles is a great reduction in 
 existing schedules. It is not as great a reduction 
 as might be made. I believe that we have left 
 far more tariff than can be shown to be necessary 
 to provide for any difference, if there be any dif- 
 ference, between the cost of manufacture here and 
 abroad. But I am led to agree to this moderate 
 reduction of the tariff upon manufactured articles 
 for two reasons: first, because, in going from a 
 vicious system — and I believe that our present 
 system is a vicious system, created by the necessi- 
 ties of war and continued by favoritism — because, 
 I say, in going from a vicious to a correct system 
 the most rapid progress can be made by degrees. 
 
 Another reason why I am willing to stop at this 
 point at this time is because all measures of legis- 
 lation must be practical rather than ideal. We are 
 
8 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 confronted by a condition. Notwithstanding the 
 attempt of the people to turn out of power those 
 who in the last Congress ran riot, the limitations 
 of our Constitution have prevented us from obtain- 
 ing control of more than one of the three coordi- 
 nate branches of the legislative power. Any bill 
 to become a law must pass not only this House but 
 also the Senate, which is hostile, and must receive 
 the approval of a Republican President. There- 
 fore, if we expect success we must leave room for 
 no objection that a Republican can take advantage 
 of as a justification for standing in the way of this 
 relief. And I believe in this bill we have done 
 that; there is no objection that the Republican 
 party can stand upon in opposition to this bill and 
 upon which they dare to go before the country. 
 
 I desire to call attention, Mr. Chairman, to the 
 advantage which this bill brings to the people of 
 this country. We are not prepared to say, nobody 
 can affirm positively, what effect the present tariff 
 on wool has upon the wool-grower. I read in the 
 address of Judge Lawrence, before the Ohio Wool- 
 Growers' Association, that in his opinion the man 
 in this country who raises sheep receives for his 
 wool the foreign price of wool plus the duty upon 
 wool. But there are many who differ with him. 
 Many sheep-raisers believe that the farmer does 
 not receive the tariff duty upon wool which is 
 imposed ostensibly for his benefit, and they point 
 to the decline in the number of sheep and in the 
 price of wool under protection. 
 
 I care not, for the sake of the argument, which 
 position is true. One of three conditions must exist 
 
THE TARIFF 9 
 
 at this time. We have imposed a tariff upon wool ; 
 we have given a compensatory duty, which is 
 equivalent to that tariff, upon wool in all its manu- 
 factured forms. The manufacturer of wool must, 
 if he buys foreign wool, pay this duty. Now, if 
 the farmer gets no increased price for his wool 
 because of protection, and the manufacturer deals 
 honestly with the people and does not charge them 
 anything extra, then the removal of this duty will 
 still bring relief to the consumers of woolen goods 
 by reducing the price of imported wool without 
 affecting the price of the farmer's home-grown 
 wool. This is the first condition which may exist. 
 
 It is also possible that the manufacturer in this 
 country, having the advantage of the compensatory 
 duties, does charge up to the people who buy 
 woolen goods the amount of the tariff as if he paid 
 it to the farmer, and yet he may not pay it to the 
 farmer. In that case the passage of this bill will 
 still more largely reduce the cost of goods to the 
 consumer and not affect the farmer who raises sheep. 
 
 There may be a third condition. It may be that 
 the manufacturer of woolen goods pays the duty 
 upon imported wool and pays a like amount on 
 home-grown wool and then charges to the consumer 
 just exactly, under the compensatory duties, the 
 amount which he has had to pay as a tariff upon 
 foreign wool and as an additional price upon the 
 home-grown wool. If that condition exists, then 
 the operation of this bill will be to bring to the 
 people of this country who consume woolen goods 
 the reduction made by the bill and to prevent the 
 grower of wool from collecting from the consumer 
 
 16 
 
10 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 of woolen goods, through his agent the manufac- 
 turer, the amount which he has been receiving. 
 
 Now, those are the three conditions, one of which 
 must exist. I do not care, my friends, for the 
 sake of the argument, which condition exists, I 
 am in favor of this bill. I am in favor of it, in the 
 first place, because it makes a reduction in ad 
 valorem rates; and in addition thereto, if the first 
 condition supposed exists, reduces the price of 
 woolen goods to the extent of the tariff paid on 
 imported wool. This is only just, because such 
 necessary articles as woolen goods should not be 
 made so expensive as they are to the great masses 
 of our people. 
 
 If the second condition exists, and the manufac- 
 turer is charging up against us as consumers that 
 which he does not pay, I am still in favor of the 
 bill, and in favor of taking away from him this 
 unjust and unfair advantage. 
 
 If the third condition exists, and the manufac- 
 turer collects from us simply what he pays to the 
 farmer who raises sheep, I am still in favor of 
 this bill, because I do not believe we should make 
 a manufacturer or any one else an agent to collect 
 money from ane man and pay it into the pocket 
 of another man. So you can take any of these 
 conditions you like, and you can frame any defense 
 you please, but I am in favor of this bill from any 
 standpoint and on any condition. 
 
 But there is another phase of this question, ]\Ir. 
 Chairman. The amount of wool produced in this 
 country is about 4i/^ pounds per capita; the 
 amount of wool consumed is about 6I/0 pounds per 
 
THE TARIFF 11 
 
 capita. Therefore we consume about 50 per cent, 
 more than we produce. Hence, if whatever benefit 
 there is from a tariff on wool is equally divided 
 among all the people, then the abolition of this com- 
 pensatory duty, not to speak of the reduction in 
 ad valorem rates, brings to the people of the 
 country about 50 per cent, more of advantage than 
 it can possibly take away from them. 
 
 I find that in the States east of the Mississippi 
 River we have now about one-half the number of 
 sheep that we had when protection took the wool 
 industry of the country into its encouraging 
 embrace. I find but two States, Michigan and 
 Ohio, which have one sheep per capita. The aver- 
 age production is about 6 pounds per sheep. 
 Therefore, in a State that has one sheep per capita 
 the people of the State would get just as much 
 relief from this bill as they could possibly lose 
 because of the repeal of the tariff duties on w^ool. 
 Maine has a little less than one sheep per capita, 
 and therefore she would receive more advantage 
 by a reduction of the duty than she could possibly 
 lose. The States of New York, Pennsylvania, Illi- 
 nois, and Nebraska — and you can take others for 
 yourself and make the computation ; I simply men- 
 tion these for illustration — these four States pro- 
 duce less than 1% pounds of wool per capita, and 
 they consume 614 pounds per capita. So, Mr. 
 Chairman, to the people of these States this bill 
 brings more than four times as much in the way 
 of advantage as it can possibly take away from 
 them. 
 
 But I have gone on the theory, Mr. Chairman, 
 
12 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 that this advantage, whatever it is to the wool- 
 grower, is equally divided among the people of the 
 State. I find in the report of the Wool-Growers* 
 Association for the State of Ohio, held at Colum- 
 bus some two months ago, a statement that there 
 are 80,000 flockmasters in Ohio. I find that in 
 Ohio there are about 4,000,000 people. Hence there 
 is about one floekmaster to 50 persons. It is fair 
 to assume that in computing this number, it being 
 for political purposes and to influence legislation, 
 all the sheep-raisers in Ohio, both heads of fami- 
 lies and sons old enough to vote, were probably 
 counted. But supposing every one to be the head 
 of a family, it means that one head of a family 
 in Ohio out of ten raises sheep, and I suppose that 
 the proportion is fully as great in Ohio as any- 
 where. 
 
 Now, if that calculation be true, what does it 
 mean? It means that all over this country, irre- 
 spective of their State or locality, ten times as 
 many people are benefited by this bill as are by 
 any possibility injured. Is not that some advan- 
 tage? 
 
 The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] said 
 that I would not dare to take this bill to my State. 
 I will not be afraid to take it to my State, nor 
 will I be afraid to take any bill that is passed by 
 this House; but I certainly would not hesitate to 
 take a measure of this kind, when I say to you, 
 my friend, that this bill brings to the people of 
 the State of Nebraska, to the people of New York, 
 to the people of Pennsylvania, to the people of 
 Kansas, to the people of this entire country, 
 
THE TARIFF 13 
 
 immeasurably more advantage than it can possibly 
 deprive them of, and it brings the advantage to 
 ten times as many people as are injuriously affected 
 by it. 
 
 Our friends have said that this is class legisla- 
 tion. That is, that when we say we shall deprive 
 the wool-grower of any advantage he has under the 
 present law we are guilty of class legislation. It 
 is sufficient evidence, Mr. Chairman, that this bill 
 does not advance class legislation that the Repub- 
 lican party is solidly opposing it. If it were class 
 legislation we could reasonably expect their united 
 support. 
 
 But, sir, I desire to call the attention of the Com- 
 mittee to this distinction. We have referred to it 
 in the report of the committee on binding twine. 
 There is a difference between a man coming to this 
 Congress and demanding that other people shall be 
 subjected to a tax for his benefit and a demand 
 on the part of those taxed to be relieved of the 
 burden. Is there not a difference between these 
 two principles ? It seems to me that the difference 
 is as marked as between day and night. It is simply 
 this difference, sir: The man who says, ''Impose 
 upon somebody else a tax for my benefit," says 
 what the pickpocket says, ''Let me get my hand 
 into his pocket"; but the man who says, "Take 
 away the burdens imposed on me for other peo- 
 ple's benefit," says simply what every honest man 
 says, "Let me alone to enjoy the results of my 
 toil." I repeat, is there not a difference between 
 these two principles? 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, upon what ground is this 
 
14 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 protection to the wool-grower asked? Is it because 
 of the importance of the industry? The gentle- 
 man from Maine [Mr. Dingley] said that it was 
 one of the most universal of all the industries of 
 the farm ; and when I tried to call his attention to 
 the fact that only a small proportion of our people 
 own sheep, he did not care to be further inter- 
 rupted. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that last year 
 the value of sheep in this country was only $108,- 
 391,444, while the value of live stock upon the 
 farm was $2,329,787,770; that is, the value of 
 sheep was less than one-twentieth the value of all 
 the live stock. 
 
 The wool crop last year was valued at about 
 $70,000,000, while the value of the corn, wheat, 
 and oats raised that year, without mentioning the 
 other crops of the farm, amounted to $1,582,184,- 
 206. Three items of the farm amounted to twenty 
 times the value of the wool clip. Out in Nebraska 
 there was a time when we had almost one sheep for 
 each man, woman, and child. We look back to it 
 as the ''mutton age" of Nebraska. But, alas, that 
 happy day has passed! The number of sheep has 
 continually decreased, until now, if every woman 
 in the State named Mary insisted upon having a 
 pet lamb at the same time, we would have to go 
 out of the State to get lambs enough to go round. 
 
 No; it is not because of the importance of the 
 industry, nor is it because it is an infant industry. 
 You may go back into history, sacred or profane, 
 as far as tradition runs, and you will find a record 
 of the sheep. Homer tells how Ulysses escaped 
 from the cave of the Cyclops by means of a sheep. 
 
THE TARIFF 15 
 
 We read in the Bible that when Isaac was abont to 
 be offered up, away back in the patriarchal days, 
 a ram was found caught by the horns in a thicket, 
 and offered in his stead; and further back than 
 that, in the fourth chapter of Genesis, I think in 
 the second verse — my Republican friends, of course, 
 will remember — it is recorded of the second son of 
 the first earthly pair, "Abel was a keeper of 
 sheep." And from that day to this — 
 
 Mr. Simpson. I want to ask the gentleman if 
 we are to understand that this is the sacrifice you 
 are offering up on the altar of protection, 
 
 Mr. Bryan. No, sir; we are only beginning 
 an attack, which will be continued just as long as 
 there is anything to remedy. But I was going to 
 say, Mr. Chairman, that from that day to this the 
 sheep has been the constant companion of man 
 in all his travels, and it has dift'ered from its mod- 
 ern owner perhaps the most in that it is recognized 
 as the symbol of meekness. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in the earlier days, when protec- 
 tion was defended from more patriotic motives, if 
 I may so assert, than to-day, the main excuse given 
 was that we needed the tariff to help infant indus- 
 tries to get upon their feet. I want to call the 
 attention of the Republicans to the language of one 
 or two of the early fathers upon the subject. Alex- 
 ander Hamilton, in his report on manufactures in 
 1791, said: 
 
 "The continuance of bounties on manufactures long es- 
 tablished must always be of questionable policy because a 
 presumption would arise in every such case that there were 
 natural and inherent impediments to success." 
 
16 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 That was the original idea. Mr. Clay said in 
 1833: 
 
 "The theory of protection supposes too that after a 
 certain time the protected arts will have acquired such 
 strength and perfection as will enable them subsequently, 
 unaided, to stand against foreign competition." 
 
 And again in 1840: 
 
 "No one, Mr. President, in tlie commencement of the pro- 
 tective policy, ever supposed that it was to be perpetual." 
 
 This was the argument used in the beginning; 
 but arguments have to be framed to meet condi- 
 tions, and we find now that infants that could get 
 along on 10 per cent, when they were born, and 
 20 per cent, when they were children, and 30 per 
 cent, when they were young men, have required 
 40, 50, 60, or 70 per cent, when old and entering 
 upon their second childhood. 
 
 Therefore they had to frame new arguments. 
 What is the argument advanced now? It is that 
 the conditions in this country are such that we 
 can not compete with other countries, and that 
 therefore we must put upon the imported article a 
 tariff making the price so high that we can afford 
 to produce the article in this country. Do they 
 say that they need a protective tariff to help the 
 sheep industry get upon its feet? Not at all. Mr. 
 Lawrence in his speech said in regard to the 
 impossibility of competing: 
 
 "And these are the existing conditions. In Australia 
 merino wool can be and is produced at a less cost than it 
 can be in the United States, because (1) pasturage can 
 be had there for a few cents an acre, and (2) the climate 
 there is such that substantially no winter feeding is re- 
 quired. The same is true of South America." 
 
THE TARIFF 17 
 
 We are even assured by the same high authority 
 that "^wool-growers should at the lirst practical mo- 
 ment demand gradually annually increasing duties 
 on all classes of wools just as our increasing Hocks 
 can supply increasing demands." A modest de- 
 mand! They offer no hope of reduction. In dis- 
 cussing protection our friends are in the habit of 
 claiming everything possible. Why, the gentleman 
 from Maine [Mr. DingleyJ stated to us seriously 
 that the tariff on wool had made more pounds of 
 wool grow on a sheep's back. 
 
 That is in the Record, that protection is respon- 
 sible for the fact that the sheep to-day produce 
 more wool than they used to. I have often thought 
 how perplexed the sheep must have been after the 
 passage of the last bill when they got together and 
 consulted among themselves as to how they were 
 going to increase the amount of their wool now 
 that the tariff' had made it necessary. But nobody, 
 Mr. Chairman, has said to this House that protec- 
 tion w^ould reduce the price of pasturage in this 
 country, nor has anybody claimed that it would 
 so moderate the climate as to do away with 
 the necessity for winter feeding. The theory, Mr. 
 Chairman, upon which this is justified might as 
 well be met here as anywhere ; and I want to state, 
 as emphatically as words can state it, that I con- 
 sider it as false in economy and vicious in policy 
 to attempt to raise at a high price in this country 
 that w^hich we can purchase abroad at a low price 
 in exchange for the products of our toil. 
 
 It was said by a gentleman who appeared before 
 the committee — I think at the last Congress — that 
 
18 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 wool could be raised in Australia for 6 cents a 
 pound, and that it could not be raised in this 
 country for less than 15 cents; and we are told 
 that it is a wise policy to so tax imported wool as 
 to enable our people to raise wool at 15 cents a 
 pound instead of buying it at 6 cents a pound; 
 that we save money and give employment to labor. 
 If that principle is true, then it is wise to raise wool 
 at 15 cents a pound instead of buying at 3 cents, 
 because we save more in labor. If it is wise to 
 raise it at 15 cents a pound instead of buying it at 
 3, it is still wiser to raise it at 15 cents rather than 
 have somebody give it to us. 
 
 That is what it leads to ; and the gentlemen who 
 maintain that position are fit companions for the 
 people who are supposed by Bastiat to have peti- 
 tioned the French legislature to find some way of 
 preventing the sun from shining, because it inter- 
 fered with the business of the candle-makers. If 
 their theory is true, then the most unkind act of 
 the Creator was to send that great orb of day 
 every morning to chase away the shadows of the 
 night, flood all the earth with his brightness, and 
 throw out of employment those who otherwise 
 might be making tallow candles to light the world. 
 
 It was said by a French writer that Robinson 
 Crusoe wgis a protectionist; that when he was on 
 the island all alone he started to make a canoe by 
 hollowing out a log with a broken stone. Just 
 about the time he commenced, some boards floated 
 up to the shore, and the thought came to him, "I 
 will take these boards and make myself a canoe 
 out of them;" but the protective idea came to 
 
THE TARIFF 19 
 
 him, and he said, ' ' No ; if I do that I will lose the 
 labor I put into the log. " So he kicked the boards 
 away from the shore, and went on hacking at the 
 log with the broken stone. A little later, when he 
 and Friday were together, they spent four hours in 
 the morning gathering fruit, and four hours in the 
 afternoon catching game. Some one came up from 
 another island and said, "On our island we have 
 lots of game but no fruit; we will bring you all 
 the game you can catch in four hours for the fruit 
 you can gather in two hours." "Let us do it," 
 said Friday. "Oh, no," says Crusoe, "if we do 
 that, what will we do with the other two hours 
 of labor?" 
 
 And that is the theory of our friends. When 
 we buy something, we buy with the results of our 
 toil; and they tell us that we must not so arrange 
 the laws of this country that we can buy a great 
 deal, but that we must so arrange them as to make 
 us work just as long as possible upon every piece 
 of work we undertake. It is the old theory, "the 
 maximum of toil and minimum of product." If 
 this is the true principle, then discard your riding 
 cultivators, go back to the crooked stick, and let 
 us plow in such a way that all the people of this 
 coiTutry can find employment in plowing alone. 
 
 I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, denounce as falla- 
 cious, as unworthy of consideration, the only reason 
 that can be given in support of the tariff on wool, 
 as a protective tariff and for protective purposes. 
 
 I desire now, Mr. Chairman, to call the atten- 
 tion of this committee to another bill, known as the 
 "binding-twine bill." This bill places upon the 
 
20 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 free list the various kinds of binding-twine. The 
 majority and minority of the committee agree upon 
 some of the facts. We agree that there were con- 
 sumed in this country last year about 100,000,000 
 pounds of binding-twine. We agree that if a 
 tariff of seven-tenths of 1 per cent, is added to the 
 price of the binding-twine it costs the people of 
 this country $700,000 because of that tariff. 
 
 We agree also that no twine was imported and 
 that no revenue was. received by the Government 
 from this source. Therefore, if this was a tax 
 upon the consumer, it was a tax of $700,000 taken 
 out of the people's pocket, not one cent of which 
 reached the Treasury. According to the Republi- 
 can idea, that is an ideal tariff; it embraces the 
 maximum of burden with the minimum of revenue. 
 Follow out that principle, arrange your schedules 
 upon that plan, and there will not be a dollar 
 derived for the support of government from a 
 tariff upon imports, because you will have no 
 imports, and you must find some other source of 
 revenue. I want to ask the gentlemen who repre- 
 sent the minority if they are in favor of apply- 
 ing this principle to the other schedules; if they 
 are in favor of so adjusting the tariff as to prevent 
 imports and yet enable the protected manufacturer 
 here to take the money out of the people 's pockets ? 
 
 I desire to call attention briefly to what this 
 principle involves. It is supposed that a tariff is 
 levied because we need revenue. I heard the gen- 
 tleman who led the majority in the last Congress 
 in the tariff discussion, Mr. McKinley, in a speech 
 which he made at Ottumwa, Iowa, say that were it 
 
THE TARIFF 21 
 
 not for tHe necessity for revenue there would be 
 no justification for a tariff upon imports. There- 
 fore, the idea is that you levy the tariff to collect 
 revenue to support your Government. 
 
 Now, how ought it to be done? Suppose you 
 should apply this principle in collecting the taxes 
 for your counties and your towns. It is esti- 
 mated that on an average for every dollar brought 
 into the Treasury by import duties $4 go into 
 the pockets of the protected manufacturers. What 
 does that mean? It means that 80 per cent, 
 of the taxes paid by the people for the support of 
 the General Government because of import duties 
 goes to the protected interests, and only 20 per cent, 
 goes into the public Treasury, 80 per cent, being 
 absorbed in collecting the tax. Try that in your 
 counties. 
 
 How many of your counties would permit the 
 collection, by direct taxation, of $100,000 in taxes 
 when only $20,000 were needed for revenue ? How 
 many of you would pay $80,000 to some man to col- 
 lect the $20,000 that you wanted to use ? And yet, 
 Mr. Chairman, according to the principle involved 
 ' in this particular item, we pay not 80, but 100 per 
 cent, for collection ! Seven hundred thousand dol- 
 lars are collected from the people in this case if it 
 is a tax, not one cent of which gets into the Treas- 
 ury. Are the gentlemen who represent the minority 
 going to justify that ? I am anxious to hear upon 
 what principle that can be defended. But the 
 minority say: 
 
 "So that, if this assumption were true, the entire addi- 
 tional cost would only amount to 1 cent per acre, or less 
 
22 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 than 1 mill per bushel of grain, and yet the saving of this 
 trifling sum is the excuse given by the majority,'' etc. 
 
 We had a report from one of the manufacturers 
 of binding-twine that there are thirty-five binding- 
 twine factories in the United States (there are pos- 
 sibly a few more). If that is true, then $700,000 a 
 year means $20,000 to every one of these binding- 
 twine factories. Is that a trifling consideration? 
 It is trifling to the farmer to be taxed 1 cent an 
 acre, but it is a matter of some importance (which 
 the minority seems to think of more consideration) 
 that it means $20,000 a year to every binding-twine 
 manufacturer in this country. This tax is a small 
 matter, Mr. Chairman; 1 cent an acre is trivial; 
 the total sum is not great ; but if you concede the 
 right of Government to collect from the farmer 1 
 cent an acre in order that a binding-twine factory 
 may make $20,000 a year more, you concede the 
 right of Government to collect from that farmer 1 
 cent an acre on each of two hundred additional 
 items for the ' ' protection ' ' of other industries, until 
 you have absorbed every cent of his income from 
 his farm. They told us the other day that there are 
 twenty-five hundred articles upon the tariff list. 
 
 Now, if there are twenty-five hundred articles 
 upon that list, and you can take one at a time and 
 deal with it upon this principle, imposing a tax of 
 1 cent an acre upon the farmer for each article, then 
 you can impose an aggregate tax of $25 an acre 
 upon the farmer for the benefit of somebody else. 
 This binding-twine tax is a trifling consideration, 
 but the farmers of this country who have been 
 oppressed, who have been made to bleed at every 
 
THE TARIFF 23 
 
 pore by your infamous system, will welcome even a 
 trivial advantage as an earnest of that complete 
 relief which will come when it is in our power to 
 give it. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention now 
 to two inconsistent sentences that lie side by side 
 in the report of the minority. I do not, however, 
 call attention to them because inconsistent sen- 
 tences are at all rare in arguments in defense of 
 protection; in any hour's speech in defense of a 
 protective tariff you will find such contradictions 
 standing face to face. But I call attention to these 
 inconsistencies for the purpose merely of showing 
 the confusion into which those are led who attempt 
 to prove that you can benefit one man by legislation 
 without taking something from somebody else. 
 Here is the first sentence: 
 
 "It is evident, however, from the report of the Bureau 
 of Statistics, that nothing has been added to the price 
 during the past year on account of this duty." 
 
 And here is the next sentence : 
 
 "It is also evident from the circular of the Belfast Rope 
 Company, Limited, that to remove the tariff is to transfer 
 the entire industry to other countries." 
 
 Here are two estranged products of one mental 
 effort 3^earning for reconciliation. Now, if the first 
 statement is true, that no part of this duty was 
 added to the price, then how is the last part true 
 that the removal of the duty is going to transfer 
 all this industry to some other country ? There can 
 be no reconciliation of those propositions, because 
 the only way in which you can drive out the man- 
 ufacturing industry from this country is to so 
 
24 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 reduce the price of the article competing from 
 abroad that manufacturers in this country cannot 
 afford to make it ; and if you say that the tariif was 
 not added to the price, you say that the price was 
 just as low as without the tariff ; and when you say 
 that the price was just as low with the tariff as 
 without the tariff, then you say it makes no differ- 
 ence to the manufacturer in this country whether 
 he has a tariff or not. 
 
 But I want to call attention to the alarm on the 
 part of the minority of the committee. 
 
 "It is also evident from the circular of the Belfast Rope 
 Companj^ Limited " 
 
 There was a circular sent by some twine-manu- 
 facturing establishment to the Bureau of Statistics 
 and by it sent to us in the committee room ; and this 
 circular offering to sell twine is made the excuse in 
 this minority report for retaining a tax of $700,000 
 on the farmers of this country. I suppose that if 
 some other man had sent a circular — if we had two 
 circulars instead of one — the minority of the com- 
 mittee would have wanted to double the tariff and 
 to collect $1,400,000 from the farmers. This shows 
 how readily they become alarmed when the interests 
 of a manufacturer are at stake, and how slow they 
 are to become alarmed when the interests of the 
 great consuming masses of this country are at stake. 
 
 Another thing. In this report they say — 
 
 "If it is true, as stated in a report of the majority, that 
 the Senate in 1890 voted to place this article on the free 
 
 Li^t " 
 
 ''If it is true?" They will not believe the 
 records of Congress. If it is true ! Then they say : 
 
THE TARIFF 25 
 
 — it was induced largely by the assumption that the price 
 was then regulated by a trust and combination formed with 
 a view to force up the price ; but this condition of affairs' 
 which was then proven never to have existed is certainly 
 impossible under present competition. 
 
 They tell you that the vote in the Senate was 
 taken upon a false assumption — the assumption of 
 a condition which did not then exist and which is 
 impossible — and yet the minority of this committee 
 have in their possession a letter of Edwin H. Fitler 
 & Co., saying that twenty-nine out of thirty-five of 
 these factories are controlled by the National Cord- 
 age Company, and that this company controls 60 
 per cent, of the total output. Yet in spite of the 
 fact that they know of the company, its name and 
 location, and the number of factories which it con- 
 trols, they tell you in this report that that vote 
 was taken upon a supposed condition which not 
 only did not exist but cannot exist. And then to 
 add to their inconsistency, after telling you that 
 the competition in this country is such that no com- 
 bination can exist (in spite of the actual fact that 
 it does exist) they tell you a little further on that 
 they are not willing to destroy the competition of 
 the American manufacturer and leave the farmer 
 entirely at the mercy of the foreign producer and 
 importer. In other words, it is impossible for the 
 manufacturers of this country to combine, but just 
 take off the tariff and all the factories in the world 
 will combine against the poor farmer of the United 
 States. 
 
 Again, they state that if we take the tariff off, 
 the importer will charge his per cent, and the 
 farmer will not get his binding-twine any cheaper 
 
 I 6 
 
26 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 than he did before. At what straws a drowning 
 man will catch ! Why, Mr. Chairman, if it is true 
 that the amount charged by the importer will offset 
 the tariff, then what becomes of all this gloomy pre- 
 diction that this industry is going to be destroyed 
 in our country and transferred to foreign countries ? 
 If the importer charges an amount equal to the 
 tariff, then the farmer will not get his twine any 
 cheaper; and if he will not get his twine any 
 cheaper, these men can sell at the same price, can 
 they not? And how are they going to be run out 
 of the market? 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, there is another thing to be 
 said in regard to binding-twine. Complaint is made 
 here in the last part of this minority report that 
 the effect of the bill will be to admit free a class of 
 jute yarns and twine in an advanced state of man- 
 ufacture and to disarrange the entire manufacture 
 of jute goods in this country. 
 
 (Here the hammer fell.) 
 
 Mr. Burrows. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
 consent that the gentleman from Nebraska may 
 have such additional time as he may require to 
 conclude his remarks. 
 
 The Chairman (Mr. Ellis). Is there objec- 
 tion to the request of the gentleman from Michi- 
 gan? 
 
 There was no objection. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to my 
 colleague upon the committee for his kindness and 
 to the committee for its courtesy. 
 
 I was, when interrupted, about to call the atten- 
 tion of the members present to the fact that this 
 
THE TARIFF 27 
 
 bill puts on the free list those kinds of twine which 
 are made in whole or in part from raw material 
 already upon the free list. There is an apparent 
 exception in the case of jute. Jute and jute butts 
 are already on the free list; but what is known as 
 jute yarn is subjected to a tariff under the present 
 law, and the objection made to this clause in the 
 bill is that what is known as jute yarn used in other 
 industries may come in free as twine and disar- 
 range the whole business in this country. I have 
 simply this to say : we remove the duty from hind- 
 ing-twine made of jute and these other materials. 
 If jute yarn caii he used for hinding-twine, we 
 want it to come in free. If it is not binding-twine, 
 it does not come in free under this law, and we 
 can safely trust the authorities to prevent some- 
 thing coming in as binding-twine which is not bind- 
 ing-twine. 
 
 Mr. Lind. Will the gentleman yield for a ques- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Very gladly. 
 
 Mr. Lind. I notice that the report brought into 
 this House by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
 Turner], a member of your committee, the ma- 
 chinery used in the manufacture of cotton-bagging 
 is put on the free list. Cotton-bagging, as I under- 
 stand it, is made from substantially the same mate- 
 rial as binding-twine. Now, I should like the gen- 
 tleman from Nebraska to state to the committee 
 why you put the machinery for the manufacture 
 of cotton-bagging on the free list and not the 
 machinery for the manufacture of binding-twine? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. That is a fair question and I am 
 
28 BRYAN'S SPEECHES. 
 
 glad to answer it, as I shall be glad to answer any 
 question that may be proposed in good faith by 
 any of the gentlemen, friends on this side of the 
 House or the other. 
 
 There is this difference : There is no doubt that 
 the manufacture of binding-twine under present 
 conditions can be conducted in this country as 
 cheaply as in any other country in the world, and 
 that this tariff of seven-tenths of one cent per 
 pound is absolutely unnecessary to protect the 
 industry. 
 
 There could be, therefore, no injury inflicted 
 upon the manufacturers by not putting the machin- 
 ery for making the binding-twine on the free list. 
 I will say this, that speaking for myself, I shall be 
 glad to put on the free list, not only the machinery 
 for manufacturing binding-twine, but for manufac- 
 turing all things, for I believe it a legitimate advan- 
 tage that can be given to industries in all parts of 
 the country. I was glad when the last Congress put 
 on the free list the machinery used in the manufac- 
 ture of beet sugar. My only criticism was that 
 they did not make it broad enough to include not 
 only the machinery used in the manufacture of 
 beet sugar, but that used in the manufacture of all 
 other kinds of sugar. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman 
 
 Mr. Lind. If the gentleman will pardon me for 
 another interruption, that does not answer my 
 specific question. Here you put a manufactured 
 article, specifically named, on the free list. Why 
 not put the machinery for manufacturing that spe- 
 cific article also on the free list, so as to give the 
 
THE TARIFF 29 
 
 domestic producer at least an equal show with the 
 foreign producer? 
 
 Now, I am not discussing or rather inquiring into 
 the gentleman's general ideas here on this subject, 
 but in regard to this specific article I ask why that 
 exception is made. 
 
 Me. Bryan. I will say this to the gentleman. 
 That it was the object of the committee, in present- 
 ing separate bills, to as far as possible confine the 
 discussion to these bills and to the items they 
 embody; and if we had attempted to put on the 
 free list the machinery by which this material now 
 under consideration is made (I have stated that the 
 manufacturers can compete without this advan- 
 tage), then there would have been men owning 
 machinery who would have come and complained 
 that we ought also to put on the free list pig iron, 
 iron ore, and other articles. 
 
 Mr. Lind. But do not the manufacturers of ma- 
 chinery for making cotton-bagging complain? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I will say this 
 in regard to machinery for the manufacture of cot- 
 ton-bagging, that it is very simple machinery, and 
 is about all imported anyway. That is my under- 
 standing at least. But the gentleman will see that 
 if we should attempt to embrace in this bill every- 
 thing that can be related to it we could not confine 
 the subject to binding-twine and we would soon find 
 some of the associates of my friend telling the peo- 
 ple of Minnesota and Iowa that they were much in 
 favor of this feature or that feature of the bill, but 
 they could not vote for it altogether. Now, we 
 want them to go on record on individual proposi- 
 
30 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tions, and condemn them or support them as they 
 see fit. 
 
 Mr. Lind. And stultify ourselves. 
 
 ]\Ir. Bryan. Well, you can do just as you please 
 about that. But if the present system were framed 
 with an eye to justice, entire justice, there might 
 be some reason in opposing any change that w^as not 
 entirely just in all its details and relations. But 
 when 3^ou have a system conceived tn greed and 
 fashioned in iniquity I do not think that the ques- 
 tion of justice can be brought in when you revise 
 it. That is, reform is not to be delayed until exact 
 justice can be rendered. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Will the gentleman allow me to 
 ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Do you really believe that the 
 protective policy is similar to the pickpocket's 
 policj^ of putting a man's hand into another man's 
 pocket and extracting money from it? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes, that is my belief. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. Now, then, one other question. 
 You can answer it all together. If that is so, how 
 do you justify your position, not in economics, but 
 in morality, for reporting a bill which leaves 39 
 per cent, taxes on woolen clothing? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, if I found a robber 
 in my house who had taken all I had, and I was 
 going to lose it all or else get one-half back, I 
 would take the half. I will ask the gentleman from 
 California whether he would refuse to give the 
 people any relief because he could not give all that 
 he wanted to give? 
 
THE TARIFF 31 
 
 Mr. McKenna. No. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Then we agree. 
 
 Mr. McKenna. No, we do not. If I was in a 
 position of power, being a member of the Committee 
 on Ways and Means, and believed that my vote 
 would relieve this country from a system of policy 
 w^hich was simply a system of pickpocketing, I 
 w^ould never consent to vote for a bill in that way. 
 
 jMr. Bryan. In that respect the gentleman from 
 California and the gentleman from Nebraska do not 
 think alike. 
 
 Mr. IMcKenna. And in some other respects also. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I am willing to take the best method 
 that is possible, to obtain relief just as far as pos- 
 sible, and I will not insist upon getting it all before 
 I consent to take any. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention to 
 a letter w^hich I received to-day from the Bureau 
 of Statistics. It may assist in understanding 
 whether there is any trust in this country or not. 
 "We addressed a communication to the Bureau of 
 Statistics for information upon the subject. We 
 received a number of letters, and to-day I was 
 handed two other letters which have just been re- 
 ceived, one from the National Cordage Company 
 and one from Edward H. Fitler & Co. I want to 
 call attention to one sentence in the letter from the 
 National Cordage Company: 
 
 "The National Cordage Company, erroneously termed the 
 trust, has the power of legislating for some forty of these 
 mills." 
 
 Now, those who believe that a trust is a ** private 
 affair," into which we should not inquire, might 
 
32 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 regard it as all right ; but those who are accustomed 
 to the use of the English language can not read that 
 statement, that this company has the legislating for 
 fort}^ mills, and then deny that there is any com- 
 bination. 
 
 The Fitler Company write: 
 
 "We would think that the average price obtained by the 
 manufacturer would be slightly higher than last year, when 
 we bad 20,000 tons carried over from 1890 which the large 
 crop of 1891 consumed." 
 
 Now, there is the promise of a man outside of 
 the National Cordage Company that the chances 
 are that the farmer will pay a little more for his 
 binding-twine this year than last year, and the 
 papers of the last few days have contained items 
 to the effect that the advance in price has already 
 been agreed upon; agreed upon, I presume, with a 
 confident expectation that a Republican Senate will 
 not permit the people, voting through their Repre- 
 sentatives in Congress, to bring relief from this 
 tax. But enough on that subject. 
 
 Mr. Turner. Does my friend from Nebraska 
 remember that that body agreed during the last 
 Congress to make binding-twine free? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I do remember it, and our report 
 on that bill so states ; and yet the minority of this 
 committee say that it was induced by a misunder- 
 standing, and we have been given to understand by 
 high authority that they will not allow any bills of 
 a tariff reform nature to pass the Senate. My hope 
 is — it is simply a hope — that w^hen these bills go 
 before that body their consciences will rise superior 
 to their partizanship. 
 
THE TARIFF 33 
 
 !Mr. Clover. Vain hope ! 
 
 Mr. Bryan. It may be a vain hope, but it is 
 the only hope we have, until the people, speaking 
 at the polls, carry still further the reform that was 
 begun in 1890. 
 
 But now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call attention 
 to the principle of protection. 
 
 As I said in the beginning, we were invited by 
 the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] to dis- 
 cuss it ; and if I gather anything from the remarks 
 that I hear on this side of the House, and from what 
 has already been said, there will be no hesitation 
 in accepting the invitation. Let us go back to the 
 foundation of the principle. What is the object of 
 a protective tariff? There are two kinds of tariff; 
 a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection. In 
 our platform of 1876, that upon which Mr. Tilden 
 was nominated and elected, we declared, "we de- 
 mand that all custom-house taxation shall be only 
 for revenue. ' ' That is the platform upon which the 
 party stood then. That I believe is the principle 
 of the Democratic party to-day; and that we will 
 approach just as rapidly as we can. Then there is 
 a tariff for protection. That is the only tariff of 
 which we complain. 
 
 I am not objecting to a tariff for revenue. If it 
 were possible to arrange a system just as I believe 
 it ought to be arranged, I would collect one part 
 of our revenues for the support of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment from internal taxes on whisky and tobacco. 
 These are luxuries and may well be taxed. I would 
 collect another part from a tariff levied upon im- 
 ported articles, with raw material on the free list — 
 
34 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 the lowest duties upon the necessaries of life and 
 the highest duties upon the luxuries of life. And 
 then I should collect another part of the revenues 
 from a graduated income tax upon the wealth of 
 this country. It is conceded by all writers that a 
 tariff upon imports operates most oppressively^ upon 
 the poor. A graduated income tax would fall most 
 heavily upon the rich, and thus the two would par- 
 tially compensate each other and lessen the injustice 
 that might come from either one alone. That, I 
 say, would be my idea, if it were possible. 
 
 But I am not complaining at this time of a rev- 
 enue tariit. What I denounce is a protective tariff, 
 levied purely and solely for the purpose of protec- 
 tion. It is false economy and the most vicious 
 political principle that has ever cursed this country. 
 
 Mr. Raines. Will the gentleman allow me to 
 ask him a question ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I want to know if the gentleman 
 does not remember that in the Democratic platform 
 of 1876 they expressly said that it was for the pro- 
 tection of American industries, a tariff for revenue, 
 and to promote industry ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. There is a question, Mr. Chair- 
 man, when you come to consider the details of a 
 revenue tariff, as to just how it ought to be laid. 
 I do not remember the exact language of that plat- 
 form upon that question ; but I do believe, as I say, 
 and I am ready to stand by it anywhere, that a pro- 
 tective tariff' levied, not to raise revenue, but to pro- 
 tect some particular industry, is wrong in principle 
 and vicious in practise. 
 
THE TARIFF 35 
 
 Now, what is a protective tariff, and what does it 
 mean? It is a simple device by which one man is 
 authorized to collect money from his fellow men. 
 There are two ways in which you can protect an 
 industry. You can give it a bounty out of the 
 Federal Treasury, or you can authorize it to take 
 up the collection itself. This is the only difference. 
 Suppose that the Chairman desired to help some 
 particular industry — for instance, one in the home 
 of my friend from New York []\Ir. Raines], who 
 has asked the question. He might do it in either 
 of two ways. He might pass around the hat here 
 and collect the money and turn it over to the 
 favored industry, or he might simply say to the 
 man, "I will put a tariff upon the imported article 
 and make the price so high that 3^ou can collect the 
 additional price for your home-made article. ' ' 
 
 Now, what is the difference except that in the one 
 case the Chairman passes around the hat and turns 
 the money over to his friend, and in the other case 
 he authorizes the friend to pass the hat himself. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. May I ask the gentleman one 
 question to clear up a matter in my own mind ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Bryan. Certainly; I will be very glad to 
 answer if it will clear my friend's mind. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. Are you to be understood as 
 opposed to a State or national protection to be 
 extended to the beet-sugar industry? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I am, most assuredly. And when 
 it is necessary to come down to Congress and ask 
 for a protection or a bounty for an industry in my 
 own State which I would refuse as wrong to an 
 industry in another State, I shall cease to represent 
 
36 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Nebraska in Congress. The difference between a 
 protective tariff and a bounty is simply a difference 
 of form. 
 
 In the one case it is open and visible, and in the 
 other it is secret and hidden. There is the differ- 
 ence between a bounty and a protective tariff that 
 the Bible describes when it speaks of the ' ' Destruc- 
 tion that wasteth at noon-day, and the pestilence 
 that walketh in darkness.'' It is the difference 
 between the man who meets you upon the highway, 
 knocks you down and takes what you have, and the 
 man who steals into your house in the night while 
 you are asleep and robs you of your treasures ; and 
 if I had to make choice between the two I would 
 consider the highway robber the more honorable, 
 because he does what he does openly and before the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. Catchings. And he incurs some little per- 
 sonal danger. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes, he also incurs some little per- 
 sonal danger. The great advantage of a protec- 
 tive tariff over a bounty is that it is not seen, and, 
 as some one has said, its greatest justification is 
 that by means of it you ' * can get the most feathers 
 off the goose with the least squawking." 
 
 Just a word, Mr. Chairman, on the subject called 
 up by my friend from Iowa [Mr. Perkins]. I 
 stated that I was not in favor of the sugar bounty. 
 I was opposed to its being given in my own State ; 
 was in favor of its being repealed in my own State ; 
 and when the representative of those industries was 
 here the other day I told him that he could rely 
 'ipon me to vote for the repeal of the bounty on 
 
THE TARIFF 37 
 
 sugar at every stage in committee or House. And 
 in taking that position, Mr. Chairman, I believe 
 that I represent the great mass of the people, who 
 cannot come to this Congress and lobby bills 
 through in behalf of private interests, who cannot 
 get together and petition us, but whose only peti- 
 tions fall into the ballot-box when they vote, and, 
 so help me God, I will be guided by those petitions 
 just as long as I hold this office. When that bounty 
 was put on, it was opposed in this House as uncon- 
 stitutional. 
 
 I will read at this point from a decision of the 
 United States Supreme Court, 20 Wall., 657: 
 
 "To lay with one hand the power of the Government on 
 the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow 
 at upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and 
 build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because 
 it is done under the forms of law and is called a taxation. 
 This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative 
 forms. 
 
 "If it be said that a benefit results to the local public 
 of a town by establishing manufactures, the same may be 
 said of any other business or pursuit which employs capital 
 or labor. The merchant, the mechanic, the innkeeper, the 
 banker, the builder, the steamboat owner, are equally pro- 
 moters of the public good, and equally deserving the aid of 
 the citizens by forced contributions. No line can be drawn 
 in favor of the manufacturer which would not open the 
 coffers of the public Treasury to the importunities of two- 
 thirds of the business men of the city or town." 
 
 Now I desire to ask my friend from Iowa [Mr. 
 Perkins], does the Supreme Court state the truth, 
 or are you in favor of a bounty on sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman desires an an- 
 swer I will give it. I do not live in Nebraska; I 
 had no part in the legislation of that State placing 
 a bounty on sugar. I do know, however, that in the 
 
38 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 State of Nebraska and in the State of Iowa this 
 * ' highway robbery ' ' principle which the gentleman 
 denounces is largely observed and applied in ail our 
 communities. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentle- 
 man will confine that statement to the district 
 which he represents, and not extend it to our State. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that 
 is true in the city of Lincoln, and in the city of 
 Omaha, as well in the city of Sioux City. I know 
 that those communities are always glad and anxious 
 to improve every opportunity to give a bounty to 
 get a material industry into their midst. It is upon 
 that principle that that great Western country has 
 been built up and developed as it has been, and we 
 apply the same principle in the Government of this 
 great country. 
 
 Mr. Harries. Will the gentleman answer a ques- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Perkins. I am not speaking in my own time. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. You are welcome to all the time 
 you want if you will talk in that way. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. I have answered your question. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. But the gentleman has not pre- 
 sented an illustration of the principle for which 
 he contends. I want him to point to an instance 
 where the city of Sioux City, or the city of Lincoln, 
 or any other city, has voted money raised by taxa- 
 tion to aid a private enterprise. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. I can say for my own city that 
 we voted a tax to build railroad machine shops there 
 on account of the labor and money that they would 
 bring into the community, and we did it not as a 
 
THE TARIFF 39 
 
 benefit to the railroad company but as a benefit to 
 Sioux City. There is one illustration, and I can 
 give more. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman will read the de- 
 cision of the Supreme Court which I have cited he 
 will find that the court in discussing that question 
 says that in every instance where a vote of bonds to 
 aid a railroad company has been justified it has been 
 justified upon the ground that a railroad is a ^public 
 and not a private improvement. And, so far as I 
 know, there is no instance on record where the courts 
 of any State in the United States have declared a 
 bonus given to a purely private industry to be con- 
 stitutional and legitimate. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. Take the matter of the beet-sugar 
 industry. The gentleman knows that communities 
 in Nebraska have given aid for the establishment 
 of factories for that industry. 
 
 ]\Ir. Bryan. I will state to the gentleman that 
 that was attempted in the case that came to the su- 
 preme court of our State from Neligh. I had the 
 honor to be one of the attorneys in the case and 
 filed a brief against the bonds. The court held that 
 the bonds voted were illegal. 
 
 Mr. Harries. I was going to ask my friend, 
 the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Perkins], a ques- 
 tion; perhaps the gentleman from Nebraska can 
 answer it. Do you think it will make the trees grow 
 to give a bounty upon maple sugar ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I suppose it is 
 perfectly in harmony with the ''infant industry'^ 
 plan that was presented in the McKinley bill and 
 
40 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 previous bills. They protect the ''infant indus- 
 try" of boring holes into trees. 
 
 On this question, I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, 
 that the policy of the Democratic party is not hos- 
 tility to industries. We welcome to this country 
 every industry that can stand upon its feet ; but we 
 do not welcome the industries that come to ride 
 upon our backs. We do not desire to discourage in- 
 dustries ; we desire to restore to them the ' ' lost art ' ' 
 of self-support. We are not objecting to "infant 
 industries ; ' ' but what we do say is that the public 
 Treasury shall no longer stand sponsor by the cradle 
 of every ''infant industry" born upon American 
 soil. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, to resume. I have said that 
 the purpose of the protective tariff is to transfer 
 money from one man's pocket to another man's 
 pocket. I want to show to you and to this commit- 
 tee that it is the only purpose a protective tariff 
 can possibly have. Why do you impose a tariff? 
 You impose it upon the theory that you cannot pro- 
 duce in this country the article which you protect 
 as cheaply as it can be produced abroad; and you 
 put the tariff upon that article in order that the 
 price of the article may be so much increased that 
 American manufacturers can afford to produce it. 
 You mean that the man who buys that article shall 
 pay into the public Treasury the tariff upon the 
 article, and you expect that this, together with the 
 price, will be sufficient to protect somebody else. 
 
 Is not that the purpose ? If not, why did the gen- 
 tleman from Maine [Mr. Boutelle] ask to have the 
 tariff taken off of building material when Eastport, 
 
THE TARIFF 41 
 
 Me., was burned, or why give to the shipbuilders of 
 Maine free building material, as suggested by the 
 gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Turner] ? How do 
 you protect the wool-grower except on the theory 
 that foreign wool is made higher ? But why do you 
 make a man pay more for the foreign article ? It is 
 in order that your protected manufacturer may 
 charge more for his product than he could charge 
 without the tariff. That is the only justification; 
 because if you say that you cannot produce the arti- 
 cle as cheaply in this country as it is produced 
 abroad, what benefit is it to you to have the outside 
 article increased in price if you do not increase the 
 price of the home-made article also ? 
 
 The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Dingley] says 
 that a couple of years ago he purchased a piece of 
 calico in Manchester, England, and paid 5 cents a 
 yard for it ; that the tariff on calico was 4 cents a 
 yard, and that if the tariff were a tax it would make 
 the price 9 cents ; but that, on the contrary, his wife 
 purchased in a store in this city, a piece of calico of 
 better quality for 5 cents a yard. Now I wish to 
 ask you this: If you can produce and sell in this 
 country a yard of calico at the same price per yard 
 at which it is sold in England, the American calico 
 being of better qualit3% why do you want a tariff of 
 4 cents a yard to protect your calico ? 
 
 I submit this proposition: Either a tariff is 
 needed or it is not needed. If a tariff is needed, it is 
 in order to add the amount of the tariff to the price 
 of the home article to enable the American manufac- 
 turer to compete with the foreign. If it is not 
 needed, who is going to justify it ? Now, which horn 
 
 17 
 
42 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 of the dilemma will you take? Will you say that 
 this tariff is needed and used ; or will you say it is 
 not needed and ought to be abolished ? 
 
 If, then, that is the purpose of a tariff — to make 
 the man who buys the protected article pay more 
 for that article than he would pay without the tar- 
 iff — it means simply this, that the law should trans- 
 fer so much money from my pocket to the pocket 
 of somebody else. You cannot in this way raise an 
 "infant industry" without putting the burden 
 somewhere. Whenever you see the Government by 
 operation of law send a dollar singing down into 
 one man 's pocket, you must remember that the Gov- 
 ernment has brought it crying up out of some other 
 man's pocket. You might just as well try to raise 
 a weight with a lever without a fulcrum as try to 
 help some particular industry by means of taxation 
 without placing the burden upon the consumer. 
 
 Back in Illinois when we were repairing a rail 
 fence, we would sometimes find a corner down pretty 
 low in the ground, and not wanting to tear down 
 the fence we would raise that fence corner and put 
 a new ground chunk under it. How did we do it? 
 We took a rail, put one end of it imder the fence 
 corner, then laid down a ground chunk for a ful- 
 crum. Then we would go off to the end of the rail 
 and bear down ; up would go the fence corner — but 
 does anybody suppose there was no pressure on that 
 fulcrum ? 
 
 That, my friends, illustrates just the operation, 
 as I conceive it, of a protective tariff. You want to 
 raise an infant industry, for instance ; what do you 
 do? You take a protective tariff for a lever, and 
 
THE TARIFF 43 
 
 put one end of it under the infant industry that is 
 to be raised. You look around for some good, fat, 
 hearty consumer and lay him down for a ground 
 chunk ; you bear down on the rail and up goes the 
 infant industry, but down goes the ground chunk 
 into the ground. 
 
 The reason our friends justify the principle is 
 that they see the infant industry rise, but they for- 
 get the men upon whom they ar§ placing the bur- 
 den. And the trouble with this count r;^ is that all 
 over the land are the homes of forgotten men — men 
 whose rights have been violated and whose interests 
 have been disregarded in order that somebody else 
 may be enriched. It is the principle that is involved 
 in this little binding-twine bill. You see the indus- 
 try that gets the $20,000, but you never think of 
 the farmers who go down into their pockets and pay 
 the little sums that make up the great amount. Is 
 not that a fact ? Is not that the effect of the tariff ? 
 
 The man who justifies protection as a principle 
 must prove three things: He must prove that the 
 principle is right ; that the policy is wise, and that 
 the tax is necessary. 
 
 No man on that side of the House in this session 
 of Congress will stand up before you and justify a 
 law that takes from one man one cent and gives it 
 to another man if he will admit that that is the 
 operation. Take an illustration : Here are ten men 
 owning farms side by side. Suppose that nine of 
 them should pass a resolution, "Resolved, That we 
 will take the land of the tenth man and divide it 
 among us. ' ' Who would justify such a transaction ? 
 Suppose the nine men tell the tenth man that he 
 
44 , BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 will get it back in some way; that it is a great 
 advantage to live amongst nine men who will thus 
 be better off, and that indirectly he gets an advan- 
 tage from the transaction ? 
 
 How long do you suppose it would be before they 
 would convince that man that they were right in 
 taking his land? Would you, gentlemen, dare to 
 justify that? You would not justify the taking of 
 one square foot of his land. If you do not dare do 
 that, how will you justify the taking of that which 
 a man raises on his land, all that makes the land 
 valuable? Where is the difference between the soil 
 and the product of the soil? How can you justify 
 the one if not the other ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Lind. Will the gentleman from Nebraska 
 yield for another question? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Most willingly. 
 
 Mr. Lind. I believe the gentleman from Ne- 
 braska voted for a bill the other day taxing the 
 public at large for the purchase of text-books for 
 children who attend the public schools. How does 
 he justify that? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I think, if I remember correctly, 
 Mr. Chairman, that I have also paid a little tax 
 for the support of public schools upon the theory 
 that it was a public purpose, and I voted to buy 
 school books upon the same theory. If I am wrong, 
 I will be glad to be corrected. Did the gentleman 
 from Minnesota vote for that with the understand- 
 ing that it was for a public purpose or for a private 
 purpose ? 
 
 Mr. Lind. A public purpose. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Very well, then we agree. 
 
THE TARIFF 45 
 
 Mr. Lind. But let me say in justice to myself 
 that if the gentleman from Nebraska can convince 
 me that a protective tariff, a protective policy, is 
 not a public policy and beneficial to the people, and 
 to the country as a whole, I will be a free trader 
 with him. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that 
 I want to take him quite that far, but I wish I 
 could lead him to believe in a tariff for revenue 
 only. 
 
 Mr. Raines. And with incidental protection. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I will say this, that it makes a 
 great deal difference with a man whether what has 
 been done is the result of accident or design. If 
 you levy a tariff for revenue, you will so arrange 
 it as to raise a revenue and stop when you have 
 raised revenue enough. But if you levy a tariff for 
 protection you may so arrange the schedules as to 
 make a heavy tax, raise but little revenue, and you 
 never know when to stop. 
 
 Mr. Raines. Does the gentleman claim that we 
 are getting too much revenue now? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Perhaps not ; but you have reduced 
 the revenue by increasing the taxes upon the people 
 and that is what I object to. 
 
 Mr. Raines. Will the gentleman allow me a 
 question ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I would like the gentleman now, 
 in order to clinch his argument, to answer this 
 question: Can the gentleman point to any one 
 single article produced in the United States in com- 
 petition with a foreign article that has been in- 
 
46 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 creased in price by the McKinley tariff, or which 
 is not actually cheaper to-day than it was prior to 
 1860? 
 
 Mr. BrYxVn. I will ask the gentleman if tin is 
 manufactured in this country? 
 
 IMr. Raines. Well, I have in my desk a list 
 in a trade paper 
 
 A Member. They are all on paper. 
 
 Mr. Raines (continuing). A list of twenty- 
 seven manufacturers of tin; but I want to say to 
 the gentleman that no trade paper was ever printed 
 that could contain a list of all the tinplate liars of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I suppose that paper, then, has no 
 biographical sketch of my friend from New York. 
 I will say, Mr. Chairman — and it will explain why 
 I asked my friend from New York if we had any 
 tin industries in this country — I have here a state- 
 ment that the average price of tin plate for 1888 
 was $4.45 a box. The average price for five years 
 prior to July 1, 1890, was $4.45. The average price 
 for 1891 was $5.68 a box. This was given on the 
 authority of the Tin Plate Consumers' Association 
 of the United States, which has in its ranks a large 
 majority of those who use tin. And I will place 
 this on record as my authority, against the state- 
 ment of the gentleman that no article could be 
 mentioned upon which the price had been increased. 
 And I will go further and name, if he wishes, an 
 article upon which the price has been reduced by 
 the removal of the tariff, namely, sugar. 
 
 Mr. Halvorson. And quinine. 
 
 ]\Ir. Raines. I wish to call the gentleman's 
 
THE TARIFF 47 
 
 attention right here to the fact that in 1880 the 
 foreign price of tin was $8.28 a box, and the Amer- 
 ican price was $9.36 a box, while the price in 1891 
 was $5.42 a box. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, for 
 the information that the gentleman has injected 
 into the body of my remarks. If he has the statis- 
 tics in regard to the price in 1870 or in 1860, or in 
 fact if he can give me the price of tin plate in 
 1592 say, or 1492, it will be a matter of great inter- 
 est to my people, and this speech is going to cir- 
 culate among them. 
 
 Mr. Eaines. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that 
 the gentleman himself seems to be the one who is 
 indulging in ancient history. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sure if I have 
 indulged in ancient history, this House will not 
 pardon me unless I have a better excuse than 
 the gentleman from New York can furnish for 
 his indulgence in ancient history. And on this 
 point — I expected to come to it later, but it is made 
 opportune by the remarks of the gentleman — I 
 want to ask him if he believes the tariff upon tin 
 plate had anything to do with the cheapening of 
 the price of tin plate in this country ? 
 
 Mr. Raines. I believe that the tariff upon tin 
 will result in the establishment of an industry in 
 the United States. 
 
 A Member. Answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Raines (continuing). And will recult in 
 the keeping at home of thirty millions of dollars a 
 year that have been sent abroad, and will give 
 employment to 100,000 men in the industry, and 
 
48 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 will result in cheapening the price to the consum- 
 ers in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
 New York may well be pardoned, as the rest 
 of his party may be, for indulging in prophecy 
 rather than history since 1890. But that is not an 
 answer to my question. He stated that the price 
 of tin plate had been reduced in the last ten years. 
 I ask him, and I expect a direct answer and no 
 equivocation, whether in his opinion the tariff upon 
 tin plate has reduced (not will reduce) the price 
 of tin plate ? For that can be the only point to his 
 remarks. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I have given my answer. When 
 the industry of tin plate is established in the United 
 States — and three months ago there was not a gen- 
 tleman on that side who would admit that there was 
 or would be a tin plate factory in the United 
 States 
 
 Mr. Bryan. We will not admit it to-day, sir. 
 
 Mr. Raines (continuing). When it is estab- 
 lished in the United States the result will be just 
 the same as it has been in the wire-nail industry, 
 for you can buy wire nails to-day for less than the 
 duty on nails. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman does not desire to 
 answer my first question and wants to branch off 
 into the wire-nail subject, I assure him that one of 
 the most pleasant entertainments I had in my dis- 
 trict last campaign revolved around a wire nail. If 
 he prefers to refer to that, let me ask him if he 
 believes the reduction in the price of wire nails is 
 due to a protective tariff? 
 
THE TARIFF 49 
 
 Mr. Raines. Largely. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. How largely ? What is the propor- 
 tion? 
 
 Mr. Raines. In that business I am laboring 
 under the same difficulty that your majority of the 
 Committee on Ways and Means are laboring, when 
 in their report they say it is impossible to tell in 
 what degree the tariff does affect either the increase 
 or the reduction of the price of an article. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I will ask you to give your best 
 judgment as to what proportion protection has re- 
 duced the price of wire nails and the proportion in 
 which other things have entered? 
 
 Mr. Raines. I would like to ask the gentleman 
 when he suggests 
 
 Mr. Bryan. One thing at a time. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I do not desire to interrupt the 
 gentleman without his permission. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman will answer my 
 question I will continue to answer his questions as 
 long as he puts them; but I do not want him to 
 refuse to answer my question and then ask me a 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I do not want the gentleman to 
 make an answer for me. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I will let you make an answer if 
 you will. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I was going to make an answer. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Then make an answer. 
 
 Mr. Raines. I was going to make an answer in 
 this way. I was going to ask the gentleman this. 
 When he is buying a pound of wire nails for 2.8 
 
50 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 cents, on which the duty is 2 cents, what is he 
 doing ? Is he buying nails or is he paying duty ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Bryan. I would like to ask the gentleman if 
 his mind is so constructed that he considers that an 
 answer to my question? Do you consider that an 
 answer ? 
 
 ]\Ir. Raines. A reasonable one. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Then, I am glad to send that out 
 to the people of Nebraska as an illustration of the 
 astuteness of the mind of a distinguished New York 
 Republican. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I think I can suggest to this 
 House a reason why the gentleman from New York 
 would not answer the question, I will give him the 
 credit for more intelligence and less sincerity. The 
 reason he would not answer that question is that he 
 suspected that the next question would be: "If 
 protection reduced the price of wire nails, and was 
 put on for that purpose, and reduced the price of 
 tin plate, and was put on for that purpose, why 
 did the Republican party increase the tariff on 
 wheat? Because they wanted to reduce the price? 
 When a man defends a protective tariff on the 
 theory that it reduces the price of the protected 
 article, he wants the people of this country to 
 believe that the manufacturer comes down to Con- 
 gress and begs for a tariff on his article to de- 
 crease the price of his article, and then begs for a 
 tariff on agricultural products to increase their 
 price. 
 
 Mr. Raines. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest 
 to the gentleman that in the majority report, 
 wiiich he has signed, it is said that the tariff 
 
THE TARIFF 51 
 
 actually did reduce the price of wool. You cannot 
 get away from that ; you signed the report. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I said, Mr. Chairman, in the be- 
 ginning, that there are wool growers in this country 
 who believed that ; but the gentleman cannot dodge 
 the logic of his position by any such subterfuge as 
 that. The difficulty is, Mr. Chairman, that when a 
 man gets up here to defend protection he would 
 have you believe that the manufacturer's sole aim 
 in life is to make his goods cheap, in order that he 
 may pay high wages to labor ; and, as he cannot get 
 them cheap enough otherwise, he asks Congress for 
 a law to encourage competition, that he may be com- 
 pelled to sell them cheaper. Now, if he is so anx- 
 ious to cheapen goods to the people, why does he 
 not simply reduce the price and not beg for a law 
 to compel him to do it? 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, as Plutarch would say, I 
 digress. I was saying Avhen interrupted that the 
 man who defends the principle of protection must 
 justify the taking of one man's money and putting 
 it into another man's pocket. He must justify the 
 appropriation by legislation of a part of the pro- 
 ceeds of our daily toil to somebody else as a benefit, 
 and yet there is this difference between the case 
 which I cited, of nine men getting together and 
 taking the land of the tenth man and dividing it 
 among them by resolution, and the case of pro- 
 tection. In that we have one man getting together 
 and taking the property of the nine men by reso- 
 lution and dividing it among ''him." [Laughter.] 
 
 It has been said that a slave was a slave simply 
 because 100 per cent, of the proceeds of his toil was 
 
52 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 appropriated by somebody without his consent. If 
 the law is such that a portion of the proceeds of 
 our toil is appropriated by somebody else without 
 our consent, we are simply to that extent slaves, as 
 much so as were the colored men. And yet this 
 party, that boasts that it struck the shackles from 
 4,000,000 slaves, insists on driving the fetters 
 deeper into the flesh of 65,000,000 of free men. 
 
 But Mr. Chairman [looking at the clock. Cries 
 of ''Go on!"], if it is difficult to defend this on 
 principle, it is equally difficult to defend it as a 
 policy. I make this assertion, that if it is wise 
 to appropriate money out of the public Treasury 
 to aid a private enterprise, then it is wiser for a 
 town than for a county. It is wiser for a county 
 than for a State. For a Congress of restricted and 
 delegated powers, whose members are far removed 
 from the people, it is most unwise of all to vote 
 away the public money for private purposes. So 
 that, if that policy is wise at all, this is the last 
 place to apply the principle. 
 
 We would not dare to trust that policy in our 
 county or our town; and my friend from Sioux 
 City has not pointed to an instance where it has 
 been done at public expense. The difference be- 
 tween voting public money for private purposes 
 and taking up a subscription voluntarily is so wide, 
 that I do not believe there is a gentleman upon the 
 other side who does not see it. Why would yon 
 not trust it at home ? Because you know that there 
 would go before that council, or before the county 
 commissioners, only the men who want something, 
 only those men and their paid attorneys would go 
 
THE TARIFF 53 
 
 there to represent the great advantage that the pro- 
 posed industry would be to the community, while 
 the other side would never be heard. 
 
 Although you walk the streets with your coun- 
 eilmen every day ; although they are your constant 
 companions ; well as you know them, as much con- 
 fidence as you have in them, you would not dare 
 to trust them in that way, because you know that 
 when men come to vote money for private pur- 
 poses, when they come to this special legislation, 
 there are always special influences at work on the 
 side of the strong and powerful, while, on the other 
 hand, those who — 
 
 Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife, 
 Keep — 
 
 — the noiseless tenor of their way 
 
 are never heard, although it is upon them that the 
 burden resulting from such special legislation ulti- 
 mately rests. Therefore, honest as your council- 
 men might be, desirous of doing right as they 
 would be, you would feel that you could not, that 
 you must not trust them with such power. And 
 yet gentlemen will tell you that what they would 
 not trust to their local authorities at home, what 
 they would not dare to approve as a local matter 
 in Sioux City or in Lincoln, they think right and 
 proper here. 
 
 Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman will excuse 
 me for interrupting, I will give him this further 
 illustration. A Democratic city council in Sioux 
 City, a body in which only one Republican was sit- 
 ting, has voted for the last two years $50 a month 
 out of the public funds to assist in the maintenance 
 
54 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 of a jobbers and manufacturers' association in 
 Sioux City. That is one illustration of voting pub- 
 lie money to sustain a private organization, and it 
 was done by a Democratic council containing only 
 one Republican. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. It is a great credit to that city 
 council that it has such a large majority of Demo- 
 crats, and a credit to Sioux city also, but 
 
 Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman will excuse 
 me again, I will state that in the election held the 
 other day the proportions w^ere reversed. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the 
 news must go out over this great country that 
 Sioux City is on the decline. But until the gentle- 
 man has shown where the right to vote that money 
 has been sanctioned by law he cannot cite the case 
 as a precedent. 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse. Probably those councilmen 
 were turned out by the people because they had 
 done that. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes, as the gentleman from South 
 Carolina [Mr. Stackhouse] suggests, probably the 
 result of the recent election was due to the fact 
 that they had disregarded their duty to their peo- 
 ple. I think I recall a case where some city in 
 Minnesota voted a certain bounty for a saloon to 
 open in its midst, but my recollection is that the 
 Supreme Court decided that that was hardly a pub- 
 lic improvement or a public purpose. 
 
 Mr. Lind. I want to say to my friend that that 
 must have been in some other State, because in our 
 State we tax a saloon a minimum sum of $500 for 
 the privilege of existing. 
 
THE TxVRIFF 55 
 
 Mr. Bryan. That tax may have made it all 
 the more necessary that the bounty should be given 
 before the saloon would open. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, if the committee will pardon 
 me for detaining them so long (cries of '*Go on!" 
 ''Go on!") I want to say that it is as difficult to 
 defend the necessity for a tariff as it is to defend 
 its principle or its policy. And this brings me to 
 another contradiction which we often find in the 
 arguments of our Republican friends. If you ask 
 them why they need a tariff they at once tell you 
 that we pay so much better wages in this country 
 than are paid abroad that we can not compete, and 
 that until we are willing to reduce the wages of our 
 workingmen we never can compete. That is a very 
 plausible argument to start with, but then comes 
 along some person who asks a question something 
 like that asked yesterday by the gentleman from 
 Texas [Mr. Grain] of the gentleman from Massa- 
 chusetts [Mr. Walker]. The gentleman from 
 Texas asks, "Does not that protection make the 
 price of goods higher in this country than abroad ? ' ' 
 *'No, sir," says Mr. Walker. "Everything that a 
 man uses, except woolen goods, is cheaper in this 
 country than it is abroad." 
 
 Now, to an "untutored mind," such as we are 
 told new members possess, it would seem that if 
 you need protection to labor in this country because 
 labor is higher, that idea is hardly consistent, upon 
 the Republican theory, with a cheaper product. 
 Yet the same gentleman who yesterday told you that 
 we must have a tariff to protect the laboring men in 
 this country told you that the laboring men of this 
 
56 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 country were producing articles cheaper than the 
 laboring men of other countries. 
 
 I want to call attention — it is with some diffidence 
 I assure you, after the gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts [Mr. Walker] has said that it is nothing but 
 "nonsense" — I want to call attention, however, so 
 that those may consider it who are not inclined to 
 look upon it as "nonsense," to what Hon. William 
 M. Evarts said when he was Secretary of State, in 
 his report in 1879. He says: 
 
 "The average American workman performs from one and 
 a half to twice as much work in a given time as the aver- 
 age European workman. This is so important a point in 
 connection with our ability to compete with the cheap labor 
 manufactures of Europe, and it seems at first thought so 
 strange that I will trouble you with somewhat lengthy quo- 
 tations from the reports in support thereof." 
 
 That was the statement of the Republican Sec- 
 retary of State. And I hope that none of my 
 Republican friends will reflect upon the next 
 authority I shall quote, Hon. James G. Blaine, who, 
 when Secretary of State, said : 
 
 "Undoubtedly the inequalities in wages of English and 
 American operatives (that is, in cotton manufactures) are 
 more than equalized by the greater efficiency of the latter 
 and their longer hours of labor. If this should prove to 
 be a fact in practise, as it seems to me to be proven by 
 official statistics, it would be a very important element in 
 the establishment of our ability to compete with England 
 for our share of the Cotton-goods trade of the World." 
 
 Henry Clay said in the Senate in 1832 — sixty 
 years age 
 
 "I have before me another statement of a practical and 
 respectable man, well versed in the flannel manufacture in 
 America and England, demonstrating that the cost of manu- 
 facture is precisely the same in both countries." 
 
THE TARIFF 57 
 
 Are we less independent because of the protection 
 we have had? Mr. J. B. Sargent, of New Haven, 
 has been engaged for thirty years in the hardware 
 business, being one of the largest manufacturers 
 in the world of locks, bolts, builders' and furniture 
 hardware, and, in certain lines, of carpenters' tools. 
 He employs from fifteen hundred to two thousand 
 men. He has nearly 12 acres of ground under roof. 
 His daily output is nearly 50 tons of goods per 
 day. He says in regard to the cost of manufactur- 
 ing in this country : 
 
 "American manufacturers can successfully compete in 
 any market where skilled labor is the test in spite of the 
 low pay for which men work in China, in India, and in 
 every country where labor is debased. My observation has 
 taught me that the greatest obstacle to American competi- 
 tion in foreign markets to nearly every class of goods is 
 the high price of our raw material. Take off the duty and 
 we will send our goods everywhere. Wages would increase 
 here under such a system rather than become lower." 
 
 Now these are the statements, cool and unimpas- 
 sioned, of officials and men in position to know. I 
 submit to you, my friends, that those statements are 
 amply borne out by the illustrations of the gentle- 
 man from Maine [Mr.DiNGLEv] and the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts [Mr .Walker] when they tell 
 you that notwithstanding the greater wages paid, 
 the actual product in this country is cheaper than 
 it is in Europe. If that be true, then where is your 
 need of protection? If that be true, then who can 
 justify the imposition of a tariff on the ground that 
 it is necessary to protect the laboring men in this 
 country ? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the laborer has been used as a cats- 
 paw to draw chestnuts out of the fire for the manu- 
 
 18 
 
58 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 facturer. The manufacturer comes here and pleads 
 for a protective tariff in order that he may give 
 employment with remunerative prices to labor. 
 You give him the protection he asks ; you make him 
 a trustee for the benefit of his employee; you give 
 to that employee no law by which he can enforce 
 his trust. The manufacturer goes back to his fac- 
 tory and puts in his pocket the bonus you have 
 given him. And then the employee pleads, and 
 pleads in vain, for his portion of the promised 
 benefits. 
 
 I will tell you a story. I do not know whether 
 you allow stories here [cries of "Go on!"], but 
 there is a story which to my mind illustrates this 
 point. A white boy said to a colored boy, ' ' Let 's go 
 into cahoots and go a coon hunting ; you furnish the 
 dog and climb the tree, and I'll do the hollering." 
 They went. The white boy * ' hollered ' ' ; the colored 
 boy furnished the dog and climbed the tree. They 
 caught three coons. When they came to divide, 
 the white boy took them all. The colored boy 
 asked, ''What am I going to have?" *'Why," 
 said the white boy, "you get the cahoots." 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, the manufacturer has been 
 making just such combination or partnership with 
 his employee. The manufacturer says to his work- 
 man, "You come on and furnish the dog and climb 
 the tree ; you bring out the votes ; and I will do the 
 talking." They get their coons — they have been 
 getting them. But compelled to put up with the 
 "cahoots." Yes, and when the employee asks for 
 the higher wages that w^ere promised him last year, 
 you find Pinkerton detectives stationed to keep 
 
THE TARIFF 59 
 
 him off and foreigners brought in to supply his 
 place. 
 
 Why do we need a contract-labor law ? It is to 
 prevent the protected industries of this country 
 from sending abroad to get cheap labor to take 
 the place of American labor. Is not that the result ? 
 Were we not promised last year just what the gen- 
 tleman from New York tells us to-day will still come 
 by and by? The *' sweet by and by" has been the 
 hope of the people for these thirty years ; the ^ ' pres- 
 ent" has been the enjoyment of the men who made 
 the promises. 
 
 We were told of the number of laborers to be em- 
 ployed because of the McKinley bill; yet scarcely 
 had the bill passed when there appeared in New 
 York an advertisement for laborers to make tin 
 plate ; and the point of it was the statement that they 
 would be paid higher prices than laborers were paid 
 in Wales. Why was that stated in New York, ex- 
 cept with a view to having that paper sent to Wales 
 and importing here the labor to make these goods 1 
 
 No, my friends, the manufacturer has not dealt 
 fairly and honestly with the employee. What has 
 been the result? Who has been getting the bene- 
 fit ? Is it the great mass of our people ? Are they 
 the ones that have profited by this transaction ? If, 
 Mr. Chairman, you undertook, by the method pro- 
 posed awhile ago, to raise money by passing around 
 a hat in this body for some protected friend or some 
 one you wished to benefit, what would be the result 
 of your efforts ? If you passed it often enough you 
 would get all the money we had in our pockets, and 
 the man to whom you gave it would have all you col- 
 
60 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 lected ; and if we did not get out of money it would 
 be because while you were emptying the hat we 
 would be scratching around to get the next contri- 
 bution ready, while the man to whom you gave it 
 would get rich without having to scratch at all. 
 Thus this system has operated. You have built up 
 wealth in this country to a degree unparalleled in 
 the history of the United States or of the world. 
 
 These men tell us that they cannot live without 
 the collections they make ; and yet they are the ones 
 who build their stately palaces, who give their ban- 
 quets, which rival in magnificence the banquets of 
 ancient times. These are the men who can gather 
 around a banquet board as they did, I think it was 
 in New York, to celebrate ''home industries" at 
 $10 per plate, when within a stone 's throw of their 
 banquet hall were people to whom a 10-cent meal 
 would be a luxury. Yes, sir, you take the statistics 
 furnished by Mr. Shearman in the Forum, and he 
 shows that 25,000 people own one-half of the wealth 
 of this country, and 65,000,000 of people divide the 
 other half between them. 
 
 If, Mr. Chairman, you should ask the friend re- 
 ceiving the contributions which you were supposed 
 a moment ago to gather here and give to him, I pre- 
 sume he would tell you it was the best system of 
 government ever invented. I am not surprized that 
 a man like Mr. Carnegie is willing to write articles 
 in monthly magazines to show w^hat a great benefit 
 of a protective system. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask 
 you whether the people who pay this money believe 
 that it is a good system? You went before them: 
 a year ago ; you took your idea of a protective tariff 
 
THE TARIFF 61 
 
 with you, and said to them: "This, gentlemen, is 
 the way we bring relief to the people." You said 
 in your report ' ' agriculture is depressed, ' ' and then 
 you applied as a remedy the earliest practise known 
 to surgery. "Bleed him again." 
 
 Under your protective party banner you went to 
 the country and boasted that you had fastened on 
 the people a law which they could not change for 
 ten years. But you were as ignorant of the power 
 of the people as you were careless of their welfare. 
 You say that we deceived them; that we exceeded 
 you in misrepresentation. You have the consolation 
 of knowing that if we did it was the first time we 
 ever went beyond you in that respect. But we did 
 not. Because as a successful fabricator the average 
 Republican will be recognized as one the latchet 
 of whose shoes we are unworthy to unloose. 
 
 No ; the people knew what you were doing ; they 
 knew what you had done, and they rose in their 
 might and hurled you from power ; and to-day the 
 once proud Republican party, that used to take the 
 election of President as a matter of course, thinks it 
 worth while to announce to this body through the 
 gentleman from New York [Mr. Raines] that the 
 Republican party has made a gain in supervisors 
 in New York. 
 
 Mr. Raines. Let me suggest to the gentleman 
 that all the people are getting as a result of the 
 change is free wool, free binding-twine, and free 
 cotton-ties. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I only hope, Mr. Chairman, that 
 what the gentleman says is true, and that they will 
 get these things. I hope that the body at the other 
 
62 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 end of this Capitol, which differs from us in the 
 political complexion of its majority, will not stand 
 between the people and this relief. 
 
 Yes, sir ; they boasted that nothing could be done ; 
 that they had the people bound hand and foot. 
 Where are those conspirators today? Where the 
 men who were the most largely instrumental in fast- 
 ening that iniquitous legislation on this country? 
 When they w^ent back to their people the expression 
 of confidence was in the other man. 
 
 Mr. Eaines. One of them is governor of Ohio. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes; I believe he did succeed in 
 being elected governor of a Republican State. 
 
 Mr. Davis. By a minority vote. 
 
 Mr. Bryan Yes, by a minority vote. And to 
 such extremity has this great Caesar come that he 
 welcomes the holding of a Republican State now 
 more than before he boasted of the conquest of a 
 nation. We do not feel unkindly toward our friend 
 from Maine, the ex-Speaker, although he seems more 
 sensitive to remarks now than when in the chair. 
 And he has rather contradicted the statement that 
 the ' ' leopard can not change his spots, " or a person 
 his skin. He seems to have made some kind of an 
 exchange by which he got one much thinner than 
 the one he wore two years ago. 
 
 A Member. A thinner hide. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. We shall not find fault with him 
 if he consumes much of his time, as he gazes around 
 upon the chairs once occupied by his faithful com- 
 panions, in recalling those beautiful words of the 
 poet Moore : 
 
THE TARIFF 63 
 
 'Tis the last rose of summer, loft blooming alone, 
 All her lovely companions have faded and gone, 
 No flower of her kindred, no rosebud is nigh 
 To reflect back her blushes, or give sigh for sigh. 
 
 And it is barely possible that the great revolution 
 which began a year ago may some time reach even 
 to the coast of Maine ; and for the good of the coun- 
 try, but perhaps for the injury of our party — be- 
 cause he has been a faithful friend to us, and in 
 the language of another noted gentleman from 
 Maine, ' ' has done us a great favor without knowing 
 it" 
 
 Mr. Wheeler of Alabama. Without intend- 
 ing it. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. The time may come, I say, when 
 his constituents will address him in the language 
 of that other verse, as beautiful in words and as 
 appropriate in sentiment — 
 
 I'll not leave thee, thou lone one, to pine on the stem ; 
 Since the lovely are sleeping, go sleep thou with them. 
 Thus kindly I scatter thy leaves o'er the bed 
 Where thy mates of the garden lie scentless and dead. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, some reference has been made to 
 the effect of a protective tariff upon manufactured 
 articles, and the argument has been advanced that 
 the aim and results are to reduce the price of pro- 
 tected articles to the consumer. I want to say to you 
 that such was never the intention of a protective 
 tariff upon the part of those who supported it ; and 
 that if the price is reduced, it comes as the effect 
 of improved machinery, and not as the effect of a 
 law which enables the manufacturer to sell here 
 protected from competition, while he often sells 
 abroad in competition with the world. The gentle- 
 
64 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 man will tell us that goods are cheaper to-day than 
 they were thirty years ago. It is true. But if pro- 
 tection did it, let him explain why it is that not only 
 here, where we have protection, but in England, 
 where they have free trade, goods are cheaper than 
 they were before. 
 
 The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 Walker] told us that steel rails had fallen in 
 price because of a protective tariff. 
 
 I will append to my remarks a schedule given by 
 Mr. Carlisle in an article in the Forum, in which 
 he shows the price of steel rails in England from 
 1871 to 1882, and the price of steel rails in this coun- 
 try during that time, and the amount consumed. 
 This shows what the Englishman paid for them, and 
 also what the American paid for the same amount 
 of rails. And when you add up the difference you 
 find that in these ten or eleven years the American 
 people paid $159,000,000 more for their steel rails 
 than the English people paid. And yet you say 
 that protection makes them cheaper. 
 
 During all that time they were cheaper in Eng- 
 land. Is your system such a one that it will take 
 hold of a price and pull it down in this country, and 
 then, not satisfied with that, go over to some for- 
 eign country, grab the price there and pull it do^vn ? 
 And then, not satisfied with that, will it pull down 
 the price in foreign countries more than it pulls 
 it down in this country? Some one has said that 
 the onion is a vegetable that makes the man sick 
 who does not eat it. It would seem that protection 
 does the greatest good to the country that does not 
 have it. 
 
THE TARIFF 65 
 
 Until you explain what it is that reduces the price 
 of steel rails and other manufactured products, not 
 here alone, but all over the world, you cannot at- 
 tribute it to a protective tariff ; but you must attrib- 
 ute it rather to the inventive genius that has mul- 
 tiplied a thousand times, in many instances, the 
 strength of a single arm, and enabled us to do to- 
 day with one man what fifty men could not do fifty 
 years ago. That is w^hat has brought the price down 
 in this country and everywhere, and so far from the 
 protective tariff helping it, it has stood as a bar and 
 prevented us, step by step, from taking advantage 
 of the inventive genius of other countries. It has 
 compelled us, each time and all the time when it 
 has benefited the protected industry, to pay more 
 for those same things than the people elsewhere. 
 
 I asked my friend from Maine [Mr. Dingley], 
 when he was telling us of the benefits of protection, 
 if a man in this country bought his goods as cheaply 
 as in England, and he said while we might get them 
 at a higher price in dollars, that we got them 
 cheaper in labor, and that labor was the only stand- 
 ard of measurement. Then I asked him — I will 
 append to my speech the exact language of the 
 question and answer — I asked him w^hether, if the 
 farmer in Nebraska w^ent to sell his wheat and to 
 exchange the price he obtained for it for woolen 
 clothing, he would get as much woolen clothing as 
 the English farmer would get for the same amount 
 of wheat when he went to exchange his product. 
 You remember the answer. There was no direct 
 answer, but, like my friend from New York [Mr. 
 Raines], he spurned the present and soared with 
 
66 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 outstretched wings into the dismal future, and told 
 us that if we got free trade, then he would not. I 
 ask, how is it to-day ? We have had enough of your 
 prophecies. We want to come down and find what 
 are doing noiv. 
 
 His answer, if it was an answer, must be con- 
 strued to mean that while the farmer in Nebraska 
 had to pay more wheat for the same amount of 
 clothes than the English farmer, he got it back in 
 other ways. That, being surrounded by the bene- 
 fits of protection, he absorbed through his skin, as it 
 were, what he paid out of his pocket. Living in an 
 atmosphere of protection, forced upon this country 
 by philanthropists who tell you, as the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts [Mr. Walker] did, that free 
 trade would help manufacturers — but he so loves 
 the great mass of the people that he does not dare 
 to give himself the benefit — living surrounded by 
 these elevated minds, you breathe in an atmos- 
 phere that far more than compensates for all you 
 lose. 
 
 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 ' 
 — 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 un- 
 pleasant moments were when you were receiving." 
 
THE TARIFF 67 
 
 These manufacturers are self-sacrificing. They are 
 willing to take the lesser part, and the more un- 
 pleasant business of receiving, and leave to you 
 the greater joy of giving. 
 
 Why do they not take the other theory, wh"ch is 
 borne out by history — that all nations which have 
 grown strong, powerful and influential, just as in- 
 dividuals 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 w^ill not be 
 enervated or weakened, so that no legacy of evil 
 will be left to their children. Their surplus earn- 
 ings 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. 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." 
 
 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. And 
 then, they Avant a high tariff on agricultural prod- 
 ucts, so that they will have to buy what they buy 
 
68 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 at the highest possible price. They teli you that 
 a tariff oq 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 cer- 
 tain 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. ' ' 
 
 Mr. Chairman [looking at the clock — cries of 
 "Go on!"], if there is no limit to your patience 
 there is a limit to my strength, and I will not claim 
 your attention much longer. But I desire to say 
 here, Mr. Chairman 
 
 Mr. Bushnell. Let the committee rise, and close 
 in the morning. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I preter to finish to-night if gen- 
 tlemen are willing to listen. [Cries of " Go ahead ! "] 
 
 I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that this Republi- 
 can party, which is responsible for the present sys- 
 tem, has stolen from the vocabulary one of its dear- 
 est 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 Inde- 
 pendents, will join with us, of the real home indus- 
 try of this country. 
 
 When some young man selects a young woman 
 
THE TARIFF 69 
 
 wlio 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, table-cloths, 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. 
 
 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 indus- 
 tries" 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. 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 
 Tburdens grievous to be borne. You have filled their 
 days with toil and their nights with anxious care, 
 
70 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 and when they cried aloud for relief you were deaf 
 to their entreaties. 
 
 It is said that when Ulysses was approaching the 
 island of the Sirens, warned beforehand of their 
 seductive notes, he put wax in the ears of his 
 sailors and then strapped himself to the mast of 
 the ship, so that, hearing, he could not heed. So 
 our friends upon the other side tell us that there 
 is depression in agriculture, and a cry has come 
 up from the people ; but the leaders of your party 
 have, as it were, filled with wax the ears of their 
 associates, and then have so tied themselves, by 
 promises made before the election to the protected 
 interests, that, hearing, they can not heed. 
 
 Out in the West the people have been taught to 
 worship this protection. It has been a god to 
 many of them. But I believe, Mr. Chairman, that 
 the time for worship has passed. It is said that 
 there is in Australia what is known as the cannibal 
 tree. It grows not very high, and spreads out its 
 leaves like great arms until they touch the ground. 
 In the top is a little cup, and in that cup a mys- 
 terious kind of honey. Some of the natives wor- 
 ship the tree, and on their festive days they gather 
 around it, singing and dancing, and then, as a part 
 of their ceremony, they select one from their num- 
 ber, and, at the point of spears, drive him up over 
 the leaves onto the tree; he drinks of the honey, 
 he becomes intoxicated as it were, and then those 
 arms, as if instinct with life, rise up ; they encircle 
 him in their folds, and, as they crush him to death, 
 his companions stand around shouting and sing- 
 ing for joy. 
 
THE TARIFF 71 
 
 Protection has been our cannibal tree, and as one 
 after another of our farmers has been driven by 
 the force of circumstances upon that tree and has 
 been crushed within its folds his companions have 
 stood around and shouted, '^ Great is protection!" 
 
 But the dream has passed, the night is gone, and 
 in the East we see more than the light of coming 
 day. A marvelous change has taken place, and, 
 rising from the political mourners' benches 
 throughout the Northwest, their faces radiant with 
 a new-found joy, multitudes are ready to declare 
 their allegiance to the cause of tariff reform. 
 
 And if you believe, gentlemen, as you have so 
 often professed to believe, that your political dis- 
 figurement is simply temporary, or if you console 
 yourselves with the idea that the Lord is only 
 chastising those whom he loves — if so, it is the 
 most affectionate demonstration known to political 
 history — you are making a grave mistake. 
 
 We have heard from that side of the House 
 twice, I think, recently that *' truth is eternally 
 triumphant." That is true; and while the proposi- 
 tion may describe the success of the Democratic 
 party in 1890 and give us encouragement to hope 
 that that success will continue, I want to suggest 
 to our friends over there a quotation that is far 
 more appropriate to describe the condition of the 
 Republican party. It is this: *' Though justice 
 has leaden feet, it has an iron hand." You rioted 
 in power, you mocked the supplication of the peo- 
 ple, you denied their petitions, and now you have 
 felt their wrath. At last justice has overtaken 
 you, and now you are suffering the penalty that 
 
72 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 must sooner or later overtake the betraj'er of a 
 public trust. 
 
 I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the overthrow of 
 the Republican party is not temporary but per- 
 manent. As the poet has beautifully expressed it: 
 
 Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again ; 
 
 Th' eternal years of God are hers; 
 But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, 
 
 And dies among his worshipers. 
 
 Mr. Clarkson, high Republican authority, has 
 told us that the young men of the country are 
 becoming Democrats. Why ? Because we are right. 
 And when you find where the young men of the 
 country are going, you can rest assured that that 
 party is going to succeed. Why are we right ? 
 Because, Mr. Chairman, we are demanding for 
 this people equal and exact justice to every man, 
 %voman, and child. We desire that the laws of this 
 country shall not be made, as they have been, to 
 enable some men to get rich while many get 
 poor. 
 
 I will append to my speech statistics from seven 
 States, furnished by the Census Bureau, showing 
 the proportion of those who in 1880 rented their 
 farms and the proportion who rented in 1890. 
 These statistics are only partial, embracing in some 
 States only a few counties. I was told by the 
 official who gave them to me that they might be 
 changed a little by verification, but that they were 
 substantially correct. I want the people of this 
 country to read these statistics and understand 
 what they mean. In ten counties in the State of 
 Kansas the proportion of those renting their farms 
 
THE TARIFF 73 
 
 increased from 13.13 in 1880 to 35.25 per cent, in 
 1890; and 64.38 per cent, of the farms are mort- 
 gaged. Yet they tell us that they are protecting 
 ' ' infant industries. ' ' 
 
 Why, sir, these mortgages are held in the East; 
 and if these manufacturing States, when their in- 
 dustries are "infants," own themselves and have 
 a mortgage on us, what is going to be the result 
 when they get full grown? 
 
 In Ohio in ten counties the proportion of renters 
 in 1880 was 24.96 per cent. ; in 1890, 37.10 per cent. 
 In five counties of Virginia in 1880 the proportion 
 was 15.20 per cent.; in 1890, 20.20 per cent.; in 
 New York in eight counties 18.20 per cent, in 1880, 
 24 per cent, in 1890 ; in Massachusetts in ten coun- 
 ties 6.70 per cent, in 1880, and 14.20 per cent, in 
 1890; in Rhode Island in four counties 19.50 per 
 cent, in 1880, 23.25 per cent, in 1890 ; in Maine in 
 six counties 2.50 per cent, in 1880, 7.33 per cent, 
 in 1890. 
 
 Thus in every State, so far as these statistics 
 have been collected, the proportion of home-owning 
 farmers is decreasing and that of tenant farmers 
 increasing. This means but one thing; it means a 
 land of landlords and tenants ; and, backed by the 
 history of every nation that has gone down, I say 
 to you that no people can continue a free people 
 under a free government when the great majority 
 of its citizens are tenants of a small minority. 
 Your system has driven the farm-owner from his 
 land and substituted the farm tenant. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, just a word more, and I am 
 through. You can, if you likQ, build up these 
 
 19 
 
74 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ** infant industries," if your country is willing to 
 pay the price. A good many years ago a colored 
 man, whose child had the whooping-cough, went to 
 his physician and laid the matter before him. The 
 doctor looked very wise for a moment and then 
 said: "Take three hairs out of the back of your 
 mule and lay them on the child ; 3^ou will cure the 
 child, but you will kill the mule." The man 
 thought of his love for his child and his need for 
 the mule, and said: "Doctor, I'se poor; I can't 
 afford ter lose de mule." Yes, my friend, you can 
 build up your "infant industries" if you will, if 
 you are willing to risk the destruction of the peo- 
 ple. But I say that the country is poor; it can- 
 not afford to lose its common people; it cannot 
 spare the men who will thus be sacrificed. Well 
 has the poet said: 
 
 111 fares the land, to hastenins; ills a prey, 
 Where wealth accumulates, and men decay. 
 Princes and lords may flourish or may fade — 
 A breath can make them, as a breath has made ; 
 But a bold peasantry, their country's pride. 
 When once destroy'd, can never be supplied. 
 
 We cannot afford to destroy the peasantry of 
 this country. We cannot afford to degrade the 
 common people of this land, for they are the peo- 
 ple 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 Arling- 
 ton 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 
 
THE TARIFF 75 
 
 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 atten- 
 tion to military duties. A nation's extremity is 
 their opportunity. They are the ones who make 
 contracts, carefully drawn, providing for the pay- 
 ment 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 coun- 
 try 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 
 cannot 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 cannot put our safety in a 
 
76 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 great navy; we cannot 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 citi- 
 zens, 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 exprest 
 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 in- 
 dustry 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. Chair- 
 man, into power in all 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 re- 
 gard to station or condition. The day will come, Mr. 
 Chairman — the day will come when those who an- 
 nually gather about this Congress seeking to use the 
 taxing power for private purposes will find their oc- 
 
THE TARIFF 77 
 
 cupation gone, and the members of Congress will 
 meet here- to pass laws for the benefit ot all tne 
 people. That day will come, and in that day to 
 use the language of another, ''Democracy will be 
 king ! Long live the king ! ' ' 
 
II 
 
 BIMETALISM 
 
 Delivered In Congress on Angust 16, 1893, in opposition 
 to the bill to repeal the purchasing clause of the Sherman 
 act, and containing a general discussion of bimetalism. 
 
 E. SPEAKER: I shall accomplish my full 
 purpose if I am able to impress upon the 
 members of the House the far-reaching 
 consequences which may follow our action and 
 quicken their appreciation of the grave responsibil- 
 ity which presses upon us. Historians tell us that 
 the victory of Charles Martel at Tours determined 
 the history of all Europe for centuries. It was a 
 contest ''between the Crescent and the Cross," and 
 when, on that fateful day, the Frankish prince 
 drove back the followers of Abderrabman he res- 
 cued the West from ''the all-destroying grasp of 
 Islam, ' ' and saved to Europe its Christian civiliza- 
 tion. A greater than Tours is here ! In my humble 
 judgment the vote of this House on the subject 
 under consideration may bring to the people of the 
 West and South, to the people of the United States, 
 land to all mankind, weal or woe beyond the power 
 x)f language to describe or imagination to conceive. 
 In the princely palace and in the humblest ham- 
 let ; by the financier and by the poorest toiler ; here, 
 in Europe and everywhere, the proceedings of this 
 Congress, upon this problem, wall be read and 
 ;,studied ; and as our actions bless or blight we shall 
 
 (78) 
 
BIMETALISM 79 
 
 be commended or condemned. The President of the 
 United States, in the discharge of his duty as he 
 sees it, has sent to Congress a message calling atten- 
 tion to the present financial situation, and recom- 
 mending the unconditional repeal of the Sherman 
 law as the only means of securing immediate re- 
 lief. Some outside of this hall have insisted that the 
 President's recommendation imposes upon Demo- 
 cratic members an obligation, as it were, to carry 
 out his wishes, and over-zealous friends have even 
 suggested that opposition to his views might subject 
 the hardy dissenter to administrative displeasure* 
 They do the President great injustice who pre- 
 sume that he would forget for a moment the inde- 
 pendence of the two branches of Congress. He 
 would not be worthy of our admiration or even re- 
 spect if he demanded a homage which would violate 
 the primary principles of free representative gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 Let his own language rebuke those who would 
 disregard their pledges to their own people in order 
 to display a false fealty. In the message which he 
 sent to Congress in December, 1885, he said, in 
 words which may well be our guide in this great 
 crisis: **The zealous watchfulness of our constitu- 
 encies, great and small, supplements their suffrage, 
 and before the tribunal they establish every pub- 
 lic servant should be judged." Among the many 
 grand truths exprest felicitously by the President 
 during his public career none show a truer concep- 
 tion of official duty or describe with more clearness 
 the body from which the member receives his au- 
 thority and to which he owes his responsibility. 
 
80 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Yes, ]\Ir. Speaker, it is before the tribunal estab- 
 lished by our constituencies, and before that tribu- 
 nal only that we must appear for judgment upon 
 our actions here. When we each accepted a com- 
 mission from 180,000 people we pledged ourselves 
 to protect tlieir rights from invasion and to reflect 
 their wishes to the best of our ability, and we must 
 stand defenseless before the bar if our only excuse 
 is ''he recommended it." And remember, sir, that 
 these constituencies include not bankers, brokers, 
 and boards of trade only, but embrace people in 
 every station and condition of life; and in that 
 great court from whose decision there is no appeal 
 every voter has an equal voice. That the Demo- 
 cratic party understands the duty of the Represent- 
 ative, is evident from the fact that it found it neces- 
 sary to nonconcur in a similar recommendation 
 made by the President in 1885. 
 
 In the message which he sent to the Forty-ninth 
 Congress, at the beginning of the first session, we 
 find these words : 
 
 "Prosperity hesitates upon our threshold because the dan- 
 gers and uncertainties surrounding this question. Capital 
 timidly shrinks from trade, and investors are unwilling to 
 take the chance of the questionable shape in which their 
 money will be returned to them, while enterprise halts at a 
 risk against which care and sagacious management do not 
 protect. 
 
 "As a necessary consequence, labor lacks employment, 
 and suffering and distress are visited upon a portion ot' 
 our fellow citizens especially entitled to the careful consid- 
 eration of those charged with the duties of legislation. Xo 
 interest appeals to us so strongly for a safe and stable 
 currency as the vast army of the unemployed. I recom- 
 mend the suspension of the compulsory coinage of silver 
 dollars, directed by the law passed in February, 187S." 
 
BIMETALISM 81 
 
 It will be seen that the same forces were at work 
 then as now ; the same apprehension existed as now ; 
 the same pressure was brought from the same 
 sources in favor of the debasement of silver; but 
 the members of Congress, refusing to take counsel 
 of their fears, stood by the record of both great 
 parties and by the Nation's history and retained 
 the coinage of silver as then provided for. Let it 
 be said to the credit of the Democratic party that 
 in the House only 33 of its members voted to sus- 
 pend the Bland law, while 130 are recorded against 
 suspension. Time has proved that the members, 
 reflecting the opinions of their people, were wiser 
 than the Executive, and he is doubtless grateful to- 
 day that they did not follow his suggestion. 
 
 I have read with care the message sent to us last 
 week, and have considered it in the light of every 
 reasonable construction of which it is capable. If I 
 am able to understand its language it points to the 
 burial of silver, with no promise of resurrection. 
 Its reasoning is in the direction of a single standard. 
 It leads irresistibly to universal gold monometalism 
 — to a realm over whose door is written : * ^ Abandon 
 hope, all ye who enter here ! ' ' Before that door I 
 stop, appalled. Have gentlemen considered the ef- 
 fect of a single gold standard universally adopted ? 
 Let us not deceive ourselves with the hope that we 
 can discard silver for gold, and that other nations 
 will take it up and keep it as a part of the world's 
 . currency. When all the silver available for coinage 
 could gain admission to some mints and all the gold 
 available for coinage would find a place for mint- 
 age, and some nation like France maintained the 
 
82 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 parity by means of bimetalism it was of compara- 
 tively little importance whether a particular nation 
 used silver, or gold, or both. 
 
 Exchange did not fluctuate and trade could be 
 carried on without inconvenience. But times have 
 changed. One nation after another has closed its 
 mints to silver until the white metal has, in Euro- 
 pean countries, been made an outcast by legislation 
 and has shown a bullion value different from its 
 coinage value. India, at last, guided by the misrep- 
 resentations of the metropolitan press, which pro- 
 claimed as certain what was never probable, has 
 suspended free coinage, fearing that this country 
 would stop the purchase of silver. If the United 
 States, the greatest silver-producing nation, which 
 now utilizes more than one-third of the total annual 
 product of the world, closes its mint to the coinage 
 of silver, what assurance have we that it can retain 
 its place as primary money in the commercial 
 world ? 
 
 Is it not more reasonable to suppose that a fur- 
 ther fall in the bullion value of silver will be fol- 
 lowed by a demand for a limitation of the legal 
 tender qualities of the silver already in existence? 
 That is already being urged by some. Is it not 
 reasonable to suppose that our hostile action will 
 lead to hostile action on the part of other nations? 
 Every country must have monej^ for its people, and 
 if silver is abandoned and gold substituted, it must 
 be drawn from the world's already scanty supply. 
 
 We hear much about a ''stable currency" and 
 an ** honest dollar." It is a significant fact that 
 those who have spoken in favor of unconditional 
 
BIMETALISM 83^ 
 
 repeal have for the most part avoided a discussion 
 of the effect of an appreciating standard. They 
 take it for granted that a gold standard is not only 
 an honest standard, but the only stable standard. I 
 denounce that child of ignorance and avarice, the 
 gold dollar under a universal gold standard, as the 
 most dishonest dollar which we could employ. 
 
 I stand upon the authority of every intelligent 
 writer upon political economy when I assert that 
 there is not and never has been an honest dollar. 
 An honest dollar is a dollar absolutely stable in 
 relation to all other things. Laughlin, in his work 
 on Bimetalism, says: 
 
 "Monometalists do not — as is often said — believe that golcf 
 remains absolutely stable in value. Tbey hold that there is 
 no such thing as a 'standard of value' for future payments 
 in either gold or silver which remains absolutely invariable."' 
 
 He even suggests a multiple standard for long- 
 time contracts. I quote his words: 
 
 "As regards National debts it is distinctly averred that 
 neither gold nor silver forms a just measure of deferred 
 payments, and that if justice in long contracts is sought 
 for, we should not seek it by the doubtful and untried ex- 
 pedient of international bimetalism, but by the clear and 
 certain method of a multiple standard, a unit based upon the 
 selling prices of a number of articles of general consumption. - 
 A long-time contract would thereby be paid at its maturity \ 
 by the same purchasing power as was given in the begin- 
 ning." 
 
 Jevons, one of the most generally accepted of the 
 w^riters in favor of a gold standard, admits the in- 
 stability of a single standard, and in language very 
 similar to that above quoted suggests the multiple 
 standard as the most equitable, if practicable. Chev- 
 alier, who wrote a book in 1858 to show the injvis- 
 
84 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tice of allowing a debtor to pay his debts in a cheap 
 gold dollar, recognized the same fact, and said : 
 
 "If the value of the metal declined, the creditor would 
 suffer a loss upon the quantity he had received, if, on the 
 contrary, it rose, the debtor would have to pay more thaa 
 he calculated upon." 
 
 I am on sound and scientific ground, therefore, 
 when I say that a dollar approaches honesty as its 
 purchasing power approaches stability. If I bor- 
 row a thousand dollars to-day and next year pay 
 the debt with a thousand dollars which will secure 
 exactly as much of all things desirable as the one 
 thousand which I borrowed, I have paid in honest 
 dollars. If the money has increased or decreased in 
 purchasing power, I have satisfied my debt with 
 dishonest dollars. While the Government can say 
 that a given weight of gold or silver shall constitute 
 a dollar, and invest that dollar with legal-tender 
 qualities, it cannot fix the purchasing power of the 
 dollar. That must depend upon the law of supply 
 and demand, and it may be well to suggest that this 
 Government never tried to fix the exchangeable 
 value of a dollar until it began to limit the number 
 of dollars coined. 
 
 If the number of dollars increases more rapidly 
 than the need for dollars — as it did after the gold 
 discoveries of 1849 — the exchangeable value of each 
 dollar will fall and prices rise. If the demand for 
 dollars increases faster than the number of dollars 
 — as it did after 1800 — the price of each dollar will 
 rise and prices generally will fall. The relative 
 value of the dollar may be changed by natural 
 causes or by legislation. An increased supply — the 
 
BIMETALISM 85 
 
 demand remaining the same — or a decreased de- 
 mand — the supply remaining the same — will reduce 
 the exchangeable value of each dollar. Natural 
 causes may act on both supply and demand ; as, for 
 instance, by increasing the product from the mines 
 or by increasing the amount consumed in the arts. 
 Legislation acts directly on the demand, and thus 
 affects the price, since the demand is one of the 
 factors in fixing the price. 
 
 If by legislative action the demand for silver is 
 destroyed and the demand for gold is increased by 
 making it the only standard, the exchangeable value 
 of each unit of that standard, or dollar, as we call 
 it, will be increased. If the exchangeable value of 
 the dollar is increased by legislation the debt of the 
 debtor is increased, to his injury and to the ad- 
 vantage of the creditor. And let me suggest here, 
 in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 McCall], who said that the money loaner was en- 
 titled to the advantages derived from improved ma- 
 chinery and inventive genius, that he is mistaken. 
 The laboring man and the producer are entitled to 
 these benefits, and the money loaner, by every law 
 of justice, ought to be content with a dollar equal 
 in purchasing power to the dollar which he loaned, 
 and any one desiring more than that desires a dis- 
 honest dollar, it matters not what name he may 
 give it. Take an illustration: John Doe, of Ne- 
 braska, has a farm worth $2,000 and mortgages it 
 to Richard Roe, of Massachusetts, for $1,000. Sup- 
 pose the value of the monetary unit is increased by 
 legislation which creates a greater demand for gold. 
 The debt is increased. If the increase amounts to 
 
86 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 100 per cent, the Nebraska farmer finds that the 
 prices of his products have fallen one-half and his 
 land loses one-half its value, unless the price is 
 maintained by the increased population incident to 
 a new country. 
 
 The mortgage remains nominally the same, tho 
 the debt has actually become twice as great. Will 
 he be deceived by the cry of ''honest dollar"? If 
 he should loan a Nebraska neighbor a hog weighing 
 100 pounds and the next spring demand in return 
 a hog weighing 200 pounds he would be called dis- 
 honest, even tho he contended that he was only de- 
 manding one hog — just the number he loaned. So- 
 ciety has become accustomed to some very nice dis- 
 tinctions. The poor man is called a socialist if he 
 believes that the wealth of the rich should be di- 
 vided among the poor, but the rich man is called a 
 financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance 
 of the poor can be converted to his use. 
 
 The poor man who takes property by force is 
 called a thief, but the creditor who can by legisla- 
 tion make a debtor pay a dollar twice as large as 
 he borrowed is lauded as the friend of a sound cur- 
 rency. The man who wants the people to destroy 
 the Government is an anarchist, but the man who 
 wants the Government to destroy the people is 
 called a patriot. 
 
 The great desire now seems to be to restore confi- 
 dence, and some have an idea that the only way to 
 restore confidence is to coax the money loaner to 
 let go of his hoard by making the profits too tempt- 
 ing to be resisted. Capital is represented as a shy 
 and timid maiden who must be courted, if won. 
 
BIMETALTSM 87 
 
 Let me suggest a plan for bringing money from 
 Europe. If it be possible, let us enact a law, 
 * ' Whereas confidence must be restored ; and whereas 
 money will always come from its hiding place if the 
 inducement is sufficient: Therefore, be it enacted, 
 That every man who borrows $1 shall pay back $2 
 and interest (the usury law not to be enforced)." 
 
 Would not English capital come * ' on the swiftest 
 ocean greyhounds ' ' ? The money loaner of London 
 would say: ''I will not loan in India or Egypt or 
 in South America. The inhabitants of those coun- 
 tries are a wicked and ungodly people and refuse 
 to pay more than they borrowed. I will loan in. 
 the United States, for there lives an honest people, 
 who delight in a sound currency and pay in an hon- 
 est dollar." Why does not some one propose that 
 plan? Because no one would dare to increase by 
 law the number of dollars which the debtor must 
 pay, and yet by some it is called wise statesmanship 
 to do indirecth' and in the dark what no man has 
 the temerity to propose directly and openly. 
 
 We have been called cranks and lunatics and 
 idiots because we have warned our fellow men 
 against the inevitable and intolerable consequences 
 which would follow the adoption of a gold standard 
 by all the world. But who, I ask, can be silent in 
 the presence of such impending calamities? The 
 XJnited States, England, France, and Germany own 
 to-day about $2,600,000,000 of the world's supply 
 of gold coin, or about five-sevenths of the total 
 amount, and yet these four nations contain but a 
 small fraction of the inhabitants of the globe. What 
 will be the exchangeable value of a gold dollar when 
 
88 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Indians people, outnumbering alone tlie inhabitants 
 of the four great nations named, reach out after 
 their share of gold coin? What will be the final 
 price of gold when all the nations of the Occident 
 and Orient join in the scramble ? 
 
 A distinguished advocate of the gold standard 
 said recently, in substance: "AVheat has now 
 reached a point where the English can afford to 
 buy it, and gold will soon return to relieve our 
 financial embarrassment." How delighted the 
 farmer will be when he realizes what an opportunity 
 he has to save his country! A nation in distress; 
 banks failing; mines closed; laborers unemployed; 
 enterprise at a standstill, and behold, the farmer, 
 bowed with unceasing, even if unremunerative, toil, 
 steps forth to save his country — by selling his wheat 
 below the cost of production ! And I am afraid he 
 will even now be censured for allowing the panic 
 to go as far as it has before reducing his price. 
 
 It seems cruel that upon the growers of wheat 
 and cotton, our staple exports, should be placed the 
 burden of supplying us, at whatever cost, with the 
 necessary gold, and yet the financier quoted has 
 suggested the only means, except the issue of bonds, 
 by which our stock of gold can be replenished. If 
 it is difficult now to secure gold, what will be the 
 condition when the demand is increased by its adop- 
 tion as the world 's only primary money ? We would 
 simply put gold upon an auction block, with every 
 nation as a bidder, and each ounce of the standard 
 metal would be knocked down to the one offering 
 the most of all other kinds of property. Every dis- 
 turbance of finance in one country would communi- 
 
BIMETALISM 89 
 
 cate itself to every other, and in the misery which 
 would follow it would be of little consolation to 
 know that others were suffering as much as, or more 
 than, we. 
 
 I have only spoken of the immediate effects of the 
 substitution of gold as the world's only money of 
 ultimate redemption. The worst remains to be 
 told. If, as in the resumption of specie payments 
 in 1879, we could look forward to a time when the 
 contraction would cease, the debtor might become 
 a tenant upon his former estate and the home-owner 
 assume the role of the homeless with the sweet as- 
 surance that his children or his children's children 
 might live to enjoy the blessings of a "stable cur- 
 rency." But, sir, the hapless and hopeless pro- 
 ducer of wealth goes forth into a night illuminated 
 by no star; he embarks upon a sea whose farther 
 shore no mariner may find ; he travels in a desert 
 where the ever-retreating mirage makes his disap- 
 pointment a thousandfold more keen. Let the world 
 once commit its fortunes to the use of gold alone 
 and it must depend upon the annual increase of 
 that metal to keep pace with the need for money. 
 
 The Director of the Mint gives about $130,000,- 
 000 as the world's production last year. Something 
 like one-third is produced in connection with silver, 
 and must be lost if silver mining is rendered un- 
 productive. It is estimated that nearly two-thirds 
 of the annual product is used in the arts, and the 
 amount so used is increasing. Where, then, is the 
 supply to meet the increasing demands of an in- 
 creasing population ? Is there some new California 
 or some undiscovered Australia yet to be explored ? 
 
 I 10 
 
90 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Is it not probable that the supply available for 
 coinage will diminish rather than increase? Jacobs, 
 in his work on the Precious Metals, has calculated 
 the appreciation of the monetary unit. He has 
 shown that the almost imperceptible increase of 2 
 per cent, per year will amount to a total apprecia- 
 tion of 500 per cent, in a century. Or, to illustrate, 
 that cotton at 10 cents to-day and w^heat at 60 cents 
 w^ould mean cotton at 2 cents and wheat at 12 cents 
 in one hundred years. A national, State or muni- 
 cipal debt renewed from time to time would, at the 
 end of that period, be six times as great as when 
 contracted, altho several times the amount would 
 have been paid in interest. 
 
 When one realizes the full significance of a con- 
 stantly appreciating standard he can easily agree 
 with Alison that the Dark Ages resulted from a 
 failure of the money supply. How can any one 
 view with unconcern the attempt to turn back the 
 tide of civilization by the complete debasement of 
 one-half of the world's money! When I point to 
 the distress which, not suddenly, but gradually, is 
 entering the habitations of our people ; when I refer 
 you to the census as conclusive evidence of the un- 
 equal distribution of wealth and of increasing ten- 
 ancy among our people, of whom, in our cities, less 
 than one-fourth now own their homes ; when I sug- 
 gest the possibility of this condition continuing 
 until, passed from a land of independent owners, 
 we become a nation of landlords and tenants, you 
 must tremble for civil liberty itself. 
 
 Free government cannot long survive when the 
 thousands enjoy the wealth of the country and the 
 
BI]\IETALISM 91 
 
 millions share its poverty in common. Even now 
 you hear among the rich an occasionally exprest 
 contempt for popular government, and among the 
 poor a protest against legislation which makes them 
 "toil that others may reap." I appeal to you to 
 restore justice and bring back prosperity while yet 
 a peaceable solution can be secured. We mourn the 
 lot of unhappy Ireland, whose alien owners drain 
 it of its home-created wealth ; but we may reach a 
 condition, if present tendencies continue, when her 
 position at this time will be an object of envy, and 
 some poet may write of our cities as Goldsmith did 
 of the ' * Deserted Village " : 
 
 While scourged by famine from a smiling land, 
 The mournful peasant leads his humble band, 
 And, while he sinks without one hand to save, 
 The country blooms — a garden and a grave. 
 
 But, lest I may be accused of reasonless complain- 
 ing, let me call unimpeachable witnesses who will 
 testify to the truth of my premises and to the cor- 
 rectness of my conclusions. 
 
 Jevons says: 
 
 "If all nations of the globe were suddenly and simul- 
 taneouslj' to demonetize silver and require gold money a 
 revolution in the value of gold would be inevitable." 
 
 Giffin, who is probably the most fanatical ad- 
 herent of the gold standard, says, in his book en- 
 titled "The Case Against Bimetalism": 
 
 "The primary offender in the matter, perhaps, was Ger- 
 many, which made a mistake, as I believe, in substituting 
 gold for silver as the standard money of the country. . . . 
 To some extent also Italy has been an offender in this mat- 
 ter, the resumption of specie payments in that country on a 
 gold basis being entirely a work of superfluity ; the resump- 
 tion on a silver basis would have been preferable. . . . No 
 
92 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 doubt the pressure on gold would hare been more severe 
 than it has been if the United States had not passed the 
 Bland coinage law." 
 
 The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Rayner] 
 said in the opening speech of this debate : ' ' In my 
 opinion there is not a sufficient amount of gold in 
 existence to supply the demands of commerce and 
 the necessities of the world's circulation." 
 
 Mr. Balfour, member of Parliament, in a speech 
 recently delivered, said: "Let Germany, India, 
 and the United States try a gold currency and a 
 tremor seizes every one of our commercial magnates. 
 They look forward, in the immediate future, to 
 catastrophe, and feel that the ultimate result may 
 be a slow appreciation of the standard of value, 
 which is perhaps the most deadening and benumb- 
 ing influence that can touch the enterprise of a 
 nation. ' ' 
 
 Mr. Goschen, delegate from Great Britain, said at 
 the International Monetary Conference in 1878 : 
 
 "If, however, other States were to carry on a propa- 
 ganda in favor of a gold standard and the demonetization 
 of silver, the Indian government w^ould be obliged to recon- 
 sider its position and might be forced by events to take 
 measures similar to those taken elsewhere. In that case 
 the scramble to get rid of silver might provoke one of the 
 gravest crises ever undergone by commerce. One or two 
 States might demonetize silver without serious results, but 
 if all demonetize there would be no buyers ; and silver would 
 fall in alarming proportions. ... If all States should re- 
 solve on the adoption of a gold standard, the question arose, 
 would there be sufficient gold for the purpose without a tre- 
 mendous crisis? There would be a fear on the one hand 
 of a depreciation of silver, and one on the other of a rise in 
 the value of gold, and a corresponding fall in the prices of 
 all commodities. 
 
 "Italy, Russia, and Austria, whenever they resume specie 
 payments, would require metal, and if all other States went 
 
BIMETALISM 93 
 
 in the direction of a gold standard, these countries too would 
 be forced to take gold. Resumption on their part would be 
 facilitated by the maintenance of silver as a part of the 
 legal tender of the world. The American proposal for a 
 universal double standard seemed impossible of realization, 
 a veritable Utopia ; but the theory of a universal gold stand- 
 ard was Utopian, and indeed involved a false Utopia. It 
 was better for the world at large that the two metals should 
 continue in circulation than that one should be uni- 
 versally substituted for the other." 
 
 Thus does an eminent English monometalist de- 
 nounce the idea of a universal gold standard and 
 foretell its consequences. But we are not depend- 
 ent for authority upon foreign advocates of a single 
 standard. Read the words of him who for many 
 years was the guiding genius of the Republican 
 party, Hon. James Gr. Blaine, and say whether he 
 was a lunatic because he described in emphatic 
 words the dangers attendant upon universal mono- 
 metalism. He said upon the floor of the House, 
 February 7, 1878 : 
 
 "On the much-vexed and long-mooted question as to a 
 bimetalic or monometalic standard, my own views are suffi- 
 ciently indicated in the remarks I have made. I believe 
 the struggle now going on in this country and in other 
 countries for a single gold standard would, if successful, 
 produce widespread disaster in and throughout the commer- 
 cial world. 
 
 "The destruction of silver as money and establishing gold 
 as the sole unit of value must have a ruinous effect on all 
 forms of property except those investments which yield a 
 fixed return in money. These would be enormously en- 
 hanced in value, and would gain a disproportionate and un- 
 fair advantage over every other species of property. If, as 
 the most reliable statistics affirm, there are nearly $7,000,- 
 000,000 of coin or bullion in the world, not very unequally 
 divided between gold and silver, it is impossible to strike 
 silver out of existence as money without results which will 
 prove distressing to millions and utterly disastrous to tens 
 of thousands." 
 
94 BUYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Again, he said: 
 
 "I believe gold and silver coin to be the money of the 
 Constitution ; indeed, the money of the American people, an- 
 terior to the Constitution which the great organic law recog- 
 nized as quite independent of its own existence. No power 
 was conferred on Congress to declare either metal should 
 not be money. Congress has, therefore, in my judgment, no 
 power to demonetize silver any more than to demonetize 
 gold." 
 
 Senator Sherman said, in 1869 : 
 
 "The contraction of the currency is a far more distressing 
 operation than Senators suppose. Our own and other na- 
 tions have gone through that operation before. It is not 
 possible to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To 
 every person except a capitalist out of debt, or a salaried 
 oflBcer or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, lassitude 
 of trade, fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy, 
 and disaster. It means ruin of all dealers whose debts are 
 twice their business capital, though one-third less than their 
 actual property. It means the fall of all agricultural pro- 
 duction without any great reduction of taxes. What pru- 
 dent man would dare to build a house, a railroad, a factory, 
 or a barn with this certain fact before him?" 
 
 Let me quote from an apostle of the Democratic 
 faith, whose distinguished services in behalf of his 
 party and his country have won for him the esteem 
 of all. Mr. Carlisle, then a member of the House 
 of Representatives, said, February 21, 1878 : 
 
 "I know that the world's stock of precious metals is none 
 too large, and I see no reason to apprehend that it will ever 
 be so. Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual pro- 
 duction of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the 
 annual increase of population, and industry. According to 
 my views of the subject the conspiracy which seems to have 
 been formed here and in Europe to destroy by legislation 
 and otherwise from three-sevenths to one-half the metalic 
 money of the world is tlip most gigantic crime of this or any 
 other age. Tlie consummation of such a scheme would ulti- 
 mately entail more misery upon the human race than all 
 
BIMETALISM 95- 
 
 the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever occurred in the 
 history of the world. 
 
 "The absolute and instantaneous destruction of half the 
 entire movable property of the world, including houses, ships, 
 railroads, and other appliances for carrying on commerce, 
 while it would be felt more sensibly at the moment, would 
 not produce anything like the prolonged distress and dis- 
 organization of society that must* inevitably result from the 
 permanent annihilation of one-half the metalic money of 
 the world." 
 
 The junior Senator from Texas [Mr. Mills] 
 never did the party greater service than when, on 
 the 3d of February, 1886, on this floor he de- 
 nounced, in language, the force and earnestness of 
 which cannot be surpassed, the attempted crime 
 against silver. Let his words be an inspiration 
 now : 
 
 "But in all the wild, reckless, and remorseless brutalities 
 that have marked the footprints of resistless power there is 
 some extenuating circumstance that mitigates the severity of 
 the punishment due to crime. Some have been the product 
 of the fierce passions of war, some have come from the 
 antipathy that separates alien races, some from the super- 
 stitions of opposing religions. 
 
 "But the crime that is now sought to be perpetrated on 
 more than fifty millions of people comes neither from the 
 camp of a conqueror, the hand of a foreigner, nor the altar 
 of an idolator. But it comes from those in whose veins runs 
 the blood of the common ancestry, who were bom under the 
 same skies, speak the same language, reared in the same 
 institutions, and nurtured in the principles of the same 
 religious faith. It comes from the cold phlegmatic marble 
 heart of avarice — avarice that seeks to paralyze labor, in- 
 crease the burden of debt, and fill the land with desti- 
 tution and suffering, to gratify the lust for gold — avarice 
 surrounded by every comfort that wealth can command, and 
 rich enough to satisfy every want save that which refuses 
 to be satisfied without the suffocation and strangulation of 
 all the labor of the land. With a forehead that refuses to 
 be ashamed it demands of Congress an act tJiat will par- 
 alyze all the forces of production, shut out labor from all 
 
96 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 employment, increase the burden of debts and taxation, and 
 send desolation and suffering to all the homes of the poor." 
 
 Can language be stronger or conclusion more con- 
 clusive? What expression can be more forcible 
 than the ' ' most gigantic crime of this or any other 
 age ' ' ? What picture more vivid than that painted 
 in the words, ' ' The consummation of such a scheme 
 would ultimately entail more misery upon the hu- 
 man race than all the wars, pestilences, and famines 
 that ever occurred in the history of the world"? 
 What more scathing rebuke could be administered 
 to avarice than that contained in the words of ^Ir. 
 Mills? 
 
 It is from the awful horrors described by these 
 distinguished men, differing in politics, but united 
 in sentiment, that I beg you, sirs, to save your fel- 
 low men. 
 
 On the base of the monument erected by a grate- 
 ful people to the memory of the late Senator Hill, 
 of Georgia, are inscribed these Avords : 
 
 "Who saves his country saves himself, and all things 
 saved do bless him. Who lets his country die lets all things 
 die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying, curse him." 
 
 If, sirs, in saving your country you save your- 
 selves and earn the benedictions of all things saved, 
 how much greater will be your reward if your ef- 
 forts save not your country only but all mankind ! 
 If he who lets his country die, brings upon himself 
 the curses of all things dying; in what language 
 will an indignant people express their execration, if 
 your action lead to the enslavement of the great ma- 
 jority of the people by the universal adoption of an 
 appreciating standard! 
 
BIMETALISM 97 
 
 Let me call your attention briefly to the advan- 
 tages of bimetalism. It is not claimed that by the 
 use of two metals at a fixed ratio absolute stability 
 can be secured. We only contend that thus the 
 monetary unit will become more stable in relation 
 to other property than under a single standard. 
 If a single standard were really more desirable than 
 a double standard, we are not free to choose gold, 
 and would be compelled to select silver. Gold and 
 silver must remain component parts of the metalic 
 money of the world — that must be accepted as an 
 indisputable fact. Our abandonment of silver 
 would in all probability drive it out of use as pri- 
 mary money; and silver as a promise to pay gold 
 is little, if any, better than a paper promise to pay. 
 If bimetalism is impossible, then we must make up 
 our minds to a silver standard or to the abandon- 
 ment of both gold and silver. 
 
 Let us suppose the worst that has been prophe- 
 sied by our opponents, namely, that we would be 
 upon a silver standard if we attempted the free 
 coinage of both gold and silver at any ratio. Let 
 us suppose that all our gold goes to Europe and 
 we have only silver. Silver would not be incon- 
 venient to use, because a silver certificate is just 
 as convenient to handle as a gold certificate, and 
 the silver itself need not be handled except where 
 it is necessary for change. Gold is not handled 
 among the people. No one desires to accept any 
 large amount in gold. The fact that the Treasury 
 has always on hand a large amount of gold coin de- 
 posited in exchange for gold certificates shows that 
 the paper representative is more desirable than the 
 
98 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 metal itself. If, following out the supposition, our 
 gold goes abroad, Europe will have more money 
 with which to buy our exports — cotton and wheat, 
 cattle and hogs. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we adopt gold, we must 
 draw it from Europe, and thus lessen their money 
 and reduce the price of our exports in foreign mar- 
 kets. This, too, would decrease the total value of 
 our exports and increase the amount of products 
 which it would be necessary to send abroad to pay 
 the principal and interest which we owe to bond- 
 holders and stockholders residing in Europe. Some 
 have suggested the advisability of issuing gold 
 ^bonds in order to maintain a gold standard. Let 
 them remember that those bonds sold in this coun- 
 try will draw money from circulation and increase 
 the stringency, and sold abroad will affect injuri- 
 ously the price of our products abroad, thus mak- 
 ing a double tax upon the toilers of the United 
 States, who must ultimately pay them. 
 
 Let them remember, too, that gold bonds held 
 abroad must some time be paid in gold, and the 
 exportation of that gold would probably raise a 
 clamor for an extension of time in order to save 
 this country from another stringency. A silver 
 standard, too, would make us the trading center of 
 all the silver-using countries of the world, and these 
 countries contain far more than one-half of the 
 world's population. What an impetus would be 
 given to our Western and Southern seaports, such 
 ;as San Francisco, Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile, 
 Savannah, and Charleston. Then, again, we pro- 
 
BIMETALISM 99 
 
 duce our silver, and produce it in quantities which 
 would to some extent satisfy our monetary needs. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.] 
 
 On motion of Mr. Hunter the time of Mr. Bryan 
 was extended indefinitely. 
 
 ^Ir. Bryan. I thank the gentleman from Illinois 
 and the House. 
 
 Our annual product of gold is less than 50 cents 
 per capita. Deduct from this sum the loss which 
 would be occasioned to the gold supply by the clos- 
 ing of our silver mines, which produce gold in con- 
 junction with silver; deduct, also, the amount con- 
 sumed in the arts, and the amount left for coinage 
 is really inconsiderable. Thus, with a gold standard, 
 we would be left dependent upon foreign powers 
 for our annual money supply. They say we must 
 adopt a gold standard in order to trade with 
 Europe. Why not reverse the proposition and say 
 that Europe must resume the use of silver in order 
 to trade with us? But why adopt either gold or 
 silver alone? Why not adopt both and trade with 
 both gold-using and silver-using countries? The 
 principle of bimetalism is established upon a scien- 
 tific basis. 
 
 The Government does not try to fix the purchas- 
 ing power of the dollar, either gold or silver. It 
 simply says, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, 
 * ' The money unit shall stand upon the two metals, ' ^ 
 and then allows the exchangeable value of that unit 
 to rise or fall according as the total product of both 
 metals decreases or increases in proportion to the 
 demand for money. In attempting to maintain the 
 parity between the two metals at a fixed ratio, the 
 
100 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Government does not undertake the impossible. 
 France for several years did maintain the parity 
 approximately at 15;^ to 1 by offering unlimited 
 coinage to both metals at that ratio. It is very com- 
 mon for some people to urge, ''You cannot put 
 value into anything by law, ' ' and I am sorry to see 
 some proclaim this who know by rich experience 
 how easy it is for the Government to legislate prices 
 up or down. 
 
 We were called together to relieve financial dis- 
 tress by legislation. Some propose to relieve the 
 present stringency in the money market by remov- 
 ing the tax on national bank circulation and allow- 
 ing banks to issue 100 per cent, on their bonds in- 
 stead of 90 per cent. This legislation would put 
 value into bank stocks by law, because it would add 
 to the profits of the bank, and such a law would 
 probably raise the market price of bonds by increas- 
 ing the demand for them. I will not discuss the 
 merits of this proposition now. Let those who favor 
 it prepare to justify themselves before their con- 
 stituents. The New York World of August 3 con- 
 tained an article encouraging the banks to issue 
 more money under the present law. It showed the 
 profits as follows: 
 
 "These bonds are selling now at 109 to 110. At this latter 
 period a $100,000 bond transaction would stand as follows : 
 $100,000 U. S. 4's at 110, less 1-3 per cent, accrued 
 
 interest. $109,666 net, would cost $109,666 
 
 Less circulation issued on this amount 90,000 
 
 Making the actual cash investment only ... $ 19.666 
 
 On which the bank would receive an income of over 127^ 
 per cent, as follows : 
 
BIMETALISM 101 
 
 Interest on $100,000 4's per annum $4,000 
 
 Less tax 1 per cent, on circulation $900 
 
 Less sinking fund to retire premium to be 
 
 improved at 6 per cent 464 
 
 Less expenses ^ 100 
 
 1,464 
 
 Net income $2,5366 
 
 Already a good portion of these bonds held in reserve are 
 coming into the market and soon find their way into the 
 hands of national banks. 
 
 If the proposed law is adopted $900 will be taken 
 from the expense column by the repeal of the tax 
 on circulation and $10,000 will be taken from the 
 cost of investment, so that the profits would amount 
 to $3,436 on an investment of $9,666, or more than 
 33 per cent. If, however, the increased demand for 
 bonds raised the premium to 15 per cent., we could 
 only calculate a little less than $3,436 on an invest- 
 ment of $14,666, or nearly 25 per cent. This they 
 would probably call a fair divide. The bondholder 
 would receive an advantage in the increased pre- 
 mium of, say, $25,000,000, and the national bank 
 would be able to make about double on its invest- 
 ment what it does now. If the premium should 
 increase more than 5 per cent, the bondholder 
 would make more and the bank less. If the pre- 
 mium should not increase that much the bondholder 
 would make less and the bank more. 
 
 Let those, I repeat, who favor this plan, be pre- 
 pared to defend it before a constituency composed 
 of people who are not making 5 per cent, on an 
 average on the money invested in farms or enter- 
 prises, and let those who will profit by the law cease 
 to deny the ability of Government to increase the 
 price of property by law. One is almost moved to 
 
102 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tears by the sight of New England manufacturers 
 protesting with indignation against the wisdom or 
 possibility of giving fictitious value to a product, 
 when for the last thirty years they have drained 
 the rest of the country and secured artificial prices 
 by protective tariff laws. Some of our Eastern 
 friends accuse the advocates of free coinage of fa- 
 voring repudiation. 
 
 Repudiation has not been practised much in re- 
 cent years by the debtor, but in 1869 the Credit 
 Strengthening Act enabled the bondholder to repu- 
 diate a contract made with the Government and to 
 demand coin in payment of a bond for which he 
 had given paper and which was payable in lawful 
 money. That act increasing the market value of 
 the bonds gave a profit to many who now join the 
 beneficiaries of the act assuming the District of 
 Columbia debt in vociferous proclamation that ' ' the 
 Government cannot create value." Does not the 
 location of a public building add to the value of 
 adjacent real estate? Do not towns contest the lo- 
 cation of a county seat because of the advantage it 
 brings? Does not the use of gold and silver as 
 money increase the value of each ounce of each 
 metal ? 
 
 These are called precious metals because the pro- 
 duction is limited and cannot be increased indef- 
 initely at will. If this Government or a number of 
 governments can offer a market unlimited, as com- 
 pared with the supply, the bullion value of gold 
 and silver can be maintained at the legal ratio. The 
 moment one metal tends to cheapen, the use lall;^ 
 on it and increases its price, while the decreased 
 
\ 
 
 BIMETALISM 103 
 
 demand for the dearer metal retards its rise and 
 thus the bullion values are kept near to their legal 
 ratio, so near that the variation can cause far less 
 inconvenience and injustice than the variation in 
 the exchangeable value of the unit would inflict 
 under a single standard. The option is always given 
 to the debtor in a double standard. 
 
 In fact, the system could not exist if the option 
 remained with the creditor, for he would demand 
 the dearer metal and thus increase any fluctuation 
 in bullion values, while the option in the hands of 
 the debtor reduces the fluctuation to a minimum. 
 That the unit under a double standard is more 
 stable in its relation to all other things is admitted 
 by Jevons and proven by several illustrations. Mr. 
 Giffen tries to avoid the force of the admission by 
 saying that the difference in favor of the double 
 standard is only in the proportion of 2 to 1, and 
 therefore not sufficient to justify its adoption. It 
 would seem that where stability is so important — 
 and it never was so important as to-day, when so 
 many long-time contracts are executed — even a 
 slight difference in favor of the double standard 
 ought to make it acceptable. 
 
 We established a bimetalic standard in 1792, but 
 silver, being overvalued by our ratio of 15 to 1, 
 stayed with us and gold went abroad, where mint 
 ratios were more favorable. 
 
 I have here a silver coin [exhibiting it] which 
 came from the mint in 1795. It has upon the edge 
 these significant words: "Hundred Cents — One 
 Dollar or Unit. ' ' It would seem, therefore, that the 
 weight of the gold dollar was regulated by the 
 
104 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 silver dollar, and the gold pieces provided for made 
 multiples of it. In 1834 and in 1837 the alloy was 
 changed and the gold dollar reduced in size in 
 order to correspond to the newly established ratio 
 of 16 to 1. The amount of pure silver in the stand- 
 ard dollar has never been changed since its adop- 
 tion in 1792. 
 
 The ratio of 16 to 1 overvalued gold and our 
 silver went abroad. The silver dollar was worth 
 about 3 cents more than the gold dollar, because 
 it could be coined in France at the ratio of 15^^ to 1. 
 Thus during all the period prior to 1873 this coun- 
 try enjoyed bimetalism and, altho at one time we 
 used one metal and at another time another, no 
 statesman arose to demand a single standard. We 
 now have three kinds of bimetalists — those who 
 favor a double standard only by international 
 agreement, those who favor independent action at 
 a changed ratio, and those who favor independent 
 action at the present ratio. Those favoring an in- 
 ternational agreement might be again divided into 
 those who favor an agreement by a few nations, 
 those who favor an agreement by many nations, and 
 those who favor it only on condition that all nations 
 would join. 
 
 I suppose it would hardly be proper to further 
 divide them into those who really desire an inter- 
 national agreement and those who utilize the possi- 
 bility of an international agreement to prevent in- 
 dependent action. I am afraid the agreement w411 
 not be brought about by those who, like the gentle- 
 man from Ohio [Mr. Harter], are willing to try it, 
 but have no faith in its permanency; nor will it 
 
BIMETALISM 105 
 
 receive miicli aid, I fear, from the gentleman from 
 New York [Mr. Hendrix], who said on last Sat- 
 urday : 
 
 "I predict to you that inside of three months — before this 
 Congress meets again — if you repeal this Sherman law and 
 adjourn, England will make proposals to this country to 
 come into a monetary conference and see what can be done 
 for the sake of her ward India." 
 
 Less than five minutes before he had pierced the 
 veil of the future with prophetic ken and declared : 
 
 "The moving finger of Time, down from the days when 
 gold started in the race for first place to this moment, has 
 pointed to a single unit of value. It is our destiny. It will 
 triumph in this Hall — perhaps not in this Congress nor in 
 your day ; but it is going to become the financial policy of 
 this country just as sure as to-morrow morning's sun will 
 rise." 
 
 Any hope of bimetalism there ? 
 
 What is the prospect for the establishment of in- 
 ternational bimetalism ? I would be glad to see the 
 unlimited coinage of gold and silver at a fixt ratio 
 among the nations^ but how is such an agreement to 
 be secured? The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
 Rayner] says the unconditional repeal of the Sher- 
 man law will bring England to terms. Is it impos- 
 sible to extract a lion's teeth without putting your 
 head in his mouth? Is it not a dangerous experi- 
 ment to join England in a single standard in order 
 to induce her to join us in a double standard ? In- 
 ternational agreement is an old delusion and has 
 done important duty on many previous occasions. 
 
 The opponents of the Bland law in 1878 were 
 waiting for international bimetalism. Mr. Cleve- 
 land mentioned the prospect of it in his message in 
 1885, and again this year. It was a valuable weapon 
 
 1 11 
 
106 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 in 1890, when the Sherman bill was passed and the 
 Brussels conference was called in time to carry us 
 over the last Presidential election. We are still 
 waiting, and those who are waiting most patiently 
 who favor a gold standard. Are we any nearer to 
 an international agreement than we were fifteen 
 years ago? The European nations wait on Eng- 
 land, and she refused within a year to even con- 
 sider the adoption of the double standard. Can we 
 conquer her by waiting ? We have tried the Fabian 
 policy. 
 
 Suppose we try bringing her to terms by action. 
 Let me appeal to your patriotism. Shall we make 
 our laws dependent upon England 's action and thus 
 allow her to legislate for us upon the most impor- 
 tant of all questions ? Shall we confess our inability 
 to enact monetary laws? Are we an English col- 
 ony or an independent people? If the use of gold 
 alone is to make us slaves, let us use both metals 
 and be free. If there be some living along the 
 Eastern coast — better acquainted with the beauties 
 of the Alps than with the grandeur of the Rockies, 
 more accustomed to the sunny skies of Italy than 
 to the invigorating breezes of the Mississippi Valley 
 — who are not willing to trust their fortunes and 
 their destinies to American citizens, let them learn 
 that the people living between the Alleghanies to 
 the Golden Gate are not afraid to cast their all upon 
 the Republic and rise or fall with it. 
 
 One hundred and seventeen years ago the liberty 
 bell gave notice to a waiting and expectant people 
 that independence had been declared. There may 
 be doubting, trembling ones among us now, but, sirs, 
 
BIMETALISM 107 
 
 I do not overestimate it when I say that out of 
 twelve millions of voters, more than ten millions are 
 waiting, anxiously waiting, for the signal which 
 shall announce the financial independence of the 
 United States. [Applause.] This Congress cannot 
 more surely win the approval of a grateful people 
 than by declaring that this nation, the grandest 
 which the world has ever seen, has the right and 
 the ability to legislate for its own people on every 
 subject, regardless of the wishes, the entreaties, or 
 the threats of foreign powers. [Applause.] 
 
 Perhaps the most important question for us to 
 consider is the question of ratio. Comparatively 
 few people in this country are in favor of a gold 
 standard, and no national party has ever advocated 
 it. Comparatively few, also, will be deceived by 
 the promise of international bimetalism annually 
 held out to us. Among those in favor of bimetalism, 
 and in favor of independent action on the part of 
 the United States, there is, however, an honest dif- 
 ference of opinion as to the particular ratio at which 
 the unlimited coinage of gold and silver should be 
 undertaken. The principle of bimetalism does not 
 stand upon any certain ratio, and may exist at 1 to 
 30 as well as at 1 to 16. 
 
 In fixing the ratio we should select that one 
 W'hich will secure the greatest advantage to the 
 public and cause the least injustice. The present 
 ratio, in my judgment, should be adopted. A 
 change in the ratio could be made (as in 1834) by 
 reducing the size of the gold dollar or by increasing 
 the size of the silver dollar, or by making a change 
 in the weight of both dollars. A larger silver dollar 
 
108 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 would help the creditor. A smaller gold dollar 
 would help the debtor. It is not just to do either, 
 but if a change must be made the benefit should 
 be given to the debtor rather than to the creditor. 
 
 Let no one accuse me of defending the justness 
 of any change; but I repeat it, if we are given a 
 choice between a change which will aid the debtor 
 by reducing the size of his debt and a change which 
 will aid the creditor by increasing the amount 
 which he is to receive, either by increasing the num- 
 ber of his dollars or their size, the advantage must 
 be given to the debtor, and no man during this de- 
 bate, whatever may be his private wish or interest, 
 will advocate the giving of the advantage to the 
 creditor. 
 
 To illustrate the effect of changing the ratio let 
 us take, for convenience, the ratio of 24 to 1, as 
 advocated by some. We could make this change by 
 reducing the weight of the gold dollar one-third. 
 This would give to the holders of gold an advantage 
 of some $200,000,000, but the creditors would lose 
 several billions of dollars in the actual value of their 
 debts. A debt contracted before 1873 would not 
 be scaled, because the new gold dollar would pur- 
 chase as much as the old gold dollar would in 1873. 
 Creditors, however, whose loans have been made 
 since that time would suffer, and the most recent 
 loans would show the greatest loss. The value of 
 silver bullion has only fallen in relation to gold. 
 But the purchasing power of one ounce of silver 
 has varied less since 1873 than has the purchasing 
 power of one ounce of gold, which would indicate 
 that gold had risen. 
 
BIMETALISM 109 
 
 If, on the other hand, the ratio is changed by in- 
 creasing the size of the silver dollar, it would be 
 necessary to recoin our silver dollars into dollars 
 a half larger, or we would have in circulation two 
 legal tender silver dollars of different sizes. Of the 
 two plans it would be better, in my judgment, to 
 keep both dollars in circulation together, tho un- 
 equal in weight, rather than to recoin the lighter 
 dollars. The recoinage of more than 500,000,000 
 dollars, or the bullion representing them, would 
 cause a shrinkage of about $170,000,000 or one-third 
 of our silver money ; it would cause a shrinkage of 
 nearly one-sixth of our metalic money and of more 
 than one-tenth of our total circulation. This con- 
 traction would increase our debts more than a bil- 
 lion dollars and decrease the nominal value of our 
 property more than five billions. 
 
 A change in the ratio made by increasing the 
 size of the silver dollar as above suggested would 
 also decrease by one-third the number of dollars 
 which could be coined from the annual product of 
 silver. If, as Mr. Carlisle has said, the supply of 
 metal, both gold and silver, is none too large to 
 keep pace with population, the increase in the 
 weight of each dollar would make the supply to 
 that extent deficient. A change in ratio, whether 
 secured by decreasing the gold dollar or by in- 
 creasing the silver dollar, would probably make an 
 international agreement more difficult, because 
 nearly all of the silver coin now in existence circu- 
 lates at a ratio less than ours. 
 
 If the change should be made in this country by 
 increasing the size of the sih^er dollar and an inter- 
 
110 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 national agreement secured upon the new ratio, to 
 be effected by other nations in the same way, the 
 amount of money in the world, that is metalic 
 money, would suffer a contraction of more than 
 $1,000,000,000, to the enormous injury of the debtor 
 class and to the enormous advantage of the creditor 
 class. If we believe that the value of gold has risen 
 because its supply has not increased as fast as the 
 demand caused by favorable legislation, then it 
 would be unfair to continue this appreciation by 
 other legislation favorable to gold. It would be a 
 special injustice to the mine owner and to the 
 farmer, whose products have fallen with silver, to 
 make perpetual the injunction against their pros- 
 perity. 
 
 We often Jiear our opponents complain of the 
 *' cupidity of the mine owner." Let us admit that 
 the mine owner is selfish, and that he will profit by 
 the increased price of silver bullion. Let us, for the 
 sake of argument, go further, and accuse him of 
 favoring the free coinage of silver solely for the 
 purpose of increasing the price of his product. 
 Does that make him worse than other men ? Is not 
 the farmer selfish enough to desire a higher price 
 for wheat ? Is not the cotton grower selfish enough 
 to desire a higher price for his cotton? Is not the 
 laboring man selfish enough to desire higher wages? 
 And, if I may be pardoned for the boldness, are not 
 bankers and business men selfish enough to ask for 
 legislation at our hands which will give them pros- 
 perity? Was not this extraordinary session called 
 in order to bring back prosperity to our business 
 men? 
 
BIMETALISM 111 
 
 Is it any more important that you should keep 
 a mercantile house from failing than that you 
 should keep a mine from suspending? Are those 
 who desire free coinage of silver in order that the 
 barren wastes should be made to "blossom like the 
 rose" any worse than those who want the Sherman 
 law repealed in order to borrow foreign gold and 
 retire clearing house certificates? There is a class 
 of people whose interest in financial legislation is 
 too often overlooked. The money-ioaner has just as 
 much interest in the rise in the value of his product 
 — money — as farmers and miners have in the in- 
 creased price of their products. 
 
 The man who has $10,000 in money becomes 
 w^orth $20,000 in reality when prices fall one-half. 
 Shall we assume that the money-lenders of this and 
 other countries ignore the advantage w^hich an ap- 
 preciated currency gives to them and desire it sim- 
 ply for the benefit of the poor man and the laborer ? 
 What refining influence is there in their business 
 w^hich purges away the dross of selfishness and 
 makes pure and patriotic only their motives? Has 
 some new dispensation reversed the parable and left 
 Lazarus in torment while Dives is borne aloft in 
 Abraham 's bosom ? 
 
 But is the silver miner after all so selfish as to 
 be worthy of censure. Does he ask for some new 
 legislation or for some innovation inaugurated in 
 his behalf ? No. He pleads only for the restoration 
 of the money of the fathers. He asks to have given 
 back to him a right w^hich he enjoyed from 1792 to 
 1873. During all those years he could deposit his 
 silver bullion at the mints and receive full legal- 
 
112 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tender coins at the rate of $1.29 for each ounce of 
 silver, and during a part of the time his product 
 could be converted into money at even a higher 
 price. Free coinage can only give back to him 
 what demonetization took away. He does not ask 
 for a silver dollar redeemable in a gold dollar, but 
 for a silver dollar which redeems itself. 
 
 If the bullion value of silver has not been reduced 
 by hostile legislation, the free coinage of silver at 
 the present ratio can bring to the mine owner no 
 benefit, except by enabling him to pay a debt al- 
 ready contracted with less ounces of silver. If the 
 price of his product has been reduced by hostile 
 legislation, is he asking any more than we would ask 
 under the same circumstances in seeking to remove 
 the oppressive hand of the law? Let me suggest, 
 too, that those who favor an international agree- 
 ment are stopt from objecting to the profits of the 
 silver mine owner, because an international agree- 
 ment could only be effected at some ratio near to 
 ours, probably 15^ to 1, and this would just as 
 surely inure to the benefit of the owner of silver 
 as would free coinage established by the independ- 
 ent action of this country. 
 
 If our opponents w^ere correct in asserting that 
 the price of silver bullion could be maintained at 
 129 cents an ounce by international agreement, but 
 not by our separate action, then international bi- 
 metalism would bring a larger profit to the mine 
 owner than the free coinage of silver by this coun- 
 try could. Let the international bimetalist, then, 
 find some better objection to free coinage than that 
 based on the mine owner's profit. 
 
BIMETALISM 113 
 
 But what is the mine owner's profit? Has any 
 one told you the average cost of mining an ounce 
 of silver ? You have heard of some particular mine 
 where silver can be produced at a low cost, but no 
 one has attempted to give you any reliable data as 
 to the average cost of production. I had a letter 
 from Mr. Leech when he was Director of the Mint, 
 saying that the Government is in possession of no \ 
 data in regard to the cost of gold production and 
 none of any value in regard to silver. No calcula- 
 tion can be made as to the profits of mining which 
 does not include money spent in prospecting and in 
 mines which have ceased to pay, as well as those 
 which are profitably worked. 
 
 When we see a wheel of fortune with twenty-four 
 paddles, see those paddles sold for 10 cents a piece, 
 and see the holder of the winning paddle draw $2, 
 we do not conclude that money can be profitably 
 invested in a wheel of fortune. We know that those 
 w^ho bought expended altogether $2.40 on the turn 
 of the wheel, and that the man who won only re- 
 ceived $2 ; but our opponents insist upon estimating 
 the profits of silver mining by the cost of the win- 
 ning paddle. It is safe to say that taking the gold 
 and silver of the world — and it is more true of silver 
 than of gold — every dollar 's worth of metal has cost 
 a dollar. It is strange that those who watch so 
 carefully lest the silver miner shall receive more 
 for his product than the bare cost of production 
 ignore the more fortunate gold miner. 
 
 Did you ever hear a monometalist complain be- 
 cause a man could produce 25.8 grains of gold, .9 
 fine, at any price whatever, and yet take it to our 
 
114 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 mint and have it stamped into a dollar with full 
 legal tender qualities? I saw at the World's Fair 
 a few days ago a nugget of gold, just as it was 
 found, worth over $3,000. What an outrage that 
 the finder should be allowed to convert that into 
 money at such an enormous profit ! And yet no 
 advocate of honest money raises his hand to stop 
 that crime. 
 
 The fact is that the price of gold and silver does 
 not depend ni^on the cost of production, but upon 
 the law of supply and demand. [Applause.] It is 
 true that production will stop when either metal 
 cannot be produced at a profit; but so long as the 
 demand continues equal to the supply the value of 
 an ounce of either metal may be far above the cost 
 of production. With most kinds of property a rise 
 in price will cause increased production ; for in- 
 stance, if the price of wheat rises faster than the 
 price of other things, there will be a tendency to 
 increased production until the price falls; but this 
 tendency cannot be carried out in the case of the 
 precious metals, because the metal must be found 
 before it can be produced, and finding is uncertain. 
 
 Between 1800 and 1849 an ounce of gold or silver 
 would exchange for more of other things than it 
 would from 1849 to 1873, yet during the latter 
 period the production of both gold and silver 
 greatly increased. It will be said that the pur- 
 chasing power of an ounce of metal fell because of 
 the increased supply; but that fall did not check 
 production, nor has the rise in the purchasing 
 power of an ounce of gold since 1873 increased the 
 production. The production of both gold and silver 
 
BIMETALISM 115 
 
 is controlled so largely by chance as to make some 
 of the laws applicable to other property inapplica- 
 ble to the precious metals. If the supply of gold 
 decreases without any diminution of the demand 
 the exchangeable value of each ounce of gold is 
 bound to increase, altho the cost of producing the 
 gold may continue to fall. 
 
 Why do not the advocates of gold monometalism 
 recognize and complain of the advantage given to 
 gold by laws which increase the demand for it and, 
 therefore, the value of each ounce ? Instead of that 
 they confine themselves to the denunciation of the 
 silver-mine owner. I have never advocated the use 
 of either gold or silver as the means of giving em- 
 ployment to miners, nor has the defense of bimet- 
 alism been conducted by those interested in the pro- 
 duction of silver. We favor the use of gold and 
 silver as money because money is a necessity and 
 because these metals, owing to special fitness, have 
 been used from time immemorial. The entire an- 
 nual supply of both metals, coined at the present 
 ratio, does not afford too large a sum of money. 
 
 If, as is estimated, two-thirds of the $130,000,000 
 of gold produced annually are consumed in the arts, 
 only $46,000,000 — or less than we need for this 
 country alone — are left for coinage. If one-sixth 
 of the $185,000,000 of silver produced annually is 
 used in the arts, $155,000,000 are left for coinage. 
 India has been in the habit of taking about one- 
 third of that sum. Thus the total amount of gold 
 and silver annually available for all the people of 
 all the world is only about $200,000,000, or about, 
 four times what we need in this country to keep 
 
116 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 pace with increasing population. And as popula- 
 tion increases the annual addition to the money 
 must also increase. 
 
 The total sum of metalic money is a little less 
 than $8,000,000,000. The $200,000,000 per annum 
 is about two and a half per cent, on the total vol- 
 ume of metalic money, taking no account of lost 
 coins and shrinkage by abrasion. To quote again 
 the language of Mr. Carlisle : 
 
 "Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual produc- 
 tion of gold coin shall keep pace with the annual increase 
 of population, commerce and industry." 
 
 An increase of one-third in the weight of the 
 silver dollar by an international agreement would 
 reduce by 50,000,000 the number of dollars which 
 could be coined from the annual product of silver, 
 which would amount to a decrease of about one- 
 fourth of the entire increase of metalic money, while 
 the abandonment of silver entirely would destroy 
 three-quarters of the annual increase in metalic 
 money, or possibly all of it, if we take into con- 
 sideration the reduction of the gold supply by the 
 closing of gold-producing silver mines. 
 
 Thus it is almost certain that without silver the 
 sum of metalic money would remain stationary, if 
 not actually decrease, from year to year, while pop- 
 ulation increases and new enterprises demand, from 
 time to time, a larger sum of currency. Thus it 
 will be seen that the money question is broader than 
 the interest of a few mine owners. It touches every 
 man, woman, and child in all the world, and affects 
 those in every condition of life and society. 
 
BIMETALISM 117 
 
 The interest of the mine owner is incidental. He 
 profits by the use of silver as money just as the gold 
 miner profits by the use of gold as money ; just as 
 the newspaper profits by the law compelling the ad- 
 vertising of foreclosures ; just as the seaport profits 
 by the deepening of its harbor; just as the horse- 
 seller would profit by a war which required the 
 purchase of a large number of horses for cavalry 
 service, or just as the undertaker would profit by 
 the decent burial of a pauper at public expense. 
 
 All of these receive an incidental benefit from 
 public acts. Shall we complain if the use of gold 
 and silver as money gives employment to men, 
 builds up cities and fills our mountains with life 
 and industry? Shall we oppress all debtors and 
 derange all business agreements in order to prevent 
 the producers of money metals from obtaining for 
 them more than actual cost ? We do not reason that 
 way in other things; why suppress the reason in. 
 this matter because of cultivated prejudices against 
 the white metal ? But what interest has the farmer 
 in this subject, you may ask. The same that every 
 laboring man has in a currency sufficient to carry 
 on the commerce and business of a country. The 
 employer cannot give work to men unless he can 
 carry on the business at a profit, and he is hampered 
 and embarrassed by a currency which appreciates 
 because of its insufficiency. 
 
 The farmer labors under a double disadvantage. 
 He not only suffers as a producer from all those 
 causes which reduce the price of property, but he 
 is thrown into competition with the products of 
 India. Without Indian competition his lot would 
 
 k 
 
118 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 be hard enough, for if he is a land owner he finds 
 his capital decreasing with an appreciating stand- 
 ard, and if he owes on the land he finds his equity 
 of redemption extinguished. The last census shows 
 a real estate mortgage indebtedness in the five great 
 agricultural States — Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kan- 
 sas, and Nebraska — of more than one billion of dol- 
 lars. A rising standard means a great deal of dis- 
 tress to these mortgagors. But as I said, the 
 producers of wheat and cotton have a special griev- 
 ance, for the prices of those articles are governed 
 largely by the prices in Liverpool, and as silver goes 
 down our prices fall, while the rupee price remains 
 the same. I quote from the agricultural report of 
 1890, page 8 : 
 
 "The recent legislation looking to the restoration of the 
 bimetalic standard of our currency, and the consequent en- 
 hancement of the value of silver, has unquestionably had 
 much to do with the recent advance in the price of cereals. 
 The same cause has advanced the price of wheat in Russia 
 and India, and in the same degree reduced their power of 
 competition. English gold was formerly exchanged for 
 cheap silver and wheat purchased with the cheaper metal 
 I was sold in Great Britain for gold. Much of this advan- 
 tage is lost by the appreciation of silver in those countries. 
 It is reasonable, therefore, to expect much higher prices for 
 wheat than have been received in recent years." 
 
 Mr. Rusk's reasoning is correct. Shall we by 
 changing the ratio fix the price of wheat and cotton 
 at the present low price ? If it is possible to do so it 
 is no more than fair that we restore silver to its 
 former place, and thus give back to the farmer some 
 of his lost prosperity. Can silver be maintained on 
 a parity with gold at the present ratio? It has been 
 shown that if we should fail and our effort should 
 
BIMETALISM 119 
 
 result in a single silver standard it would be better 
 for us than the adoption of the gold standard — that 
 is, that the worst that could come from the attempt 
 would be far better than the best that our oppon- 
 ents could offer us. 
 
 It has been shown that dangers and disadvantages 
 attend a change of ratio. It may now be added that 
 no change in the ratio can be made with fairness or 
 intelligence without first putting gold and silver 
 upon a perfect equality in order to tell what the 
 natural ratio is. If a new ratio is necessary, who 
 can tell just what that ratio ought to be? Who 
 knows to what extent the divergence between gold 
 and silver is due to natural laws and to what extent 
 it is due to artificial laws ? We know that the mere 
 act of India in suspending free coinage, altho she 
 continues to buy and coin on government account, 
 reduced the price of silver more than 10 cents per 
 ounce. Can any one doubt that the restoration 
 of free coinage in that country would increase the 
 bullion price of silver? Who doubts that the free 
 coinage of silver by the United States would in- 
 crease its bullion price ? 
 
 The only question is how much. Is it only a 
 guess, for no one can state with mathematical pre- 
 cision what the rise would be. The full use of 
 silver, too, would stop the increased demand for 
 gold, and thus prevent any further rise in its price. 
 It is because no one can speak with certainty that 
 I insist that no change in the ratio can be intelli- 
 gently made until both metals are offered equal 
 privileges at the mint. When we have the free and 
 unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present 
 
120 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ratio, then, and then only, can we tell whether any 
 of the apparent fall in the bullion price of silver 
 is due to circumstances over which we have no con- 
 trol, and if so, how much? If this experiment 
 should demonstrate the necessity for a change of 
 ratio it can be easily made, and should be made in 
 such a way as to cause the least injury to society. 
 But we can, in my judgment, maintain the parity 
 at the present ratio. I state this without hesitation, 
 notwithstanding the fact that our opponents do not 
 disguise the contempt which they feel for one who 
 can believe this possible. If the past teaches any- 
 thing it teaches the possibility of this country main- 
 taining the parity alone. The Royal Commission of 
 England stated in its report that France did main- 
 tain the parity at 15^ to 1, altho she has not half 
 our population or enterprise. During the years 
 when her mint laws controlled the price of gold and 
 silver bullion the changes in the relative production 
 of gold and silver were greater than they have been 
 since. At one time before 1873 the value of the sil- 
 ver product was related to the value of the gold 
 product as 3 to 1, while at another time the relation 
 was reversed, and the production of gold to silver 
 was as 3 to 1. 
 
 No such changes have occurred since; and the 
 present value of the silver product is only iy2 to 1 
 of gold. Much of the prejudice against silver is 
 due to the fact that it has been falling as compared 
 to gold. Let it begin to rise and it will become 
 more acceptable as a money metal. Goschen, at the 
 Paris Conference, very aptly stated the condition 
 when he said : 
 
BIMETALISM 121 
 
 "At present there is a vicious circle. States are afraid 
 of employing silver on account of the depreciation, and the 
 depreciation continues because States refuse to employ it." 
 
 Let that "vicious circle" be broken and silver 
 will resume its rightful place. We believe, in other 
 words, that the opening of our mints to the free 
 and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at 16 to 1 
 would immediately result in restoring silver to the 
 coinage value of $1.29 per ounce, not only here, but 
 everywhere. That there could be no difference be- 
 tween the dollar coined and the same weight of sil- 
 ver uncoined, when one could be exchanged for the 
 other, needs no argument. 
 
 We do not believe that the gold dollar would go 
 to a premium, because it could not find a better coin- 
 age ratio elsewhere, and because it could be put to 
 no purpose for which a silver dollar would not be 
 as good. If our ratio were 1 to 14 our gold would, 
 of course, be exchanged for silver; but with our 
 ratio of 16 to 1 gold is worth more here than abroad, 
 and foreign silver would not come here, because it 
 is circulating at home at a better ratio than we 
 offer. 
 
 We need not concern ourselves, therefore, about 
 the coin silver. All that we have to take care of 
 is the annual product from the mines, about 40 per 
 cent, of which is produced in this country. Under 
 the Sherman law we furnish a market for about 
 one-third of the world's annual product. I believe 
 about one-sixth is used in the arts, which would 
 leave about one-half for all the rest of the world. 
 India has suspended free coinage temporarily, in 
 anticipation of the repeal of the Sherman law. The 
 
 I 12 
 
122 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Herschell report expressly states that the action was 
 necessary, because no agreement with the United 
 States could be secured. The language is as foh 
 lows : 
 
 "In a dispatch of the 31st of June, 1S92. the government 
 of India exprest the deliberate opinion that, if it became 
 clear that the Brussels conference was unlikely to arrive at 
 a satisfactory conclusion, and if a direct agreement between 
 India and the United States were found to be unattainable, 
 the government of India should at once close their mints 
 to the free coinage of silver and make arrangements for the 
 introduction of a gold standard." 
 
 There is no doubt of the restoration of free coin- 
 age in India if this Government takes the lead, and 
 with India taking the usual amount, but one-sixth 
 of the annual supply if left for the other silver- 
 using countries. There can be no flood of silver, 
 nor will prices rise to any considerable extent — ex- 
 cept the price of silver itself and a few of the staple 
 products of agriculture which have fallen with sil- 
 ver because of India's competition. General prices 
 cannot rise unless the total number of dollars in- 
 creases more rapidly than the need for dollars, 
 which has been shown to be impossible with the 
 present supply. The danger is that, taking all the 
 gold and all the silver, we will not have enough 
 money, and that there will still be some apprecia- 
 tion in the standard of value. 
 
 To recapitulate, then, there is not enough of 
 either metal to form the basis for the world's me- 
 talic money; both metals must therefore be used 
 as full legal tender primary money. There is not 
 enough of both metals to more than keep pace with 
 the increased demand for money; silver cannot be 
 
BIMETALISM 123 
 
 retained in circulation as a part of the world's 
 money if the United States abandons it. This na- 
 tion must, therefore, either retain the present law 
 or make some further provision for silver. The only 
 rational plan is to use both gold. and silver at some 
 ratio with equal privileges at the mint. No change 
 in the ratio can be made intelligently until both 
 metals are put on an equality at the present ratio. 
 The present ratio should be adopted if the parity 
 can be maintained ; and, lastly, it can be. 
 
 If these conclusions are correct what must be our 
 action on the bill to unconditionally repeal the 
 Sherman law? The Sherman law has a serious 
 defect ; it treats silver as a commodity rather than 
 as a money, and thus discriminates between silver 
 and gold. The Sherman law was passed in 1890 as 
 a substitute for what was known as the Bland law\ 
 It will be remembered that the Bland law was 
 forced upon the silver men as a compromise, and 
 that the opponents of silver sought its repeal from 
 the day it was passed. It will also be remembered 
 that the Sherman law was in like manner forced 
 upon the silver men as a compromise, and that the 
 opponents of silver have sought its repeal ever since 
 it became a law. The law provides for the compul- 
 sory purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver per 
 year, and for the issue of Treasury notes thereon 
 at the gold value of the bullion. 
 
 These notes are a legal tender and are redeemable 
 in gold or silver at the option of the Government. 
 There is also a clause in the law which states that 
 it is the policy of this Government to maintain the 
 parity between the metals. The Administration, 
 
124 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 it seems, has decided that the parity can only be 
 maintained by violating a part of the law and 
 giving the option to the holder instead of to the 
 Government. Without discussing the administra- 
 tion of the law let us consider the charges made 
 against it. 
 
 The main objection which we heard last spring 
 was that the Treasury notes were used to draw 
 gold out of the Treasury. If that objection w^ere 
 a material one the bill might easily be amended 
 so as to make the Treasury notes hereafter issued 
 redeemable only in silver, like the silver certificates 
 issued under the Bland law. But the objection 
 is scarcely important enough for consideration. 
 While the Treasury notes have been used to draw 
 out gold, they need not have been used for that 
 purpose, for we have $346,000,000 worth of green- 
 backs with which gold can be drawn, so long as 
 the Government gives the option to the holder. 
 If all of the Treasury notes were destroyed the 
 greenbacks are sufficient to draw out the $100,000,- 
 000 reserve three times over, and then they can be 
 reissued and used again. To complain of the Treas- 
 ury notes while the greenbacks remain is like find- 
 ing fault because the gate is open w^hen the whole 
 fence is down, and reminds one of the man who 
 made a box for his feline family, and cut a big hole 
 for the cat to go in at and a little hole for the 
 kittens to go in at, forgetting that the large hole 
 would do for cats of all sizes. 
 
 Just at this time the law is being made the 
 scapegoat upon which all our financial ills are 
 loaded, and its immediate and unconditional repeal 
 
BIMETALISM 125 
 
 is demanded as the sole means by which prosperity 
 can be restored to a troubled people. 
 
 The main accusation against it now is that it 
 destroys confidence, and that foreign money will 
 not come here, because the holder is afraid that we 
 will go to a silver standard. The exportation of 
 gold has been pointed to as conclusive evidence 
 that frightened English bondholders were throwing 
 American securities upon the market and selling 
 them to our people in exchange for gold. But now 
 gold is coming back faster than it went away, and 
 still we have the Sherman law unrepealed. Since 
 that theory will not explain both the export and 
 import of gold, let us accept a theory which will. 
 The balance of trade has been largely against us 
 during the last year, and gold went abroad to pay 
 it, but now our exportation of breadstuffs has in- 
 creased and the gold is returning. Its going was 
 aggravated by the fact that Austria-Hungary was 
 gathering in gold for resumption and was com- 
 pelled to take a part from us. Instead of using 
 that export of gold as a reason for going to a gold 
 basis, it ought to make us realize the danger of 
 depending solely upon a metal which some other 
 nation may deprive us of at a critical moment. 
 
 Mr. Cannon of Illinois. Will the gentleman 
 permit me to interrupt him? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Cannon of Illinois. I am in complete har- 
 mony with what my friend is saying now. I ask 
 him if he will allow me to request him not to omit 
 to state that in the twelve months ending June 30 
 last this same balance of trade that was against 
 
126 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 us not only took the gold of the United States, but 
 nearly $17,000,000 of silver as well. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I think the statement made by the 
 gentleman is correct. 
 
 The Sherman law fails utterly to account for 
 present stringency. Let me suggest a more reason- 
 able cause for the trouble. Last spring an attempt 
 was made to secure the unconditional repeal of the 
 Sherman law. We had no panic then, but the same 
 forces which have always opposed any legislation 
 favorable to silver demanded that the purchase of 
 bullion should stop. Some who believe that 15 per 
 cent, reserve makes a bank safe became frightened 
 lest a 25 or 30 per cent, reserve might not be suffi- 
 cient to make the Government safe, and wanted 
 an issue of gold bonds. The great argument used 
 in favor of both these propositions was that money 
 was being drawn from the Treasury and sent to 
 Europe; that confidence was being destroyed and 
 that a panic would follow. They emphasized and 
 magnified the evils which would follow the depar- 
 ture of gold; they worked themselves and their 
 associates into a condition of fright which did cause 
 financial stringency. Like the man who innocently 
 gives the alarm of fire in a crowded hall, they 
 excited a panic which soon got beyond control. 
 
 The trouble now is that depositors have with- 
 drawn their deposits from the banks for fear of 
 loss, and the banks are compelled to draw in their 
 loans to protect their reserves, and thus men who 
 do business upon borrowed capital are crippled. 
 The people have not lost faith in the Government 
 or in the Government 's money. They do not refuse 
 
BIMETALISM 127 
 
 silver or silver certificates. They are glad enough 
 to get any kind of money. We were told last 
 spring that gold was going to a premium, but 
 recently in New York City men found a profitable 
 business in the selling of silver certificates of small 
 denominations at 2 per cent, premium, and on the 
 5th of this month there appeared in the New York 
 Herald and the New York Times this advertise- 
 ment : 
 
 WANTED— SILVER DOLLARS.— We desire to pur- 
 chase at a premium of % per cent., or $7.50 per thousand, 
 standard silver dollars, in sums of $1,000 or more, in return 
 for our certified checks payable through the clearing-house. 
 ZIMMERMANN & FORSHAY, 
 
 Bankers, 11 Wall Street. 
 
 About the same time the New York police force 
 was paid in $20 gold pieces because of the scarcity 
 of other kinds of money. How many of the failing 
 banks have obeyed the law in regard to reserve? 
 How many have crippled themselves by loaning too 
 much to their officers and directors? The sit- 
 uation can be stated in a few words: money can- 
 not be secured to carry on business because the 
 banks have no money to loan ; banks have no money 
 to loan because the depositors have withdrawn 
 their money; depositors have withdrawn tkeir 
 money because they fear the solvency of the banks ; 
 enterprises are stagnant because money is not in 
 circulation. 
 
 Will a repeal of the Sherman law cure these 
 evils ? Can you cure hunger by a famine ? I know 
 that there are some who tell us that we have plenty 
 of money. If I may be pardoned for a personal 
 allusion, their attitude reminds me of a remark 
 
128 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 made by my father-in-law just after he intrusted 
 his daughter to my care, ' ' William, ' ' said he, laying 
 his hand affectionately on my head, "while I have 
 we shall not both want." Others say, ''What is 
 the use of having more money? We cannot get it 
 unless we have something to sell." That is true; 
 but the price of what we sell depends largely upon 
 the amount of money in circulation. How can we 
 pay our debts without selling something, and how 
 can we sell anything unless there is money in cir- 
 culation to buy with ? We need money. The Sher- 
 man law supplies a certain amount. Will the strin- 
 gency be relieved by suspending that issue? If 
 the advocates of repeal would take for their battle 
 cry, "Stop issuing money," instead of "Stop buy- 
 ing silver, ' ' would not their purpose be more plain ? 
 But they say the repeal of the law will encourage 
 foreign capital to come here by giving assurance 
 that it will be repaid on a gold basis. Can we 
 afford to buy confidence at that price? Can we 
 afford to abandon the constitutional right to pay 
 in either gold or silver in order to borrow foreign 
 gold with the certainty of having to pay it back 
 in appreciated dollars ? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, 
 the remedy proposed seems not only dangerous and 
 absurd, but entirely inadequate. Why try to bor- 
 row foreign capital in order to induce the people 
 in this country to redeposit their savings in the 
 banks ? 
 
 Why do not these financiers apply the remedy 
 to the diseased part? If the gentleman from New 
 York [Mr. Hendrix]. to whom I listened with 
 pleasure, and who said, "I have come into this 
 
BIMETALISM 129 
 
 Hall as a banker, I am here as the president of a 
 national bank," desires to restore confidence, let 
 him propose for the consideration of the members 
 a bill to raise, by a small tax upon deposits, a sum 
 sufficient to secure depositors against possible loss; 
 or a bill to compel stockholders to put up security 
 for their double liability; or to prevent stockhold- 
 ers or officers from wrecking a bank to carry on 
 their private business; or to limit the liabilities 
 which a bank can assume upon a given amount of 
 capital, so that there will be more margin to protect 
 its creditors; or a bill to make more severe the 
 punishment for embezzlement, so that a man can 
 not rob a bank of a half -million and escape with 
 five years, and can not be boarded at a hotel by a 
 marshal, while the small thief suffers in a dungeon. 
 Let him propose some real relief and this House 
 will be glad to cooperate with him. 
 
 Or, if there is immediate relief necessary in the 
 increased issue of paper money, let our financiers 
 press the suggestion made by the gentleman from 
 Ohio [Mr. Johnson], viz., that the holders of Gov- 
 ernment bonds be allowed to deposit them and 
 draw the face in Treasury notes by remitting the 
 interest and with the power of redeeming the bonds 
 at any time. This will give immediate relief and 
 will save the Government interest on the bonds 
 while the money is out. But no, the only remedy 
 proposed by these financiers at this time, w^hen 
 business is at a standstill and when men are suffer- 
 ing unemployed, is a remedy which will enable 
 them to both control the currency and reap pecu- 
 niary profit through its issue. 
 
130 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 One of the benefits of the Sherman law, so far 
 as the currency is concerned, is that it compels 
 the issue of a large amount of money annually, 
 and but for this issue the present financial panic 
 would, in my judgment, be far more severe than 
 it is. That we need an annual increase in the 
 currency is urged by Mr. Sherman himself in a 
 speech advocating the passage of the Sherman law. 
 On the 5th day of June, 1890, he said in the Senate : 
 
 "Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of 
 $2,000,000 worth of silver bullion a month has by coinage 
 produced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month 
 for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of 
 the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase our cur- 
 rency in proportion to our increasing population. If our 
 present currency is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our 
 population is increasing at the ratio of 3 per cent, per 
 annum, it woulld require $42,000,000 increased circulation 
 each year to keep pace with the increase of population ; but 
 as the increase of population is accompanied by a still 
 greater ratio of increase of wealth and business, it was 
 thought that an immediate increase of circulation might be 
 obtained by larger purchases of silver bullion to an amount 
 sufficient to make good the requirement of bank notes and 
 keep pace with the growth of population. Assuming that 
 $54,000,000 a year of additional currency is needed upon 
 this basis, that amount is provided for in this bill by the 
 issue of Treasury notes in exchange for bullion at the mar- 
 ket price." 
 
 This amount, by the fall in the price of bullion 
 silver, has been largely reduced. Shall we wipe 
 it out entirely? He insisted that the Sherman law 
 gave to the people more money than the Bland law. 
 and upon that ground its passage was defended 
 before the people. Could it have been passed had 
 it given less than the Bland law? Who would have 
 dared to defend it if it had provided for no money 
 
BIMETALISM 131 
 
 at all? What provision shall be made for the 
 future? Upon that question our opponents are 
 silent. The bill which they have proposed leaves 
 us with no increased currency provided for. 
 
 Some of the advocates of a gold standard, in 
 the defense of their theory, find it necessary to 
 dispute every well-established principle of finance. 
 AVe are told that as civilization increases credit 
 takes the place of money and that the volume of 
 real money can be diminished without danger. That 
 recalls the experience of the man who conceived 
 the idea that a fish could be made to live without 
 water. As the story goes, he put a herring, fresh 
 from the sea, in a jar of salt water. By removing 
 a little every morning and adding rainwater he 
 gradually accustomed it to fresh water. Then by 
 gradually removing the fresh water he accustomed 
 it to air and finally kept it in a cage like a bird. 
 One day, in his absence, his servant placed a cup 
 of water in the cage in order that the fish might 
 moisten its food; but alas! when the master came 
 home he found that the fish had thoughtlessly put 
 its head into the water and drowned ! 
 
 From the arguments of some of our opponents 
 we might be led to the conclusion that the time 
 would come when money would not only be unnec- 
 essary but really dangerous. 
 
 The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether we shall 
 increase our supply of primary money, as we do 
 when we increase our gold and silver, or whether 
 we shall increase our promises to pay real money, 
 as we do when we increase national bank notes. 
 
132 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Mr. Bland. Will the gentleman permit a sug- 
 gestion ? 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bland. The Treasury notes issued under 
 the law for the purchase of the silver bullion are 
 legal tender for all debts, public and private, and 
 not like bank notes, mere credit money. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. I understand that. I say they are 
 primary money ; altho if it were construed to mean 
 that they were merely a promise to pay gold, then 
 they would be simply credit money to that extent. 
 
 Mr. Bland. The distinction I wish to draw is 
 this, that those Treasury notes issued in purchase 
 of silver bullion are legal tender while a bank note 
 is not. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. And the distinction is a very just 
 one, and a legal tender dollar is the better. 
 
 The larger the superstructure of credit, as related 
 to the basis of metal, the more unsubstantial our 
 system. If we present a bank note for payment 
 w^e receive a greenback; if we present a greenback 
 for payment, the treasurer has a right to pay in 
 silver dollars, and now our opponents want it 
 understood that a silver dollar is only a promise 
 to pay a gold dollar. Is that sound money? 
 
 No, Mr. Speaker; if metalic money is sound 
 money, then we who insist upon a base broad 
 enough to support a currency redeemable in coin 
 on demand, are the real friends of sound money, 
 and those are ' ' dangerous fiatists ' ' who would make 
 the metalic base so narrow as to compel the Gov- 
 ernment to abandon it for the preservation of its 
 people. If all the currency is built upon the small 
 
BIMETALISM 133 
 
 basis of gold those who hold the gold will be the 
 masters of the situation. We have a right to de- 
 mand that the future financial policy shall be a 
 part of the repealing act, so that we may choose 
 between it and what we have and reject it if it is 
 less favorable than the present law. And I may 
 add in the language adopted by the bimetalic league 
 a few days ago — 
 
 "The refusal of the opponents of bimetalism to propose 
 any substitute for the present law, or to elaborate any plan 
 for the future, indicates either an ignorance of our finan- 
 cial needs or an unwillingness to take the public into their 
 confidence." 
 
 But, sir, more serious than any other objection 
 which can be made to the unconditional repeal of the 
 Sherman law is the incontrovertible fact that a sus- 
 pension of silver would tend to lower the price of 
 silver bullion and thus make the restoration of 
 bimetalism more difficult. That this will be the 
 effect is proven not only by reason but by the utter- 
 ances of Mr. Herschell's committee in discussing 
 the finances of India. That report says : 
 
 "In December last, a bill was introduced in the Senate 
 to repeal the Sherman act, and another to suspend pur- 
 chases under it. Whether any such measures will pass into 
 law it is impossible to foretell, but it must be regarded as 
 possible ; and although, in the light of past experience, pre- 
 dictions on such a subject must be made with caution, it is 
 certainly probable that the repeal of the Sherman act would 
 be followed by a heavy fall in the price of silver." 
 
 The first question for us to decide, then, is : are we 
 in favor of bimetalism or a universal gold standard ? 
 If we are in favor of bimetalism, the next question 
 is will a fall in the bullion price of silver as meas- 
 ured by gold help or hinder bimetalism? We are 
 
134 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 told by those who want a gold standard that it will 
 help bimetalism ; but the query is, if it would, ' ' Why 
 do they favor it?" It is sufficient to arouse sus- 
 picion when every advocate of gold monometalism 
 favors unconditional repeal, and the more emphatic 
 his advocacy of gold the more earnest his desire 
 for repeal. Is any subsequent legislation in behalf 
 of silver intended ? If so, why not propose it now ? 
 What money loaner, loaning upon a mortgage, 
 would be willing to let the money go upon a promise 
 that the mortgage should be delivered next week? 
 Or what business man would cancel an obligation 
 to-day on the promise of having the money paid 
 to-morrow? Shall we be more careless in protect- 
 ing the sacred interests of our constituents than a 
 business man is in transacting his business? 
 
 What excuse can we give to our people for 
 releasing what we have with the expectation of 
 getting something in the future when the advo- 
 cates of repeal boldly demand, upon this floor, the 
 adoption of a universal gold standard, and predict 
 that its coming is as certain as the rising of to-mor- 
 row 's sun. Read the utterances of these leaders 
 in the crusade against silver. Read the famous 
 article of the distinguished gentleman from New 
 York [Mr. Cockran]. Read the article in the 
 Forum of last February, from the pen of Hon. 
 George Fred Williams, who, in the last Congress, 
 spoke for those demanding unconditional repeal : 
 
 "In the efforts which have thus far been made towards a 
 repeal, a single question has been repeated by the silver 
 men so often as to give a plain indication to the situation. 
 What, it is asked, do you propose to put in place of silver 
 
BIMETALISM 135 
 
 purchases? There never was a time more opportune to 
 answer definitely this question with the single word, noth- 
 ing." 
 
 Let me join issue upon this question, and say 
 that the time will never come in this country when 
 that word ''nothing" will be accepted as a satis- 
 factory answer. 
 
 They tell us that our platform demands repeal, 
 but does it demand repeal only? Shall we take 
 away the "cowardly makeshift" before we restore 
 the real thing for which that "temporary expe- 
 dient" w^as substituted? As well denounce one 
 kind of food because not the most nourishing and 
 then refuse all food to the patient. They shall not 
 be permitted to thus mutilate the platform. No 
 such inexcusable attempt at garbling has been wit- 
 nest since the minister took from the sentence ' ' Let 
 him which is on the house-fop not come down to 
 take anything out of his house" the words "top 
 not come down," and inveighed against the fem- 
 inine habit of wearing the hair in a knot on the 
 top of the head. They demand of us unconditional 
 repeal. They demand that we give up all that 
 we have in the way of silver legislation before we 
 know what we are to receive. Shall we surrender 
 on these terms? 
 
 Rollin tells us that the third Punic war was 
 declared by the Romans and that a messenger was 
 sent to Carthage to announce the declaration after 
 the army had started on its way. The Carthage- 
 nians at once sent representatives to treat for peace. 
 The Romans first demanded the delivery of three 
 hundred hostages before they would enter into 
 
136 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 negotiations. When three hundred sons of the 
 nobles had been given into their hands they de- 
 manded the surrender of all the arms and imple- 
 ments of war before announcing the terms of the 
 treaty. The conditions were sorrowfully but 
 promptly complied with, and the people who 
 boasted of a Hannibal and a Hamilcar gave up to 
 their ancient enemies every weapon of offense and 
 defense. Then the Roman consul, rising up before 
 the humiliated representatives of Carthage, said: 
 
 "I can not but commend you for the readiness with which 
 you have obeyed every order. The decree of the Roman 
 Senate is that Carthage shall be destroyed." 
 
 Sirs, what will be the answer of the people whom 
 you represent, who are wedded to the *'gold and 
 silver coinage of the Constitution, ' ' if you vote for 
 unconditional repeal and return to tell them that 
 you were commended for the readiness with which 
 you obeyed every order, but that Congress has 
 decreed that one-half of the people 's metalic money 
 shall be destroyed? 
 
 They demand unconditional surrender, do they? 
 Why, sirs, we are the ones to grant terms. Stand- 
 ing by the pledges of all the parties in this country, 
 backed by the history of a hundred years, sustained 
 by the most sacred interests of humanity itself, we 
 demand an unconditional surrender of the principle 
 of gold monometalism as the first condition of 
 peace. You demand surrender ! Ay, sirs, you may 
 cry ''Peace, peace," but there is no peace. Just 
 so long as there are people here who would chain 
 this country to a single gold standard, there is 
 war — eternal war; and it might just as well be 
 
BIMETALISM 137 
 
 known now! I have said that we stand by the 
 pledges of all platforms. Let me quote them: 
 
 The Populist platform adopted by the national 
 convention in 1892 contained these words: 
 
 "We demand free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold 
 at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1." 
 
 As the members of that party, both in the Senate 
 and in the House, stand ready to carry out the 
 pledge there made, no appeal to them is necessary. 
 
 The Republican national platform adopted in 
 1888 contains this plank : 
 
 "The Republican party is in favor of the use of both 
 gold and silver as money, and condemns the policy of the 
 Democratic administration in its efforts to demonetize silver." 
 
 The same party in 1892 adopted a platform con- 
 taining the following language : 
 
 "The American people from tradition and interest favor 
 bimetalism, and the Republican party demands the use of 
 both gold and silver as standard money, such restrictions 
 to be determined by contemplation of values of the two 
 metals, so that the purchasing and debt-paying power of the 
 dollar, whether of silver, gold, or paper, shall be equal at all 
 times. 
 
 "The interests of the producers of the country, its farmers 
 and its w'orkingmen, demand that every dollar, paper or 
 gold, issued by the Government, shall be as good as any 
 other. We commend the wise and patriotic steps already 
 taken by our Government to secure an international parity 
 of value between gold and silver for use as money through- 
 out the world." 
 
 Are the Republican members of this House ready 
 to abandon the system which the American people 
 favor ' ' from tradition and interest ' ' ? Having won 
 a Presidential election upon a platform which con- 
 demned "the policy of the Democratic administra- 
 tion in its efforts to demonetize silver," are they 
 
 I 13 
 
138 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ready to join in that demonetization? Having 
 advocated the Sherman law because it gave an 
 increased use of silver, are they ready to repeal it 
 and make no provisions for silver at all ? Are they 
 willing to go before the country confessing that 
 they secured the present law by sharp practise, 
 and only adopted it as an ingenious device for pre- 
 venting free coinage, to be repealed as soon as the 
 hour of danger was passed ? 
 
 The Democratic platform of 1880 contained these 
 words : 
 
 "Honest money, consisting of gold and silver, and paper 
 convertible into coin on demand," 
 
 It would seem that at that time silver was honest 
 money, altho the bullion value was considerably 
 below the coinage value. 
 
 In 1884 the Democratic platform contained this 
 plank : 
 
 "We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage 
 of the Constitution, rnd a circulating medium convertible 
 into such money without loss." 
 
 It would seem that at that time silver was con- 
 sidered honest money. 
 
 In 1888 the Democratic party did not express 
 itself on the money question except by saying: 
 
 "It renewed the pledge of its fidelity to Democratic faith, 
 and reaffirms the platform adopted by its representatives in 
 the convention of 1884." 
 
 Since that platform of 1884 commended silver 
 as an honest money, we must assume that the reaf- 
 firming of that platform declared anew that silver 
 was honest money as late as 1888, although at that 
 time its bullion value had fallen still more. 
 
BIMETALISM 139 
 
 The last utterance of a Democratic national con- 
 vention upon this subject is contained in the plat- 
 form adopted at Chicago in 1892. It is as follows : 
 
 "We denounce the Republican legislation known as the 
 Sherman act of 1890 as a cowardly makeshift, fraught with 
 possibilities of danger in the future, which should make all 
 of its supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its speedy 
 repeal. We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the 
 standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both 
 gold and silver without discrimination against either metal 
 or charge for mintage, but the dollar unit of coinage of both 
 metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value 
 or be adjusted through international agreement, or by such 
 safeguards of legislation as shall insure the maintenance of 
 the parity of the two metals, and the equal power of every 
 dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of 
 debts ; and we demand that all paper currency shall be kept 
 at par with and redeemable in such coin. We insist upon 
 this policy as especially necessary for the protection of the 
 farmers and laboring classes, the first and most defenseless 
 victims of unstable money and a fluctuating currency." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that gold and silver have 
 been indissolubly linked together in our platforms. 
 Never in the history of the party has it taken a 
 position in favor of a gold standard. On every 
 vote taken in the House and Senate a majority of 
 the party have been recorded not only in favor 
 of bimetalism, but for the free and unlimited coin- 
 age of gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. 
 
 The last platform pledges us to the use of both 
 metals as standard money and to the free coinage 
 of both metals at a fixt ratio. Does anyone believe 
 that Mr. Cleveland could have been elected Presi- 
 dent upon a platform declaring in favor of the 
 unconditional repeal of the Sherman law? Can 
 we go back to our people and tell them that, after 
 denouncing for twenty years the crime of 1873, 
 
140 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 we have at last accepted it as a blessing? Shall 
 bimetalism receive its deathblow in the House of 
 its friends, and in the very Hall where innumer- 
 able vows have been registered in its defense? 
 What faith can be placed in platforms if their 
 pledges can be violated with irno unity ? Is it right 
 to rise above the power which creates us! Is it 
 patriotic to refuse that legib^lation in favor of gold 
 and silver which a majority of the people have 
 always demanded? Is it necessary to betray all 
 parties in order to treat this subject in a *' nonpar- 
 tisan" way? 
 
 The President has recommended unconditional 
 repeal. It is not sufficient to say that he is honest 
 — so were the mothers, who, with misguided zeal, 
 threw their children into the Ganges. The ques- 
 tion is not "Is he honest?" but "Is he right?" 
 He won the confidence of the toilers of this country 
 because he taught that "Public office is a public 
 trust, ' ' and because he convinced them of his cour- 
 age and his sincerity. But are they willing to say, 
 in the language of Job, "Tho He slay me, yet will 
 I trust Him?" Whence comes this irresistible de- 
 mand for unconditional repeal? Are not the rep- 
 resentatives here as near to the people and as apt 
 to know their wishes ? Whence comes the demand ? 
 Not from the workshop and the farm, not from the 
 workingmen of this country, who create its wealth 
 in time of peace and protect its flag in time of war, 
 but from the middlemen, from what are termed the 
 "business interests," and largely from that class 
 which can force Congress to let it issue money at a 
 pecuniary profit to itself if silver is abandoned. 
 
BIMETALISM 141 
 
 The President has been deceived. He can no more 
 judge the wishes of the great mass of our people 
 by the expressions of these men than he can measure 
 the ocean's silent depths by the foam upon its 
 waves. 
 
 Mr. Powderly, who spoke at Chicago a few days 
 ago in favor of the free coinage of silver at the 
 present ratio and against the unconditional repeal 
 of the Sherman law, voiced the sentiment of more 
 laboring men than have ever addressed the Presi- 
 dent or this House in favor of repeal. Go among 
 the agricultural classes; go among the poor, whose 
 little is as precious to them as the rich man's for- 
 tune is to him, and whose families are as dear, and 
 you will not find the haste to destroy the issue of 
 money or the unfriendliness to silver which is man^ 
 ifested in money centers. 
 
 This question can not be settled by typewritten 
 recommendations and suggestions made by boards 
 of trade and sent broadcast over the United States. 
 It can only be settled by the great mass of the 
 voters of this country who stand like the Rock of 
 Gibraltar for the use of both gold and silver. 
 
 There are thousands, yes, tens of thousands, aye, 
 even millions, who have not yet ^' bowed the knee 
 to Baal." Let the President take courage. Muehl- 
 bach relates an incident in the life of the great 
 military hero of France. At Marengo the Man of 
 Destiny, sad and disheartened, thought the battle 
 lost. He called to a drummer boy and ordered him 
 to beat a retreat. The lad replied : 
 
 "Sire, I do not know how. Dessaix has never taught me re- 
 treat, but I can beat a charge. Oh, I can beat a charge that 
 
142 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 would make the dead fall into line! I beat that charge at 
 the Bridge of Lodi ; I beat it at Mount Tabor; I beat it at 
 the Pyramids; Oh, may I beat it here? 
 
 The charg:e was ordered, the battle won, and 
 Marengo was added to the victories of Napoleon. 
 Oh, let our gallant leader draw inspiration from the 
 street gamin of Paris. In the face of an enemy 
 proud and confident the President has wavered. 
 Engaged in the battle royal between the ''money 
 power and the common people'^ he has ordered a 
 retreat. Let him not be dismayed. 
 
 He has won greater victories than Napoleon, for 
 he is a warrior who has conquered without a sword. 
 He restored fidelity in the public service; he con- 
 verted Democratic hope into realization; he took 
 up the banner of tariff reform and carried it to 
 triumph. Let him continue that greater fight for 
 *'the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution," 
 to which three national platforms have pledged 
 him. Let his clarion voice call the party hosts to 
 arms; let him but speak the language of the Sena- 
 tor from Texas, in reply to those who would destroy 
 the use of silver: 
 
 "In this hour fraught with peril to the whole country, I 
 appeal to the unpurchased representatives of the American 
 people to meet this bold and insolent demand like men. Let 
 us stand in the breach and call the battle on and never 
 leave the field until the people's money shall be restored to 
 the mints on equal terms with gold, as it was years ago." 
 
 Let this command be given, and the air will 
 resound with the tramp of men scarred in a score 
 of battles for the people's rights. Let this command 
 
k 
 
 BIMETALISM 143 
 
 be given and this Marengo will be our glory and 
 not our shame. 
 
 Well has it been said by the Senator from Mis- 
 souri [Mr. Vest] that we have come to the parting 
 of the ways. To-day the Democratic party stands 
 between two great forces, each inviting its support. 
 On the one side stand the corporate interests of 
 the nation, its moneyed institutions, its aggrega- 
 tions of wealth and capital, imperious, arrogant, 
 eompassionless. They demand special legislation, 
 favors, privileges, and immunities. They can sub- 
 scribe magnificently to campaign fimds; they can 
 strike down opposition with their all-pervading 
 influence, and, to those who fawn and flatter, bring 
 ease and plenty. They demand that the Democratic 
 party shall become their agent to execute their 
 merciless decrees. 
 
 On the other side stands that unnumbered throng 
 which gave a name to the Democratic party and 
 for which it has assumed to speak. Work-worn and 
 dust-begrimed, they make their sad appeal. They 
 Jiea7^ of aver^age wealth increased on every side and 
 feel the inequality of its distribution. They see 
 an over-production of everything desired because 
 of the underproduction of the ability to buy. They 
 can not pay for loyalty except with their suffrages, 
 and can only punish betrayal with their condemna- 
 tion. Altho the ones who most deserve the foster- 
 ing care of Government, their cries for help too 
 often beat in vain against the outer wall, while 
 others less deserving find ready access to legislative 
 halls. 
 
 This army, vast and daily vaster growing, begs 
 
144 bil YAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 the party to be its champion in the present conflict. 
 It cannot press its claims 'mid sounds of revelry. 
 Its phalanxes do not form in grand parade, nor 
 has it gaudy banners floating on the breeze. Its 
 battle hymn is "Home, Sweet Home," its war cry 
 "equality before the law." To the Democratic 
 party, standing between these two irreconcilable 
 forces, uncertain to which side to turn, and con- 
 scious that upon its choice its fate depends, come 
 the words of Israel's second lawgiver: "Choose 
 you this day whom ye will serve." What will the 
 answer be? Let me invoke the memory of him 
 whose dust made sacred the soil of Monticello when 
 he joined 
 
 The dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule 
 Our spirits from their urns. 
 
 He was called a demagogue and his followers a 
 mob, but the immortal Jefferson dared to follow 
 the best promptings of his heart. He placed man 
 above matter, humanity above property, and, 
 spurning the bribes of wealth and power, pleaded 
 the cause of the common people. It was this devo- 
 tion to their interests which made his party invin- 
 cible while he lived and will make his name revered 
 while history endures. And what message comes 
 to us from the Hermitage? When a crisis like the 
 present arose and the national bank of his day 
 sought to control the politics of the nation, God 
 raised up an Andrew Jackson, who had the cour- 
 age to grapple with that great enemy, and by over- 
 throwing it, he made himself the idol of the people 
 and reinstated the Democratic party in public 
 confidence. What will the decision be to-day ? The 
 
BIMETALISM 145 
 
 Democratic party has won the greatest success in 
 its history. Standing upon this victory-crowned 
 summit, will it turn its face to the rising or the 
 setting sun ? Will it choose blessings or cursings, 
 life or death— which? Which? 
 
Ill 
 
 UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 
 
 Delivered in Congress on Nov. 1, 1893, when it was cer- 
 tain that the purchasing clause of the Sherman act would 
 be repealed. The speech calls attention to the similarity 
 between the bill then before Congress and the bill intro- 
 duced by Senator Sherman the year before. 
 
 R. SPEAKER : Nothing that can be said at 
 this time will affect the fate of this bill, 
 but those gentlemen who vote for it 
 should do so with a full and clear understand- 
 ing of what they are doing. We have been 
 told, sir, that the Democratic platform adopted 
 in 1892 demanded the unconditional repeal of 
 the Sherman law. No person has brought into 
 this House a single platform utterance which will 
 bear out that assertion. The platform does not 
 even demand repeal, not to speak of unconditional 
 repeal. It says: ''We denounce the Republican 
 legislation known as the Sherman act of 1890 as a 
 cowardly makeshift fraught with possibilities of 
 danger in the future, which should make all of its 
 supporters, as well as its author, anxious for its 
 speedy repeal.'' Its author does seem to be ** anx- 
 ious for its speedy repeal, ' ' and in this desire many 
 of its supporters join with him ; but why should a 
 Democratic Congress secure that repeal without 
 first restoring, at least, the law which the Sherman 
 law repealed? Then, too, the denunciation con- 
 tained in the platform is directed against the whole 
 
 (146) 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 
 
 147 
 
 law, not simply against the f)nrchase clause. Yet 
 we are urged to support this bill for the uncondi- 
 tional repeal of the purchase clause only as a Dem- 
 ocratic measure. What is the history of this bill? 
 It is identical in purpose and almost identical in 
 language with a bill introduced by Senator Sher- 
 man July 14, 1892. 
 
 To show the similarity between the bill intro- 
 duced then by Senator Sherman and the bill intro- 
 duced since by Mr. Wilson, I place the two bills 
 in parallel columns, and indicate by italics the 
 words which appear in both bills: 
 
 Fifty-second Congress, first 
 session. S. 3423, intro- 
 duced in the Senate Julj 
 14, 1892, by Mr. Sher- 
 man. 
 A bill for the repeal of cer- 
 tain parts of the act direct- 
 ing the purchase of silver 
 bullion and the issue of 
 Treasury notes thereon, 
 and for other purposes, 
 approved July 14, 1890. 
 Be it enacted hy the Sen- 
 ate and House of Represent- 
 atives of the United States 
 of America in Congress as- 
 sembled, That so much of 
 the act entitled "A7i act di- 
 recting the purchase of sil- 
 ver tullion and the issue of 
 Treasury notes thereon, and 
 for other purposes" ap- 
 proved July 14, 1890, as di- 
 rects the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to purchase, from 
 time to time, silver bullion 
 to the aggregate amount of 
 4,500,000 ounces, or so much 
 
 Fifty-third Congress, first 
 session. H. R. 1, intro- 
 duced in the House Au- 
 gust 11, 1893, by Mr. 
 Wilson. 
 A bill to repeal a part of an 
 act, approved July 14, 
 1890, entitled "An act di- 
 recting the purchase of sil- 
 ver bullion and the issue 
 of Treasury notes thereon, 
 and for other purposes." 
 Be it enacted by the Sen- 
 ate and House of Represent- 
 atives of the United States 
 of America in Congress as- 
 sembled, That so much of 
 the act approved July 14, 
 1890, entitled "An act di- 
 recting the purchase of sil- 
 ver bullion and issue of 
 Treasury notes thereon, and 
 for other purposes" as di- 
 rects the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to purchase, from 
 time to time, silver bullion 
 to the aggregate amount of 
 4,500,000 ounces, or so much 
 
148 
 
 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 thereof as may be offered in 
 each month, at the market 
 price thereof, and to issue 
 in payment for such pur- 
 chases of silver bullion 
 Treasury notes of the United 
 iStatcs is hereby repealed, to 
 take effect on the 1st day 
 of January, 1893 ; Pro- 
 vided, That this act shall 
 not in any way affect or 
 impair or change the legal 
 qualities, redemption or use 
 ,t>f the Treasury notes is- 
 sued under said act. 
 
 thereof as may be offered in 
 each month, at the market 
 price thereof, not exceeding 
 $1 for 371.25 grains of pure 
 silver, and to issue in pay- 
 ment for such purchases 
 Treasury notes of the United 
 States, be, and the same is 
 hereby repealed; but this re- 
 peal shall not impair or in 
 any manner affect the legal- 
 tender quality of the stand- 
 ard silver dollars heretofore 
 coined ; and the faith and 
 credit of the United States 
 are hereby pledged to main- 
 tain the parity of the stand- 
 ard gold and silver coins of 
 the United States at the 
 present legal ratio, or such 
 other ratio as may be es- 
 tablished by law. 
 
 Does the Senator from Ohio originate Democratic 
 measures ? 
 
 The gentlemen who favor this bill may follow 
 the leadership of Senator Sherman and call it 
 Democratic ; but until he is converted to true prin- 
 ciples of finance I shall not follow him, nor will I 
 apply to his financial policy the name of Democracy 
 or honesty. The Wilson bill passed the House, but 
 a majority of the Democrats voted in favor of 
 substituting the Bland law in the place of the Sher- 
 man law before they voted for unconditional repeal, 
 showing that they were not for unconditional repeal 
 imtil Republican votes had deprived them of that 
 which they preferred to unconditional repeal, 
 namely, the Bland law. When the bill in its present 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 149 
 
 form was reported to the Senate, four of the Dem- 
 ocratic members of the Finance Committee opposed 
 the bill and only two Democrats favored it. When 
 the bill passed the Senate, twenty-two Democrats 
 were recorded in favor of the bill and twenty-two 
 against it, and that, too, in spite of the fact that 
 every possible influence was brought to bear to 
 secure Democratic support for the measure. Be- 
 fore a vote was reached thirty-seven Democratic 
 Senators agreed to a compromise, so that this bill 
 does not come to us expressing the free and volun- 
 tary desire of the Democratic party. 
 
 Not only does unconditional repeal fail to carry 
 out the pledge made in the last national platform, 
 but it disregards the most important part of the 
 financial plank, in not redeeming the promise to 
 maintain *'the coinage of both gold and silver, 
 without discrimination against either metal or 
 charge for mintage." That promise meant some- 
 thing. It was a square declaration in favor of 
 bimetalism. The tail to this bill, added in the 
 Senate as an amendment, pretends to promise a 
 future fulfillment of platform })ledges. We are 
 not here to promise, but to fulfil. We are not here 
 to renew platform pledges, but to carry them out. 
 But even if it were our duty to postpone bimetalism 
 and record another promise, the Senate amendment 
 eliminates from the platform the important declar- 
 ation in favor of "the coinage of both gold and 
 silver without discrimination against either metal 
 or charge for mintage." To show the important 
 difference between the Senate amendment and that 
 
150 
 
 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 part of our platform, I arrange them in parallel 
 columns and designate the discarded words by 
 italics. 
 
 THE SENATE AMENDMENT. 
 
 And it is hereby declared 
 to be the policy of the 
 United States to continue 
 the use of both gold and sil- 
 ver as standard money, and 
 to coin both gold and silver 
 into money of equal intrinsic 
 and exchangeable value, 
 such equality to be secured 
 through international agree- 
 ment, or by such safeguards 
 of legislation as will insure 
 the maintenance of the par- 
 ity in value of the coins of 
 the two metals and the equal 
 power of every dollar at all 
 times in the markets and in 
 the payment of debts. And 
 it is hereby further declared 
 that the efforts of the Gov- 
 ernment should be steadily 
 directed to the establishment 
 of such safe system of bi- 
 metalism as will maintain 
 at all times the equal power 
 of every dollar coined or is- 
 sued by the United States, 
 in the markets and in the 
 payment of debts. 
 
 Were those important words stricken out by 
 intention or was it simply an oversight? No, Mr. 
 Speaker, those words were purposely left out be- 
 cause those who are behind the bill never intended 
 to carry out the Democratic platform; and if we 
 can judge their purpose by their acts those who 
 prepared the platform never intended when it was 
 
 DEMOCRATIC PLATFOBM. 
 
 We hold to the use of 
 both gold and silver as the 
 standard money of the coun- 
 try, and to the coinage of 
 both gold and silver without 
 discrimination against either 
 metal or charge for mintage, 
 but the dollar unit of coin- 
 age of both metals must be 
 of equal intrinsic and ex- 
 changeable value or be ad- 
 justed through international 
 agreement, or by such safe- 
 guards of legislation as shall 
 insure the maintenance of 
 the parity of the two metals 
 and the equal power of 
 every dollar at all times in 
 the markets and in the pay- 
 ment of all debts. 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 151 
 
 written that it should be fulfilled after it had se- 
 cured the suffrage of the American people. 
 
 When they had a strike at Homestead some time 
 ago they used force to remedy what they consid- 
 ered their grievances. We said then that the 
 ballot, not the bullet, was the means by which the 
 American people redressed their grievances. What 
 shall we say now when people elected upon a plat- 
 form and pledged to a principle disregard those 
 pledges when they come to the legislative halls? 
 It is a blow at representative government which 
 we cannot afford to give. We are not sent here 
 because we know more than others and can think 
 for them. We are sent here to carry out the wishes, 
 to represent the interests, and to protect the rights 
 of those who sent us. What defense can we make 
 if this bill is passed? It is not demanded by the 
 people; the farmers and laborers w^ho constitute 
 the great bulk of our people have never asked for 
 it; those who speak for their organizations have 
 never prayed for it. 
 
 So far as the laborer has been heard from, he has 
 denounced unconditional repeal; so far as the 
 farmer has been heard from, he has denounced un- 
 conditional repeal. Who gave the Eastern capital- 
 ists the right to speak for these men. It is a 
 contest between the producers of wealth and those 
 who exchange or absorb it. We have heard a great 
 deal about business interests and business men 
 demanding repeal. Who are the business men? 
 Are not those entitled to that name who are engaged 
 in the production of the necessaries of life? Is 
 the farmer less a business man than the broker, 
 
152 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 because the former spends three hundred and sixty- 
 five days in producing a crop which will not bring 
 him over a dollar a day for his labor, while the 
 latter can make ten times the farmer's annual 
 income in one successful bet on the future price 
 of the farmer's product? I protest, Mr. Speaker, 
 against the use of the name business men in such 
 a way as to exclude the largest and most valuable 
 class of business men in the country. Unconditional 
 repeal stops the issue of money. "With this law 
 gone, no more silver certificates can be issued, and 
 no more silver bought. There is no law to provide 
 for the issue of greenbacks. We must rely for our 
 additional currency upon our share of the limited 
 supply of gold, and the bank notes which national 
 banks may find it profitable to issue. 
 
 Does anybody deny that our currency must in- 
 crease as our population increases and as our need 
 for money increases? Does any one believe that 
 our need for money can be supplied without affirm- 
 ative legislation? Is it any more wise to destroy 
 the present means for increasing our currency 
 before a new plan is adopted than it would be to 
 repeal the McKinley tariff act without putting some 
 other revenue measure in its place? Our platform 
 says: "AVe denounce the McKinley tariff law 
 enacted by the Fifty -first Congress as the culminat- 
 ing atrocity of class legislation," and ''we promise 
 its repeal as one of the beneficent results that will 
 follow the action of the people in entrusting power 
 to the Democratic party." We also demanded a 
 tariff for revenue only. Is there any more reason 
 for separating the repeal of the Sherman law from 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 153 
 
 the enactment of bimetalic legislation than there 
 is for separating the repeal of the McKinley bill 
 from the enactment of a "tariff for revenue only" 
 measure ? Having harmonized with Mr. Sherman, 
 shall we proceed to harmonize with Mr. McKinley? 
 There are many Republicans who tell us now that 
 the prospect of tariff reduction has destroyed confi- 
 dence to a greater extent than the Sherman law 
 has. 
 
 In order to avoid another manufacturer's panic 
 will it be necessary to abandon another tenet of 
 the Democratic faith and give up all hope of tariff 
 reduction ? Unconditional repeal will make it more 
 difficult to restore free bimetalic coinage. It can 
 not aid bimetalism without disappointing the dear- 
 est hopes of those gentlemen who are most active 
 in its support. If it were not so serious a matter 
 it would be interesting to note the mortification 
 which must come either to the gold supporters or 
 to the silver supporters of unconditional repeal. 
 They are working in perfect harmony to secure 
 exactly opposite results by means of this bill. Who 
 will be deceived? This is only the first step. It 
 will be followed by an effort to secure an issue of 
 bonds to maintain gold payments. Senator Sher- 
 man, the new prophet of Democracy, has already 
 stated that bonds must be issued, and we know 
 that last spring the whole pressure of the moneyed 
 interest was brought to bear to secure an issue of 
 bonds then. Do you say that Congress would not 
 dare to authorize the increase of the public debt in 
 
 time of peace? What is there that this Congress 
 I u 
 
154 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 may not dare to do after it has given its approval 
 to the iniquitous measure now before us? 
 
 It has also been suggested that the silver dollars 
 now on hand be limited in their legal-tender qual- 
 ities. We need not be surprized if this suggestion 
 assumes real form in attempted legislation. It has 
 already been proposed to increase the circulation 
 of national banks and thus approve of a policy 
 which our party has always denounced. But we 
 need be surprized at nothing now. The party can 
 never undergo a more complete transformation 
 upon any question than it has upon the silver 
 question, if the representatives reflect the senti- 
 ments of those who sent them here. We have been 
 told of the great blessings which are to follow un- 
 conditional repeal. Every rise in stocks has been 
 paraded as a forerunner of coming prosperity. I 
 have taken occasion to examine the quotations on 
 one of the staple products of the farm, and in order 
 to secure a basis for calculation, I have taken wheat 
 for December delivery. 
 
 I give below the New York quotations on Decem- 
 ber wheat, taken from the New York Prices Current. 
 The quotations are for the first day of the months 
 of June, July, August, September, October and 
 October 30, or as near those dates as could be gath- 
 ered from the Prices Current, which is published 
 about twice a week: 
 
 June 1, December wheat, 83^. 
 
 (Special session called June 30, to meet August 7.) 
 
 July 1, December wheat, 81 1/^. 
 
 August 1, December wheat, 75. 
 
 (Congress convened August 7.) 
 
 September 1, December wheat, 74T/^. 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 155 
 
 (Senate debate continuing.) 
 
 October 1, December wheat, 74^. 
 
 (Compromise abandoned and repeal assured about Octo- 
 ber 23.) 
 
 October 30, December wheat, 71 1^. 
 
 (Unconditional repeal passed Senate evening of October 
 30.) 
 
 October 31, December wheat (Post-marked report), 69i/^. 
 
 The following is an extract from the market 
 report touching the general situation in New York 
 and the grain market in Chicago. The report ap- 
 pears in the morning issue of the Washington Post, 
 November 1. 
 
 BIG SCRAMBLE TO SELL — THE CHANGE OF SENTIMENT WAS A 
 
 SLTRPEISE TO THE STREET — LONDON BEGAN THE RAID 
 
 THOSE WHO BELIEVED THE PASSAGE O'F THE REPEAL BILL 
 WOULD LEAD TO HEAVY BUYING ORDERS, AND HAD PUB- 
 CHASED tOR A RISE. ALSO TURNED SELLERS AND SACRIFICED 
 THEIR HOLDINGS — RALLIED A LITTLE AS THE MARKET CLOSED 
 — THE BUSINESS ON 'CHANGE. 
 
 New York, Octoher 31. 
 
 Yesterday's vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman 
 silver law did not have the effect on the stock market that 
 the bulls expected. In the first place London cabled orders 
 to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local 
 operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate 
 would result in a flood of buying orders. The liquidations 
 for foreign account induced selling by operators who had 
 added to their lines on the belief that the repeal of the silver 
 purchase act would instantaneously bring about a boom. 
 
 When it was seen that instead of buying the outside pub- 
 lic was disposed to sell the weak-kneed bulls tried to get out. 
 
 Chicago, October 31. 
 Wheat was very weak throughout the entire session to- 
 day. The opening was about 1 per cent, per bushel lower 
 than the closing figures of Saturday, became weak, and after 
 some minor fluctuations prices further declined 1^ to 2, 
 then held steady, and the closing was 2i^ to 2^/^ lower than 
 the last prices of Saturday. There was some surprize at the 
 course of the market, which became consternation, and at one 
 time amounted almost to a panic, when little or no reaction 
 
156 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 appeared and the price continued to sink. The fact of the 
 matter was that traders were loaded with wheat and were 
 merely waiting for the opportunity to sell. The bulge toward 
 the end of last week gave them this chance and they were 
 quick to take advantage of it. The silver repeal bill having 
 been discounted for several days had little or no effect in the 
 matter of sustaining prices. New York stocks were weak 
 and much lower and this speculative feeling was communi- 
 cated to wheat. New Yorkers who have been the big bulls 
 for so long were selling today, and it was said that there 
 were numerous orders from abroad on that side of the 
 market. 
 
 Corn was dull, the range being within three-eighths of a 
 cent limit. The tone was steady and at times an undertone 
 of firmness was noticeable, altho prices did not show any 
 essential changes. The accumulations of cash corn during 
 the past three days were the cause of a somewhat liberal 
 offerings of futures early, but after a time they became light 
 and the market dull. The opening was at a decline of y^ to 
 ^. but on a good demand an advance of % was made, re- 
 ceding ^ to % later, and closing % to % under the final 
 figures of Saturday. 
 
 Oats were featureless, but the feeling was steady. There 
 was very little trading and price changes were within ^4 
 cent limit, the closing being % below Saturday. 
 
 From the statement given it will appear that 
 wheat has fallen more than 14 cents a bushel since 
 the beginning of the month in which President 
 Cleveland issued his call for the extra session. The 
 wheat crop for 1892 was about 500,000,000 bushels. 
 A fall of 1 cent in price means a loss of $5,000,000 
 on the crop if those figures can be taken for this 
 year's crop. Calculated upon December wheat the 
 loss since June 1 has been over $70,000,000, or one- 
 sixth of its value at the beginning of the decline. 
 The fall of 2 cents on yesterday alone, after the 
 repeal bill passed the Senate and its immediate 
 passage in the House was assured, amounted to 
 $10,000,000. The fall yesterday in wheat, corn, and 
 
UNCONDITIONAL REPEAL 157 
 
 oats calculated upon a year's crop amounted to 
 more than $17,000,000. Are these the first fruits 
 of repeal? Wall street was terribly agitated at 
 the prospect of a slight reduction in the gold re- 
 serve. Will they take no notice of this tremendous 
 reduction in the farmer's reserve? The market 
 report quoted above says : 
 
 "Yesterday's vote by the Senate repealing the Sherman 
 silver law did not have the effect on the stock market that 
 the bulls expected. In the first place London cabled orders 
 to sell various stocks, much to the disappointment of local 
 operators, who were confident that the action of the Senate 
 would result in a flood of buying orders.'' 
 
 Is it possible that instead of money flowing to 
 us, it is going to flow away in spite of repeal ? The 
 argument most persistently made by the advocates 
 of repeal was that money would at once flow to this 
 country from Europe and relieve us of our strin- 
 gency in the money market. The business centers 
 became impatient because the Senate insisted upon 
 a thorough discussion. Some of the papers even 
 suggested that the Senate ought to be abolished 
 because it stood in the way of the restoration of 
 confidence. Finally the opposition was worn out, 
 the bill was passed, just as the metropolitan press 
 demanded, and behold it was greeted in the market 
 by a general decline. We may now expect to hear 
 that the vague, indefinite, and valueless tail added 
 in the Senate as an amendment has prevented 
 returning confidence, and that it is our highest 
 duty to repeal the caudal appendage of the Wilson 
 bill, just as the repeal of the purchase clause of 
 the Sherman law was demanded. For twenty years 
 we have denounced the demonetization act of 1873, 
 
158 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 and yet we are now prepared with our eyes open, 
 fully conscious of what we are doing, to perpetrate 
 the same crime. We leave silver just where it was 
 left then, except that there was provision then for 
 trade dollars which this bill does not contain. You 
 may assume the responsibility. I shall not. 
 
 The line of battle is laid down. The President's 
 letter to Governor Northen expresses his opposition 
 to the free and unlimited coinage of silver by this 
 country alone. Upon that issue the next Congres- 
 sional contest will be fought. Are we dependent 
 or independent as a nation ? Shall we legislate for 
 ourselves or shall we beg some foreign nation to 
 help us provide for the financial wants of our own 
 people ? 
 
 We need not fear the result of such a contest. 
 
 The patriotism of the American people is not 
 yet gone, and we can confidently await their de- 
 cision. 
 
IV 
 AN INCOME TAX 
 
 Delivered in Congress on Jan. 30, 1894, during the dis- 
 cussion of the income tax amendment to th© Wilson Bill. 
 Mr. Bryan was a member of the subcommittee of the Ways 
 and Means Committee which framed the income tax amend- 
 ment. 
 
 MR. CHAIRMAN: What is this bill which 
 has brought forth the vehement attack to 
 which we have just listened? It is a bill 
 reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, as 
 the complement of the tariff bill. It, together with 
 the tariff measure already considered, provides the 
 necessary revenue for the support of the Govern- 
 ment. The point of attack is the income tax, indi- 
 vidual and corporation (which is expected to raise 
 about $30,000,000), and to that I will devote the 
 few minutes which are allowed for closing the de- 
 bate. 
 
 The gentleman from New York insists that suffi- 
 cient revenue will be raised from the tariff schedules, 
 together with the present internal-revenue taxes, 
 and that it is therefore unnecessary to seek new 
 objects for taxation. In this opinion he is not sup- 
 ported by the other members of the committee, and 
 we have been constrained to follow our own judg- 
 ment rather than his. The internal-revenue bill 
 which is now pending as an amendement to the 
 tariff bill imposes a tax of 2 per cent, upon the 
 
 (159) 
 
160 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 net incomes of corporations, and in the case of cor- 
 porations no exemption is allowed. 
 
 I need not give all the reasons which led the 
 committee to recommend this tax, but will suggest 
 two of the most important. The stockholder in a 
 corporation limits his liability. When the statute 
 creating the corporation is fully complied with the 
 individual stockholder is secure, except to the ex- 
 tent fixed by the statute, whereas the entire prop- 
 erty of the indi^ddual is ordinarily liable for his 
 debts. Another reason is that corporations enjoy 
 certain privileges and franchises. Some are given 
 the right of eminent domain, while others, such as 
 street-car companies, are given the right to use the 
 streets of the city — a franchise which increases in 
 value with each passing year. Corporations occupy 
 the time and attention of our Federal courts and 
 enjoy the protection of the Federal Government 
 and as they do not ordinarily pay taxes the com- 
 mittee felt justified in proposing a light tax upon 
 them. 
 
 Some gentlemen have accused the committee of 
 showing hostility to corporations. But, Mr. Chair- 
 man, we are not hostile to corporations ; we simply 
 believe that these creatures of the law, these ficti- 
 tious persons, have no higher or dearer rights 
 than the persons of flesh and blood whom God 
 created and placed upon his footstool. The bill 
 also imposes a tax of 2 per cent, upon individual 
 incomes in excess of $4,000. We have proposed 
 the maximum of exemption and the minimum of 
 rate. The principle is not new in this country. For 
 nearly ten years, during and after the war, an in- 
 
AN INCOME TAX 161 
 
 come tax was levied, varying from 2^^ to 10 per 
 cent., while the exemption ranged from $600 to 
 $2,000. In England the rate for 1892 was a little 
 more than 2 per cent., the amount exempt, $750, 
 with an additional deduction of $600 on incomes 
 of less than $2,000. The tax has been in force there 
 in various forms for more than fifty years. 
 
 In Prussia the income tax has been in operation 
 for about twenty years; incomes under 900 marks 
 are exempt, and the tax ranges from less than 1 
 per cent, to about 4 per cent., according to the 
 size of the income. 
 
 Austria has tried the income tax for thirty years, 
 the exemption being about $113, and the rate rang- 
 ing from 8 per cent, up to 20 per cent. 
 
 A large sum is collected from an income tax in 
 Italy; only incomes under $77.20 are exempt, and 
 the rate runs up as high as 13 per cent, on some 
 incomes. 
 
 In the Netherlands the income tax has been in 
 operation since 1823. At present, incomes under 
 $260 are exempt, and the rate ranges from 2 per 
 cent, to 3 1-5 per cent., the latter rate being paid 
 upon incomes in excess of $3,280. 
 
 In Zurich, Switzerland, the income tax has been 
 in operation for more than half a century. Incomes 
 under $100 are exempt, and the rate ranges from 
 about 1 per cent, to almost 8 per cent., according 
 to the size of the income. 
 
 It will thus be seen that the income tax is no 
 new device, and it will also be noticed that the 
 committee has proposed a tax lighter in rate and 
 
162 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 more liberal in exemption than that imposed in any 
 of the countries named. 
 
 If I were consulting my own preference I would 
 rather have a graduated tax, and I believe that 
 such a tax could be defended not only upon prin- 
 ciple, but upon grounds of public policy as well ; 
 but I gladly accept this bill as offering a more 
 equitable plan for making up the deficit in our 
 revenues than any other Avhich has been proposed. 
 The details of the bill will be discussed to-morrow 
 under the five-minute rule, and any necessary 
 changes can be made. 
 
 The committee presents the bill after careful 
 consideration, but will cheerfully accept any 
 changes which the wisdom of the House may sug- 
 gest. The bill not only exempts from taxation, but 
 from annoyance as well, every persons whose income 
 is below $3,500. This is an important feature of 
 the bill. In order to guard against fraud the bill 
 provides that every person having an income of 
 more than $3,500 shall make a return under oath, 
 but no tax is collected unless the net income ex- 
 ceeds $4,000. The bill also provides severe penalties 
 to restrain the tax-collector from disclosing any 
 information gained from the returns made by citi- 
 zens. 
 
 And now, Mr. Chairman, let us consider the 
 objections which have been made. The gentleman 
 from New York []\Ir. Bartlett] who addressed 
 the House this forenoon, spent some time in trying 
 to convince us that, while the Supreme Court had 
 without dissent affirmed the constitutionality of an 
 income tax, yet it might at some future time reverse 
 
AN INCOME TAX 163 
 
 the decision, and that, therefore, this bill ought to 
 be rejected. This question has been settled beyond 
 controversy. The principle has come before the 
 court on several occasions, and the decisions have 
 always sustained the constitutionality of the income 
 tax. (Hylton vs. United States, 3 Dall., 171 ; Deasie 
 Bank vs. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533 ; Scholey vs. Eew, 23 
 Wall., 331 ; Pacific Insurance Company vs. Soule, 
 7 Wall., 433.) 
 
 In Springer vs. United States ( 102 United States, 
 586) the question was directly raised upon the law 
 in force from 1863 to 1873, and the court held that 
 the income tax as then collected was not a direct 
 tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and 
 therefore need not be apportioned among the States 
 according to their population. 
 
 But gentlemen have denounced the income tax 
 as class legislation, because it will affect more peo- 
 ple in one section of the country than in another. 
 Because the wealth of the country is, to a large 
 extent, centered in certain cities and States does 
 not make a bill sectional which imposes a tax in 
 proportion to wealth. If New York and Massa- 
 chusetts pay more tax under this law than other 
 States, it will be because they have more taxable 
 incomes within their borders. And why should 
 not those sections pay most which enjoy most ? 
 
 The census shows that the population of Massa- 
 chusetts increased less than half a miUion between 
 1880 and 1890, while the assessed value of her 
 property increased more than half a billion during 
 the same period. The population of New York 
 increased about 900,000 between 1880 and 1890, 
 
164 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 while the assessed value of the property increased 
 more than $1,100,000,000. On the other hand, while 
 the population of Iowa and Kansas combined in- 
 creased more than 700,000, their assessed valuation 
 increased only a little more than $300,000,000. This 
 bill is not in the line of class legislation, nor can 
 it be regarded as legislation against a section, for 
 the rate of taxation is the same on every income 
 over $4,000, whether its possessor lives upon the 
 Atlantic coast, in the Mississippi Valley or on the 
 Pacific Slope. I only hope that we may in the 
 future have more farmers in the agricultural dis- 
 tricts whose incomes are large enough to tax. 
 
 But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cock- 
 ran] has denounced as unjust the principle under- 
 lying this tax. It is hardly necessary to read au- 
 thorities to the House. There is no more just tax 
 upon the statute books than the income tax, nor 
 can any tax be proposed which is more equitable; 
 and the principle is sustained by the most distin- 
 guished writers on political economy. 
 
 Adam Smith says : 
 
 "The subjects of every State ought to contribute to the 
 support of the Government, as nearly as possible in pro- 
 portion to their respective abilities ; that is, in proportion to 
 the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the pro- 
 tection of the State. In the observation or neglect of this 
 maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of 
 taxation." 
 
 The income tax is the only one which really ful- 
 fills this requirement. But it is said that we single 
 out some person with a large income and make him 
 pay more than his share. And let me call attention 
 here to a fatal mistake made by the distinguished 
 
AN INCOME TAX 165 
 
 gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran]. You 
 who listened to his speech would have thought that 
 the income tax was the only Federal tax proposed ; 
 you would have supposed that it was the object of 
 this bill to collect the entire revenue from an in- 
 come tax. The gentleman forgets that the pend- 
 ing tariff bill will collect upon imports more than 
 one hundred and twenty millions of dollars — nearly 
 ten times as much as we propose to collect from 
 the individual income tax. Everybody knows that 
 a tax upon consumption is an unequal tax, and that 
 the poor man by means of it pays far out of propor- 
 tion to the income which he enjoys. 
 
 I read the other day in the New York World — 
 and I gladly join in ascribing praise to that great 
 daily for its courageous fight upon this subject in 
 behalf of the common people — a description of the 
 home of the richest woman in the United States. 
 She owns property estimated at $60,000,000, and 
 enjoys an income which can scarcely be less than 
 $3,000,000, yet she lives at a cheap boarding house, 
 and only spends a few hundred dollars a year. That 
 woman, under your indirect system of taxation, 
 does not pay as much toward the support of the 
 Federal Government as a laboring man whose in- 
 come of $500 is spent upon his family. 
 
 Why, sir, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
 Cockran] said that the poor are opposed to this 
 tax because they do not want to be deprived of 
 participation in it, and that taxation instead of 
 being a sign of servitude is a badge of freedom. 
 If taxation is a badge of freedom, let me assure 
 
166 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 my friend that the poor people of this country are 
 covered all over with the insignia of freemen. 
 
 Notwithstanding the exemption proposed by this 
 bill, the people whose incomes are less than $4,000 
 will still contribute far more than their just share 
 to the support of the Government. The gentleman 
 says that he opposes this tax in the interest of the 
 poor ! Oh, sirs, is it not enough to betray the cause ^ 
 of the poor — must it be done with a kiss? 
 
 Would it not be fairer for the gentleman to fling 
 his burnished lance full in the face of the toiler, 
 and not plead for the great fortunes of this country 
 under cover of the poor man's name? The gentle- 
 man also tells us that the rich will welcome this 
 tax as a means of securing greater power. Let me 
 call your attention to the resolutions passed by 
 the New York Chamber of Commerce. I wonder 
 how many poor men have membership in that body ! 
 Here are the resolutions passed at a special meet- 
 ing called for the purpose. The newspaper account 
 says : 
 
 "Resolutions were adopted declaring *the proposal to im- 
 pose an income tax is unwise, unpolitic and unjust for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 " 'First. E'xperience during our late war demonstrated 
 that an income tax was inquisitorial and odious to our people, 
 and only tolerated as a war measure, and was abrogated by 
 universal consent as soon as the condition of the country 
 permitted. 
 
 " 'Second. Experience has also shown that it is expensive 
 to put in operation ; that it can not be fairly collected, and 
 is an unjust distribution of the burdens of taxation and pro- 
 motes evasions of the law. 
 
 " 'Third. The proposal to exempt incomes under $4,000 is 
 purely class legislation, which is socialistic and vicious in its 
 tendency, and contrary to the traditions and principles of 
 republican government.' 
 
AN INCOME TAX 167 
 
 "Still another resolution was adopted declaring 'that in 
 addition to an internal-revenue tax the necessary expenses 
 of the Government should be collected through the custom- 
 house, and that the Senators and Representatives in Con- 
 gress from the State of New York be requested to strenuously 
 oppose all attempts to reimpose an income tax upon the peo- 
 ple of this country.' " 
 
 They say that the income tax was ''only toler- 
 ated as a war measure, and was abrogated by uni- 
 versal consent as soon as the condition of the coun- 
 try permitted." Abrogated by universal consent! 
 What refreshing ignorance from such an intelligent 
 source! If their knowledge of other facts recited 
 in those resolutions is as accurate as that state- 
 ment, how much weight their resolutions ought to 
 have! Why, sir, there never has been a day since 
 the war when a majority of the people of the United 
 States opposed an income tax. It was only repealed 
 by one vote in the Senate, and when under consider- 
 ation was opposed by such distinguished Republi- 
 cans as Senator Sherman of Ohio, Senator Morton 
 of Indiana, and Senator Howe of Wisconsin. It 
 was also opposed in the House by Mr. Voorhees, 
 and by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hol- 
 man] 
 
 ]\Ir. Patterson. And by Roger Q. Mills. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Yes, by Roger Q. Mills, I am in- 
 formed, and a host of others. Not only did the 
 Senators mentioned oppose repeal, but they spoke 
 with emphasis in favor of the justice of an income 
 tax. 
 
 Senator Sherman said : 
 
 "The Senator from New York and the Senator from Mas- 
 sachusetts have led off in declaring against the income ta^. 
 They have declared it to be invidious. Well, sir, all taxes 
 
168 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 are invidious. They say it is inquisitorial. Well, sir, there 
 never was a tax in the world that was not inquisitorial. 
 
 "The least inquisitorial of all is the income tax. 
 
 "I hope that, after full discussion, nobody will vote for 
 striking out the income tax. It seems to me to be one of 
 the plainest propositions in the world. Put before the peo- 
 ple of the United States the question whether the property 
 of this country can not stand a tax of $20,000,000, when 
 the consumption of the people stands a tax of $300,000,000, 
 and I think they will quickly answer it. The property- 
 holders of the country came here and demanded the repeal 
 of the only tax that bears upon their property, when we 
 have to tax everything for the food of the poor, the clothing 
 of the poor, and all classes of our people $300,000,000. 
 
 "There never was so just a tax levied as the income tax. 
 
 "There is no objection that can be urged against the in- 
 come tax that I can not point to in every tax. 
 
 "Writers on political economy, as well as our own senti- 
 ments of what is just and right, teach us that a man ought to 
 pay taxes according to his income and in no other way." 
 
 Could language be stronger or more pertinent to 
 the present discussion? 
 
 Senator Howe said: 
 
 "There is not a tax on the books so little felt, so abso- 
 lutely unfelt in the payment of it, as this income tax by the 
 possessors of the great fortunes upon which it falls." 
 
 "There is not a poor man in this country, not a laborer 
 in this country, but what contributes more than 3, more 
 than 10, more than 20 per cent, of all his earnings to the 
 Treasury of the United States under those very laws against 
 which I am protesting; and now we are invited to increase 
 their contributions, and to release these trifling contribu- 
 tions which we have been receiving from incomes hereto- 
 fore." 
 
 Senator Morton said: 
 
 "The State taxation in Indiana, and, I undertake to say, 
 of every State in the Union, has in it every inquisitorial 
 feature that the income tax has. 
 
 "The income tax is of all others the most equitable, 
 because it is the truest measure that has yet been found 
 of the productive property of the country." 
 
AN INCOME TAX 169 
 
 The Chamber of Commerce, in its anxiety to 
 defeat this tax, has distorted the facts of history, 
 and yet the gentleman from New York says that 
 the rich favor the law. If, sirs, they favor the law, 
 why is it that the opposition of the law comes only 
 from the districts in which the wealthy live? Are 
 the Representatives from those districts unwilling 
 to do what their people want done, and is it neces- 
 sary for the great agricultural districts to come 
 here and force upon the rich districts of the United 
 States a tax which the rich love so much 1 
 
 The gentleman from New York says that this tax 
 is inquisitorial, that it pries into a man's private 
 business. I sent to New York and obtained from 
 the city chamberlain copies of assessment blanks 
 used. The chamberlain writes: ''The matter of 
 assessing personal taxes is arrived at by interroga- 
 tion of the persons assessed by either of the com- 
 missioners, which is a very rigorous cross-examina- 
 tion in reference to the amount of personal property 
 they have, and reductions are only made by an affi- 
 davit asking for the same and sworn to before a 
 tax commissioner of this county." 
 
 The citizen, after giving in detail his stock in 
 various banks, makes oath that "the full value of 
 all personal property, exclusive of said bank shares 
 owned by deponent (and not exempt by law from 
 taxation) on the second Monday in January, 189 — , 
 
 did not exceed $ ; that the just debts owing by 
 
 deponent on said date amounted to $ , and that 
 
 no portion of such debts has been deducted from 
 
 I 15 
 
170 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 the assessment of any personal property of de- 
 ponent, other than said bank shares, or has been 
 used as an offset in the adjustment of any assess- 
 ment for personal property, whether in this or in 
 any other county or State, for the year 189 — , or 
 incurred in the purchase of non-taxable property or 
 securities, or for the purpose of evading taxation." 
 
 Is the proposed tax any more inquisitorial than 
 that? 
 
 In Connecticut the citizen is required to give the 
 number and value of various domestic animals, the 
 number of watches, the value of jewelry, household 
 furniture, library, etc. ; also bonds, stocks, money at 
 interest, and money on deposit. Is the proposed 
 tax any more inquisitorial than that ? 
 
 In Nebraska the citizen is compelled to give the 
 number and value of all domestic animals, watches, 
 diamonds, jewelry, money, credits, etc., and what is 
 true in Nebraska is true generally of all the States. 
 Is an income tax more inquisitorial than those taxes 
 upon personal property? I insist, sirs, that the in- 
 come tax provided for in this bill is less inquisi- 
 torial in its nature than the taxes which are found 
 in every State in the Union. 
 
 But they say that the income tax invites perjury ; 
 that the man who has a large income will swear 
 falsely, and thus avoid the payment of the tax ; and, 
 indeed, the gentleman from IMassachusetts [Mr. 
 Walker] admitted that his district was full of such 
 people, and he said that our districts were, too. I 
 suppose these constituents whom he accuses of per- 
 jury are expected to pat him on the back when he 
 
AN INCOME TAX 171 
 
 goes home and brag about the compliment he paid 
 them. [Laughter and applause.] 
 
 If there is a man in my district whose veracity is 
 not worth 2 cents on the dollar, who will perjure 
 himself to avoid the payment of a just tax imposed 
 by law, I am going to wait until he pleads guilty 
 before I make that charge against him. 
 
 They say that we must be careful not to invite 
 perjury. Why, sirs, this Government has too much 
 important business on hand to spend its time trying 
 to bolster up the morality of men who cannot be 
 trusted to swear to their incomes. And let me sug- 
 gest that gentlemen who come to this House and tell 
 us that their districts are full of such persons are 
 treading upon dangerous ground. If a man will 
 hold up his hand to Heaven and perjure his soul to 
 avoid a 2 per cent, tax due to his Government, how 
 can you trust such a man when he goes into court 
 and testifies in a case in which he has a personal 
 interest ? 
 
 If your districts are full of perjurers, if your 
 districts are full of men who violate with impunity 
 not only the laws but their oaths, do you not raise 
 a question as to the honesty of the methods by 
 which they have accumulated their fortunes? In- 
 stead of abandoning just measures for fear some- 
 body will perjure himself, let them be enacted into 
 law, and then if any one perjures himself we can 
 treat him like any other felon, and punish him for 
 his perjury. 
 
 But, gentlemen, say that some people will avoid 
 the tax, and that therefore it is unfair to the people 
 who pay. What law is fully obeyed? Why are 
 
172 BRYAN'S SPEECHES ^ 
 
 criminal courts established, except to punish peo- 
 ple who violate the laws which society has made? 
 The man who pays his tax need not concern himself 
 about the man who avoids it, unless, perhaps, he is 
 willing to help prosecute the delinquent. The man 
 who makes an honest return and complies with the 
 law pays no more than the rate prescribed, and if 
 the possessors of large fortunes escape by fraud the 
 payment of one-half their income tax, they will still 
 contribute far more than they do now to support 
 the Federal Government, and to that extent relieve 
 from burdens those who now pay more than their 
 share. 
 
 The gentleman from New York is especially in- 
 dignant because incomes under $4,000 are exempt. 
 Why, sir, this is not a new principle in legislation. 
 The exemption of very small incomes might be justi- 
 fied on the ground that the cost of collection would 
 exceed the amount collected, but it is not necessary 
 to urge this defense. The propriety of making cer- 
 tain exemptions is everywhere recognized. So far 
 as I have been able to investigate, every country 
 which now imposes or has imposed an income tax 
 has exempted small incomes from taxation. Nearly 
 if not all of our States exempt certain kinds of 
 property, or property to a certain amount. If an 
 exemption tends toward socialism, as urged by the 
 gentleman from New York [Mr. Cockran] and the 
 Chamber of Commerce, is it possible that socialism 
 has taken possession of the States of New York and 
 Connecticut ? 
 
 I find in the assessment blank used in New York 
 the words ''and not exempt by law from taxation," 
 
AN INCOME TAX 173 
 
 indicating that some property is exempt. The gen- 
 tleman from New York had better eradicate this 
 evidence of socialism, as he calls it, from the stat- 
 utes of his own State before he denounces us for 
 following the example set by New York. 
 
 I find from the Connecticut assessment blank 
 that farming utensils to the value of $200, me- 
 chanics' tools to the value of $200, watches and 
 jewelry to the value of $25, musical instruments 
 to the value of $25, household furniture to the 
 value of $500, libraries to the value of $200, and 
 money on deposit to the amount of $100, are all 
 exempt from the personal property tax. What a 
 firm hold socialism seems to have gained upon Con- 
 necticut ! 
 
 The gentlemen who are so fearful of socialism 
 w^hen the poor are exempted from an income tax 
 view with indifference those methods of taxation 
 which give the rich a substantial exemption. They 
 weep more because fifteen millions are to be col- 
 lected from the incomes of the rich than they do 
 at the collection of three hundred millions upon the 
 goods which the poor consume. And when an at- 
 tempt is made to equalize these burdens, not fully, 
 but partially only, the people of the South and 
 West are called anarchists. 
 
 I deny the accusation, sirs. It is among the peo- 
 ple of the South and West, on the prairies and in 
 the mountains, that you find the staunchest sup- 
 porters of government and the best friends of law 
 and order. 
 
 You may not find among these people the great 
 fortunes which are accumulated in cities, nor will 
 
174 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 you find the dark shadows which these fortunes 
 throw over the community, but you wdll find those 
 willing to protect the rights of property, even while 
 they demand that property shall bear its share of 
 taxation. You may not find among them so much 
 of wealth, but you will find men who are not only 
 willing to pay their taxes to support the Govern- 
 ment, but are wdlling whenever necessary to offer 
 up their lives in its defense. 
 
 These people, sir, whom you call anarchists be- 
 cause they ask that the burdens of government 
 shall be equally borne, these people have ever borne 
 the cross on Calvary and saved their country with 
 their blood. 
 
 Mr. George K. Holmes, of the Census Depart- 
 ment, in an article recently published in the Fo- 
 litical Science Quarterly, gives some tables showing 
 the unequal distribution of property, and says: 
 *' Otherwise stated, 91 per cent, of the 12,690,152 
 families of the country own no more than about 29 
 per cent, of the wealth, and 9 per cent, of the fami- 
 lies own about 71 per cent, of the wealth. ' ' 
 
 Is it unfair or unjust that the burden of taxation 
 shall be equalized between these two classes? Who 
 is it most needs a navy ? Is it the farmer wdio plods 
 along behind the plow upon his farm, or is it the 
 man whose property is situated in some great sea- 
 port where it could be reached by an enemy 's guns ? 
 Who demands a standing army? Is it the poor 
 man as he goes about his work, or is it the capitalist 
 who wants that army to supplement the local gov- 
 ernment in protecting his property when he enters 
 into a contest with his employes? For whom are 
 
AN INCOME TAX 175 
 
 the great expenses of the Federal Government in- 
 curred? Why, sir, when we ask that this small 
 pittance shall be contributed to the expenses of the 
 Federal Government, we are asking less than is 
 just rather than more. But the gentleman from 
 New York fears that this amendment will embarrass 
 the bill, and denounces the action of the caucus as 
 treason. 
 
 It has never been the policy of the party to con- 
 trol a member's vote upon the merits of a question 
 by a caucus, and the caucus recently held was not to 
 determine how any one should vote, but simply to 
 decide whether the internal revenue bill should be 
 attached to the tariff bill or brought up subsequent- 
 ly as an independent measure. When a member 
 comes to represent a constituency upon this floor, 
 he is responsible to his conscience and to his con- 
 stituency, and to them alone. But gentlemen will 
 remember that no revenue bill exactly meets the 
 wishes of any one member, and that we are con- 
 tinually compelled to choose between something not 
 w^holly desirable and something else less desirable 
 still. 
 
 Individual Democrats have opposed various tariff 
 schedules, and have opposed them honestly ; but the 
 House, in Committee of the Whole, has agreed upon 
 a certain tariff policy, and the tariff bill as agreed 
 upon leaves a deficit in the revenue. This deficit 
 must be made up, and it must be made up in that 
 way which is most agreeable to a majority of the 
 House. If the pending amendment providing for 
 the income tax is adopted by the House, it then 
 becomes a part of the bill, and upon the final vote 
 
176 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 we shall be called upon to choose between the 
 present law and a tariff-reform measure embodying 
 an income tax. Each one must decide his course 
 for himself. 
 
 If any Democrat who has advocated tariff reform 
 and denounced the present law is willing to go back 
 to his people and say, ''Yes, the McKinley tariff 
 is a crime; its loads are heavy and its opppression 
 great, but I chose to make you bear the injustice 
 still rather than bring you a relief accompanied 
 by a light tax upon incomes," he can settle the 
 matter with those whom he represents. If there 
 be those who are willing to see their fellows op- 
 pressed "with burdens grievous to be borne," and 
 yet "touch not the burdens" lest wealth may be 
 displeased, the rest of us can still carry on the 
 work of tariff reform, even if in so doing we must 
 impose a tax which embodies the just principle 
 observed by Him who "tempers the wind to the 
 shorn lamb." 
 
 And, Mr. Chairman, I desire here to enter m;^ 
 protest against the false political economy tauglu 
 by our opponents in this debate and against the 
 perversion of language which we have witnest. 
 They tell us that it is better to consider expediency 
 than equity in the adjustment of taxation. They 
 tell us that it is right to tax consumption, and thus 
 make the needy pay out of all proportion to their 
 means, but that it is wrong to make a slight com- 
 pensation for this system by exempting small in- 
 comes from an income tax. They tell us that it is 
 wise to limit the use of necessaries of life by heavy 
 indirect taxation, but that it is vicious to lessen 
 
AN INCOIME TAX 177 
 
 the enjoyment of the luxuries of life by a light tax 
 upon large incomes. They tell us that those who 
 make the load heaviest upon persons least able to 
 bear it are distributing the burdens of government 
 with an impartial hand, but that those who insist 
 that each citizen should contribute to government 
 in proportion as God has prospered him are blinded 
 by prejudice against the rich. They call that man i 
 a statesman whose ear is tuned to catch the slightest 
 pulsations of a pocket-book, and denounce as a dem- 
 agogue anyone who dares to listen to the heart-beat 
 of humanity. -^ 
 
 Let me refer again, in conclusion, to the state- 
 ment made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
 Cockran], that the rich people of his city favor 
 the income tax. In a letter which appeared in the 
 New York World on the 7th of this month, "Ward 
 McAllister, the leader of the "Four Hundred," 
 enters a very emphatic protest against the income 
 tax. Here is an extract: 
 
 "In New York City and Brooklyn the local taxation is 
 ridiculously high, in spite of the virtuous protest to the con- 
 trary by the officials in authority. Add to this high local 
 taxation an income tax of 2 per cent, on every income ex- 
 ceeding $4,000, and many of our best people vpill be driven 
 out of the country. An impression seems to exist in the 
 minds of our great Democratic Solons in Congress that a 
 rich man would give up all his wealth for the privilege of 
 living in this country. A very short period of income taxa- 
 tion would show these gentlemen their mistake. The cus- 
 tom is growing from year to year for rich men to go abroad 
 and live, where expenses for the necessaries and luxuries of 
 life are not nearly so high as they are in this country. The 
 United States, in spite of their much-boasted natural re- 
 sources, could not maintain such a strain for any considera- 
 ble length of time." 
 
178 BRYANTS SPEECHES 
 
 But whither will these people fly ? If their tastes 
 •are English, ''quite English, you know," and they 
 stop in London, they will find a tax of more than 
 2 per cent, assessed upon incomes; if they look for 
 a place of refuge in Prussia, they will find an in- 
 come tax of 4 per cent. ; if they search for seclusion 
 among the mountains of Switzerland, they will find 
 an income tax of 8 per cent. ; if they seek repose 
 under the sunny skies of Italy, they will find an in- 
 come tax of more than 12 per cent.; if they take 
 up their abode in Austria, they will find a tax of 
 20 per cent. I repeat. Whither will they fly? 
 
 Mr. Weadock. The gentleman will allow me to 
 suggest that at Monte Carlo such a man would not 
 have to pay any tax at all. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Then, Mr. Chairman, I presume 
 to Monte Carlo he would go, and that there he 
 would give up to the wheel of fortune all the 
 wealth of which he would not give a part to sup- 
 port the Government which enabled him to accumu- 
 late it. 
 
 Are there really any such people in this country ? 
 Of all the mean men I have ever known, I have 
 never known one so mean that I would be willing 
 to say of him that his patriotism was less than 2 
 per cent. deep. 
 
 There is not a man whom I would charge with 
 being willing to expatriate himself rather than 
 contribute from his abundance to the support of 
 the Government that protects him. 
 
 If "some of our best people" prefer to leave 
 the country rather than pay a tax of 2 per cent., 
 God pity the worst. 
 
AN INCOME TAX 179^ 
 
 If we have people who value free government so 
 little that they prefer to live under monarchical 
 institutions, even without an income tax, rather 
 than live under the stars and stripes and pay a 2 
 per cent, tax, we can better afford to lose them 
 and their fortunes than risk the contaminating in- 
 fluence of their presence. 
 
 I will not attempt to characterize such persons. 
 If Mr. McAllister is a true prophet, if we are to 
 lose some of our "best people" by the imposition 
 of an income tax, let them depart, and as they leave 
 without regret the land of their birth, let them go 
 with the poet 's curse ringing in their ears : 
 
 Breathes there the man with soul so dead 
 Who never to himself hath said, 
 
 This is my own, my native land ! 
 Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned, 
 As home his footsteps he hath turned 
 
 From wandering on a foreign strand? 
 If such there breathe, go, mark him well ; 
 For him no minstrel raptures swell : 
 High though his titles, proud his name. 
 Boundless his wealth as wish can claim, 
 Despite those titles, power, and pelf, 
 The wretch, concentered all in self, 
 Living, shall forfeit fair renown. 
 And, doubly dying, shall go down 
 To the vile dust, from whence he sprung, 
 Unwept, unhonored, and unsung. 
 
V 
 THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 
 
 Delivered in Congress on April 10, 1894, the occasion of 
 and reasons for its delivery being stated in the speech. 
 
 R. CHAIRMAN: What I desire to say is 
 not in connection with this bill. I have 
 been trying for several days to get an op- 
 portunity to present a matter of personal interest ; 
 and I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed 
 a few moments just now to present this matter. 
 
 The Chairman. The gentleman from Nebraska 
 asks unanimous consent, in addressing the commit- 
 tee, that he be permitted to go out of the rule and 
 not confine himself strictly to the matter under 
 debate. Is there objection ? (After a pause) : The 
 Chair hears none. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, the matter is this: 
 On last Saturday there appeared in the Times of 
 this city a letter given to the public by the gentle- 
 man from Maine [Mr. Reed] in which he criticized 
 the use I had made, at Denver and other places, 
 of a speech, or a portion of a speech, made by him 
 at Boston on the 25th of last October. I do not 
 want the House to feel that I have done the gen- 
 tleman any injustice, and I desire to have placed 
 in the Record the portion of the speech which I 
 quoted and the criticism. The gentleman says in 
 
 (180) 
 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 181 
 
 the letter (which I will ask the Clerk to read in a 
 few moments) : 
 
 "You will notice that the member of Congress in question, 
 instead of quoting the paragraph in question here in Wash- 
 ington, where it could be met, went 2,000 miles west to 
 air it." 
 
 The reason the matter was not presented before 
 Congress in the tariff debate was that the speech 
 did not come to my notice until nearly a month 
 after the bill had passed the House. I did not con- 
 ceive that it was any injustice to a member of this 
 House, especially to so prominent a member as the 
 gentleman from Maine, to quote in any part of 
 the country a speech made under the circumstances 
 at Boston, at a banquet given by the Massachusetts 
 Republican Club. But since I came back I have 
 kept the clipping in my desk, and sought an oppor- 
 tunity to present it in the Record, not in order 
 that it might be met, because it cannot be met, but 
 that the whole public might be able to see what a 
 distinguished member said in a speech made to fit 
 one part of the country, and how strangely it sounds 
 in another part of the country. The gentleman 
 said in the letter : 
 
 "It was first started by a member of Congress in a speech 
 in Denver. I was somewhat surprized when I read it, for, 
 of course, separated from the context, it conveys an entirely 
 incorrect idea." 
 
 I will ask the Clerk to read the only part of that 
 speech that I could find touching upon the tariff 
 question, and if there is any other part that throws 
 any light upon the part read, I shall be very glad 
 to have it put into the Record. The speech from 
 
182 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 which I quoted was reported, as I supposed in full 
 in the Boston Herald of October 26, 1893, and in 
 the Boston Journal (a Republican paper), of same 
 date, it was reported in identically the same lan- 
 guage. Not only does it give the words, but gives 
 the expressions of ''applause," "laughter," and 
 ''great applause," etc., with which the speech was 
 punctured by the audience. I ask that the extract 
 be read. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 "This is only one of its phases and one of its forms. If 
 you people in Massachusetts desire to retain the system 
 under which for thirty years you have been prosperous and 
 great, you have got to show it by your votes on election 
 day, and by no uncertain sign. [Applause.] 
 
 "And let me tell you right here that there is no State so 
 deeply interested as the State of Massachusetts. [Applause,] 
 If it were not for its condition, I should say, "Let these men 
 try it. Let us have the lesson of free trade burned into the 
 quick; and then let us have peace." [Applause.] But when 
 Massachusetts sits around to mourn her destroyed factories, 
 her ruined industries, her ruined machine shops, she sits 
 around to mourn for eternity : for if they are once destroyed 
 the omnivorous West will do the manufacturing for the 
 country. [Applause.] You have the start; you have the 
 power ; you have the prestige. You can keep it or you can 
 throw it away : and the only way in which you can keep it 
 is by making the voice of the majority of your people to be 
 heard, and to be heard across the country. [Applause.] 
 
 "The Democratic party to-day is ruled by the South. I 
 do not care anything about the geography of their position — 
 when I say 'the South.' I mean by men who have no con- 
 ception whatever of a Northern industrial city [applause], 
 who have no idea of Lowell or Lawrence. That wealth 
 which is diffused from one end of our great towns to an- 
 other, they do not understand ; and if you who do under- 
 stand it — and some of you are dependent for your livelihood 
 upon it — neglect your duty you must not be surprized if 
 these men carry out their ideas. Truth is mighty, but so is. 
 ignorance." 
 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 183 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, in this letter the 
 gentleman says, "The passage occurring in a short 
 extemporaneous speech, with no point elaborated." 
 I hardly think that it can be said that because a 
 speech was extemporaneous, therefore one should 
 not quote from it. Sometimes an extemporaneous 
 speech will present a man's real thought better 
 than a prepared speech, and I think that those who 
 read the speech made by the gentleman in Boston 
 will perhaps agree that if he had ever thought it 
 would be reported or read in the West it might 
 have been somewhat modified. 
 
 But, extemporaneous as it was, it probably ex- 
 prest the real sentiment and the real belief of the 
 gentleman who made it. To show that the gist of 
 it was not much changed upon reflection, let me 
 read what the letter says. The letter, I presume, 
 was not extemporaneous. In the letter he says : 
 
 *'I pointed out to them that the legislation tendered them 
 was foolish ; that the low duties of the Wilson bill would 
 destroj' their manufactures in common with others, and that 
 when they were once destroyed they would be rebuilt under 
 re-established protection nearer the market and nearer the 
 materials, as cheaply as in New England." 
 
 Now, of course, that letter is not extemporaneous. 
 It is a calm statement of a supposed condition that, 
 under equal circumstances, the "omnivorous Wesf 
 would do the manufacturing for the country; that 
 if we could once take away the advantage which 
 New England has in the system now existing, and 
 start upon an equal footing, the manufactures of 
 New England would be re-established in the "om- 
 nivorous West. ' ' A little farther on he says : 
 
184 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 "As T said to Massachusetts T say to all other parts of 
 the country, that enlightened selfishness teaches the doctrine 
 of 'live and let live.' " 
 
 I ask those who desire to pursue the subject to 
 read that speeech and see whether they can find in 
 it anywhere the idea of ''live and let live." No, 
 sir. It is an appeal to sectionalism. "You have 
 the start; you have the power; you have the pres- 
 tige ; you can keep it or you can throw it away. ' ' In 
 other words, if you keep it you can have the advant- 
 age of the "omnivorous West," but if you do not 
 make your voice heard across the country you will 
 lose the artificial advantage given you by law, and 
 when it comes to natural advantages the "omniv- 
 orous West" will get ahead of you. 
 
 In another place the gentleman says : 
 
 "Of course such a free list would be very attractive to 
 New England if she acted from pure selfishness." 
 
 If you read the portion of the speech devoted 
 to the tariff question you will imagine that pure 
 selfishness is the only thing that can be appealed 
 to in Massachusetts, because it is the only thing 
 the gentleman appeals to there. He calls up the 
 "ignorance" of the South — Massachusetts must be- 
 ware of that. He calls up the great "omnivorous 
 West^' — ^^lassachusetts must be careful about that. 
 In this speech he says that "no State is so deeply 
 interested (in protection) as Massachusetts. " Now, 
 sir, that sounds strange in the West. We have 
 been told out there that every State is just as 
 much interested in protection as Massachusetts is. 
 
 We have been told that protection is just as im- 
 portant to the West as it is to the East, but here 
 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 185 
 
 is a gentleman who is acknowledged the leader of 
 the Republican party, not only in this House, but in 
 the Nation, a gentleman who may go some day to 
 the "omnivorous West," and ask its support for 
 the Presidency, saj^s that if it were not for the 
 condition of Massachusetts he would be willing to 
 have free trade. But for that — ^not the condition 
 of the country, but the condition of Massachusetts 
 — he would be willing to say, "Let these men try 
 it. Let us have the lesson of free trade burned 
 into the quick, and then let us have peace, ' ' but for 
 Massachusetts' sake he will not have it. 
 
 But the strange thing about the explanation — 
 w^hich may require more explanation than the origi- 
 nal speech — is what the gentleman from Maine, 
 looking back, supposes he had said. I have quoted 
 the portion of the letter in which he says that he 
 "pointed out to them that the legislation tendered 
 them was foolish ; that the low duties of the Wilson 
 bill would destroy their manufactures," etc. Now, 
 Mr. Chairman, it is a strange thing that that speech 
 not only did not contain a mention of the Wilson 
 bill, not only did not warn them against the ' ' bribe ' ' 
 of free raw material, but the speech was made more 
 than a month before the Wilson bill was reported 
 by the majority of the committee to the minority; 
 it was made at a time when there was no Wilson 
 bill, and when the Democrats did not know what 
 the schedule would be. 
 
 Now, is it not strange that in a prepared criti- 
 cism, which not only attempts to explain the speech, 
 but even criticizes me for using it — is it not strange, 
 that in that prepared letter, the gentleman should 
 
 113 
 
186 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 have thought that he spoke of a bill which was not 
 in existence until a month after the speech was 
 made? 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Clerk to read 
 the letter which I send to the desk. 
 
 The Clerk read as follows: 
 
 House of Representatives, United States, 
 
 Washington, D. C, April 6, 1894. 
 
 "My Dear Sir : Your favor received. I have noticed the 
 paragraph you sent me making its way over the West. It 
 was first started by a member of Congress in a speech in 
 Denver. I was somewhat surprized when I read it, for, of 
 course, separated from the context, it conveys an eiitirely 
 incorrect idea. The passage occurred in a short extem- 
 poraneous speech, with no point elaborated. It was wKan 
 the attempt was being made to secure the aid of New Eng- 
 land by sacrificing the interests of the West under guise of 
 giving New England free raw material by removing the duty 
 on coal, iron, and wool. 
 
 "Of course such a free list would be very attractive to 
 New England, if she acted from pure selfishness. But I 
 took occasion in a few words of incomplete statement, but 
 which the audience I addrest perfectly understood, to point 
 out how short sighted it was for New England to accept the 
 bribe. Already many Massachusetts manufacturers had 
 legitimately gone West, and more must do so, the coarser 
 going first. Under these circumstances, perfectly under- 
 stood by my audience, some short-sighted men were trying, 
 by the promise of free coal, free iron ore, and free wool, to 
 persuade New England that she could monopolize the manu- 
 facturing, 
 
 "I pointed out to them that the legislation tendered them 
 was foolish: that the low duties of the Wilson bill would 
 destroy their manufactures, in common with others, and that 
 when they were once destroyed, they would be rebuilt under 
 re-established protection, nearer the market and nearer the 
 materials, as cheaply as in New Encland. In short, if New 
 England men helped ruin the country, the ruin would be 
 first and most complete for them on their unkindly soil. 
 Such, in my judgment, would be the fact, and this ruin the 
 country cannot afford, no matter where the destroyed manu- 
 factures are. An idle factory goes to pieces in five years, 
 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 187 
 
 and to destroy expensive plants and to throw away all the 
 capital involved would mean that the United States, and, 
 most of all, New England, would have to halt in its prog- 
 ress until all these vast sums were re-eamed and reinvested. 
 
 "Manufacturers are now steadily and legitimately advanc- 
 ing westward and southward under the present system, and 
 doing so as fast as is consistent with solid material growth. 
 Massachusetts men and other men are already transferring 
 a part of their capital, and in due time, without shock, the 
 Western and Southern manufactories will do their full share 
 of the manufacturing business of the country. The manu- 
 facturing of coarse cotton cloths has already gone from New 
 England to the South. 
 
 "The mighty and 'omnivorous' West is truly great in all 
 that will make riches and consumable wealth, and if this 
 destruction called the Wilson bill can be stayed all parts 
 of the country will prosper and capital and labor will not be 
 wasted, 
 
 "As I said to Massachusetts I say to all other parts of 
 the country, that enlightened selfishness teaches the doctrine 
 of 'live and let live.' " 
 
 "You will notice that the member of Congress in question, 
 instead of quoting the paragraph in question here in Wash- 
 ington, where it could be met, went 2,000 miles west to 
 air it. I am surprised that any man E'ast or West should 
 deem it worth while to credit me with opposition to the 
 Wilson bill because it would build up manufactures in the 
 West, when everybody knows it will destroy all manufac- 
 tures. 
 
 "It is the desire and expectation of protectionists that the 
 West and South will follow or even surpass the example of 
 New England in developing manufacturing industries, as 
 they are now fast doing. The Wilson bill will bring the 
 South and West into competition in manufacturing, with 
 M'ages much lower than their wages, instead of into compe* 
 tition w^ith the higher w^ages of New England, as now, 
 
 "Very truly yours, T. B. REED. 
 
 *'C. L, Vaughan, Esq., Hutchinson, Kans." 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. I rise to a parliamentary in- 
 quiry. 
 
 The Chairman, The gentleman will state it. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor, Is this debate upon the Wilson 
 bill or upon the Hill substitute? 
 
188 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 The Chairman. The Chair will state to the gen- 
 tleman, if he was not present at the time, that the 
 Chair recognized the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
 Livingston] in his own right for an hour, under 
 the rules ; that after speaking for fifteen or eighteen 
 minutes the gentleman from Georgia yielded the 
 remainder of his time to the gentleman from Ne- 
 braska [Mr. Bryan]. The gentleman from Ne- 
 braska yielded a few minutes to the gentleman 
 from Iowa [Mr. Gear] and the gentleman from 
 Iowa [Mr. Dolliver] ; and when the gentleman him- 
 self took the floor he asked unanimous consent — 
 in violation of the rule, as the Chair stated — to 
 speak to this matter. There was no objection, and 
 the Chair so stated. The gentleman is in order. 
 
 Mr. Grosvenor. Then it is ''this matter'' that 
 is under discussion. 
 
 The Chairman. It does not make any difference 
 what the "matter" is; the gentleman has the con- 
 sent of the committee to speak. 
 
 Mr. Boutelle. That is what we want to know 
 — what is the matter? 
 
 A Member (on the Democratic side). You will 
 find out. 
 
 Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, this is put in the 
 Record because I would not have the House and 
 the people to whom that letter was addrest by the 
 gentleman (for it was given to the public) think 
 that I have done anything wrong or done any in- 
 justice to the gentleman from Maine. I thought 
 it wise to put both the speech from which I quoted 
 and the letter which explains the speech in the 
 Record for these reasons, in order that those who 
 
THE OMNIVOROUS WEST 189 
 
 read the letter may have the means of knowing 
 whether I was guilty of taking a sentence out of 
 its proper connection, and thereby making it con- 
 vey an erroneous idea ; and also that they may know 
 that I had not spoken of this speech 2,000 miles 
 away, and was unwilling to speak of it here ' ' where 
 it could be met." 
 
 I wanted the matter put in the Record ''where 
 it could be met," for fear that some "Western Re- 
 publican might take up the line of argument which 
 the gentleman followed in Massachusetts and ad- 
 dress the people on the same line of selfishness. I 
 was afraid that some protectionist out there might 
 appeal to his people, and using the gentleman as 
 authority say, ' ' We have not the start, we have not 
 the power, and we have not the prestige; but ii 
 we can once wipe out the tariff we will get the 
 start, and get the power, and get the prestige." 
 For fear they might do that, I wanted to bring the 
 matter forward here where the gentleman could 
 explain it, so that no protectionist in the West 
 would have an excuse for misunderstanding him 
 or for applying to the Western country the argu- 
 ment which has been and is applied to the Eastern 
 country. 
 
 We have told them out there that the real pur- 
 pose of protection is to give the East an advantage ; 
 but we never before found the leader of the Repub- 
 lican party willing to say that no State in the 
 Union was ''so deeply interested as Massachusetts" 
 in maintaining protection. We have told them that 
 if it were not for the great "combines" which have 
 been built up and which have enabled trusts to 
 
190 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 drive out new industries, and then under the pro- 
 tection of a tariff recoup themselves out of the 
 pockets of the people, there might be great indus- 
 tries built up in the ''omnivorous West"; but we 
 never had a great Republican so nearly tell us be- 
 fore; and I wanted this put in the Record so that 
 if there is an explanation of it the people of the 
 West may have it; and if there is no explanation, 
 then let them know that the people who go before 
 them and advocate protection on the ground that 
 it is for the whole country, go down to Massachu- 
 setts, and, raising up the ' * ignorance ' ' of the South 
 and the ' ' omnivorous West, ' ' plead for special priv- 
 ileges for their own industries. 
 
VI 
 MONEY 
 
 Prepared and inserted in the Congressional Record on 
 June 5, 1894, but for lack of time it was not delivered. The 
 speech discusses paper money, the House having then under 
 consideration a bill to suspend the 10 per cent, tax on state 
 bank notes. 
 
 MR. SPEAKER: The members of the com- 
 mittee, following a time-honored custom, 
 have opened this discussion and have con- 
 sumed all the time allowed for general debate. 
 The House has indulged me so generously on for- 
 mer occasions that I shall not now claim much of 
 its time. The question under discussion, how- 
 ever, is so important that I shall avail myself of 
 the general leave given, to extend my remarks in 
 the Record, in order that my constituents may 
 know the reasons which lead me to the conclu- 
 sion to be exprest by my vote. I shall oppose the 
 bill reported by the committee because I am not 
 willing to extend to a few banks a relief which is 
 denied to other members of the community. The 
 amendment offered by the gentleman from Ten- 
 nessee [Mr. Cox] to repeal the 10 per cent, tax on 
 State bank notes opens up the w^hole subject of 
 paper money, and I shall follow the examples set by 
 others and discuss the matter somewhat elaborately. 
 No subject can more vitally concern the people 
 than this, for money is the lifeblood of commerce, 
 
 (191) 
 
102 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 and the financial health of the whole Nation de- 
 pends upon the kind and quantity in circulation. 
 
 ''Money answereth all things," said Solomon 
 nearly three thousand years ago, and the expression 
 is as applicable to our time as it was to his. It is 
 written that ''the love of money is the root of all 
 evil," and we know by observation that it is well 
 nigh omnipotent for weal or woe. It can bless like 
 the gentle dews of Heaven, and it can cover a 
 greater multitude of sins even than charity. 
 
 Some have denied that the States have a consti- 
 tutional right to charter banks of issue, but I shall 
 assume the existence of such a right. 
 
 Some have denied the constitutionality of the law 
 imposing a tax upon State bank notes, but I shall 
 accept as conclusive the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, and assume that Con- 
 gress has the power to impose a tax upon the notes 
 issued by such banks, even though the law in effect 
 prohibits the issue and circulation of such notes, 
 and even tho some other means of restriction might 
 be preferred. It has been stated that every Demo- 
 crat is in duty bound to vote for the repeal of the 
 State bank tax, because of the plank relating to 
 that subject adopted by the last Democratic Na- 
 tional convention. A platform can only bind those 
 who run upon it. 
 
 President Cleveland is, of course, pledged to the 
 repeal of the tax, because he accepted a nomination 
 and an election upon the National Democratic plat- 
 form of 1892. Those also are pledged to repeal 
 whose nominating conventions indorsed the Na- 
 tional platform, and those are perhaps bound, also, 
 
MONEY 193 
 
 who ran as Democrats without expressly repudi- 
 ating that part of the National platform. In my 
 own case, I was not only nominated before the 
 adoption of the National platform by the Chicago 
 convention, but I expressly repudiated in my can- 
 vass the plank which declared in favor of repealing 
 the State bank tax. 
 
 In the Fifty-second Congress I voted against re- 
 pealing this tax, and, as a candidate for reelection, 
 promised my constituents that I would vote against 
 it again if the question came before the Fifty-third 
 Congress. If there is any person in my district who 
 favors a revival of State bank currency, I am not 
 aware of it. In recording my vote against a repeal 
 of this tax I am expressing, therefore, the opinion 
 of my constituents and carrying out my pledges, as 
 well as recording my own best judgment. Some 
 have urged the return to State bank currency on 
 the ground that more money is needed, and that it 
 can be supplied in no other way. 
 
 The argument comes with but little force from 
 those who voted for, and now justify, the uncondi- 
 tional repeal of the Sherman act, because that law 
 provided us with nearly fifty millions of legal ten- 
 der money annually. Those who opposed uncondi- 
 tional repeal and who have consistently favored an 
 increased supply of good money might justify their 
 acceptance of a State bank currency as a last resort 
 if they could show that the advantages brought by 
 such a currency were greater than the dangers at- 
 tendant upon it. 
 
 I shall attempt to show, first, that we should use 
 as money all the gold and silver which will come 
 
194 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 to our mints; and, second, that whatever paper 
 money we need should be issued by the General 
 Government. 
 
 ''Money/' as defined by Cirnuschi, *'is a value 
 created by law to be a scale of valuation and a valid 
 tender for payment. ' ' Perhaps in a technical sense 
 the term ''money" should be applied only to those 
 instruments of exchange which are endowed with 
 legal tender qualities, but the term is used gener- 
 ally to cover not only coin and legal tender paper, 
 but also notes and certificates which are intended to 
 circulate from hand to hand like money. 
 
 There is a clear and well-defined difference be- 
 tween the promissory note of the individual or of 
 the corporation and what is known as a bank note. 
 The former travels only where the maker or in- 
 dorser is known, and each person who receives the 
 note investigates for himself as to the responsibility 
 of those who are obligated to pay it. In the case 
 of the latter, however, the person who receives the 
 bank note accepts it on the faith of the law which 
 charters the bank and regulates the amount of the 
 notes and the manner in which they are secured. 
 
 The first principle to be considered in the study 
 of money is that there is a close and intimate rela- 
 tion between the value of each dollar and the total 
 number of dollars in circulation. John Stuart Mill 
 says : ' ' The value, or purchasing power, of money 
 depends, in the first instance, on demand and sup- 
 ply. But demand and supply present themselves in 
 a somewhat different shape from the demand and 
 supply of other things. ' ' 
 
 Laveleye says: "The value of money, like that 
 
MONEY 195 
 
 of any other object, depends on the relation between 
 supply and demand. ' ' 
 
 Cirnuschi appeared before the United States 
 Monetary Commission in 1877, and his testimony 
 contained the following question and answer: 
 
 ' ' Question. Supposing the gold and silver metals 
 
 to have no other use than as money, would they then 
 
 maintain the same value that they now maintain as 
 
 money ? ' ' 
 
 "Answer. There would be a diminution of their purchas- 
 ing power, because the purchasing power of money is in 
 direct proportion to the volume of money now existing. If 
 all the gold and silver are used solely as money, all the orna- 
 ments and all the jewelry will be melted and coined, and the 
 volume of money will be increased. It will be exactly as if 
 a new mine of money had been opened. And the volume of 
 circulating money being made larger than before, there will 
 be a corresponding diminution in the purchasing power of 
 the metalic dollar. 
 
 While it cannot be said with mathematical ac- 
 curacy that the value of each unit of money will in- 
 crease in exactly the same proportion that the total 
 number of units decreases, and vice versa, it can be 
 asserted without fear of contradiction that under 
 similar conditions an increase in the volume of the 
 currency will decrease the value of the dollar as 
 measured by other kinds of property, and that a 
 decrease in the volume of currency will cause an 
 increase in the purchasing power of the dollar. To 
 illustrate this point, let us suppose the sudden dis- 
 covery of a quantity of gold and silver equal to the 
 present volume of metalic money. We have now 
 about eight billions of gold and silver coin in the 
 world, a little more than half of it being silver. 
 
 Every one understands that if the newly discov- 
 
196 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ered coin could be added to the circulation and the 
 volume thereby doubled, the value of each dollar 
 would fall as shown by its purchasing power. The 
 reverse would be true if it were possible to wipe 
 out of existence one-half of the present metalic 
 money. We recognize that the value of a dollar de- 
 pends upon the number of dollars when we take an 
 extreme case like the one above supposed; if the 
 actual change in the volume is less the value of the 
 unit will fluctuate less, but the principle being once 
 established the variation is a matter of degree only. 
 
 We often hear people say, ''What if the amount 
 of money is increased? I must have something to 
 exchange for it before I can obtain it." That is 
 true, but the amount of money which a person can 
 obtain for what he has to sell depends upon the 
 amount in circulation. It may make a great dif- 
 ference to the man who sells wheat whether he re- 
 ceives 50 cents for it or $1, if he has a debt to pay. 
 If a general fall in prices is produced by an appre- 
 ciation of the value of money, the debtor suffers an 
 injustice and business is retarded because invest- 
 ments become unprofitable. Senator Sherman said 
 in 1869, in speaking of the effect of a contracting 
 currency : "To every person except a capitalist out 
 of debt, or a salaried officer or annuitant, it is a 
 period of loss, danger, lassitude of trade, fall of 
 wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy, and 
 disaster, ' ' 
 
 Senator Sherman thus described with great ac- 
 curacy the condition of the commercial world to- 
 dav. The demonetization of silver and the increas- 
 
MONET 197 
 
 ing strain upon gold are making all business un- 
 profitable, except the business of money-loaning. 
 
 The great thing to be desired is a stable currency, 
 that is, a dollar whose purchasing power remains 
 the same through long periods of time. The nations 
 of the world will rise up and call him blessed who 
 can devise an honest dollar — a dollar unchangeable 
 in its purchasing power. To secure the desired sta- 
 bility in the value of the monetary unit the volume 
 of money must increase or decrease exactly as the 
 demand for money increases or decreases, and in the 
 same proportion. Laveleye says: "It is desirable 
 that the value of money should remain as stable as 
 possible, and this will be the case so long as its 
 quantity increases in the same proportion as the 
 number of exchanges for which cash is required. ' ' 
 
 In a speech made in the House of Representatives 
 August 16, 1893, I had the honor to submit some 
 remarks on the relative merits of monometalism and 
 bimetalism, and I shall at this time only compare 
 the advantages of metalic and nonmetalic money. 
 Many dwell upon the term "intrinsic value," as if 
 that gave metalic money its great superiority over 
 paper money, forgetting that a large part of the 
 value of gold and silver is conferred upon those 
 metals by the legislation which makes them money. 
 
 If the nations of the world, by agreement, should 
 substitute some other kind of money for gold and 
 silver, the value of both, as measured by other kinds 
 of property, would fall. Gold has been increased 
 in value by the increased demand caused by legisla- 
 tive action. The chief advantage of metalic money 
 lies in the fact that its total amount is so large, 
 
198 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 compared with the annual supply available for coin- 
 age, that the fluctuation of the unit is reduced to a 
 minimum. Prof. Perry very happily expresses this 
 advantage when he says : 
 
 "The amount of gold and silver in circulation in the com- 
 mercial world, to say nothing of the quantity so easily 
 brought into circulation from the reservoir of plate, is so 
 vast that it receives the annual contributions from the 
 mines much as the ocean receives the waters of the rivers, 
 without sensible increase of its volume, and parts with the 
 annual loss by detrition and shipwreck as the sea yields its 
 waters to evaporation, without sensible diminution of its 
 volume. The yearly supply and the yearly waste are small 
 in comparison with the accumulations of ages ; and, there- 
 fore, the relations of the whole mass to the uses of the 
 world, and the purchasing power of any given portion re- 
 main comparatively steady." 
 
 The total amount of gold and silver coin which 
 could be added annually to the world's metalic 
 money cannot reach $200,000,000, and may not ex- 
 ceed a hundred and fifty millions. This is only 
 from 2 to 2^/^ per cent, of the present volume of 
 metalic money. As this represents the total annual 
 increase, it is evident that the variation in the in- 
 crease from year to year is exceedingly small. 
 
 Since this annual increase, being derived from an 
 almost countless number of sources, is independent 
 of human caprice, and cannot be profitably regu- 
 lated by any combination, metalic money has been 
 accepted by the commercial world as the best money, 
 because least liable to fluctuation. But even metalic 
 money is not absolutely stable and has at times 
 undergone violent changes. Prof. Perry estimates 
 that after the discovery of the silver mines of Potosi, 
 about the middle of the sixteenth century, silver fell 
 
MONEY 199 
 
 in purchasing power to 25 per cent, of its former 
 value, and Prof. Jevons is quoted as saying that the 
 purchasing power of gold fell 15 per cent, after the 
 California discoveries. 
 
 There has been a large increase in the value of 
 gold during the last twenty years, but it is due to 
 the increased demand for it rather than to a de- 
 creased production. Some have estimated that the 
 value of the uncoined gold and silver in the world 
 exceeds the value of the coined. If that be true, 
 legislation might cause great fluctuation in the 
 value of metalic money. If, for instance, all the 
 nations should agree to compel the coinage of all 
 gold and silver now held as merchandise and to 
 prevent the future use of gold and silver, except 
 for coinage, the result would be an enormous in- 
 crease in the volume of metalic money and a fall 
 in the purchasing power of each dollar. 
 
 So legislation, encouraging the greater use of 
 gold and silver in the arts, or legislation limiting 
 the amount of either metal coined, would tend to 
 lessen the volume and to increase the purchasing 
 power of each dollar. It is worthy of note that 
 those who have most vigorously defended the me- 
 talic theory of money on the ground that its volume 
 is independent of human control have been the first 
 to attempt control when the dollar began to fall in 
 value. Three nations demonetized gold after the 
 discoveries of 1849, in order to prevent the gold 
 dollar from becoming "cheap," and several nations 
 demonetized silver after 1872, for fear it would be- 
 come "cheap." 
 
 Every law which affects the total amount of gold 
 
200 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 and silver money affects the value of each dollar of 
 that money. Some desire to abandon gold and sil- 
 ver as money entirely, but I have not been able to 
 bring myself to this conclusion. It is true that men 
 have at times tried to corner the supply of metalic 
 money, and have used it to injure and oppress their 
 fellows, but all of the blessings of life can be abused 
 and turned to our injury. Before abandoning these 
 metals, peculiarly fitted for money, let us endeavor 
 by legislation to prevent the misuse of them. 
 
 No language is too strong to describe the guilt 
 of those who are engaged in the conspiracy to re- 
 duce the volume of metalic money by the destruc- 
 tion of silver as standard money. The Creator, as 
 infinite in love as in power, has supplied legitimate 
 means for the gratification of every human need. 
 When He implanted in man's body the desire for 
 food He scattered over the face of the earth an 
 abundance with which to satisfy his hunger ; when 
 He gave him thirst He filled the ground with veins 
 of water and planted living springs along the hill- 
 sides; when He permitted weariness to creep over 
 the limbs of the toiler He sent sleep, "Tired na- 
 ture 's sweet restorer, ' ' to renew his strength ; when 
 He gave to man a mind capable of development and 
 filled it with a yearning for knowledge He placed 
 within his reach the means of instruction and sur- 
 rounded him with opportunities for study; and 
 when He made man a social being, fitted him for 
 companionship with his fellows, and fashioned the 
 channels of trade. He stored away in the mountains 
 the gold and silver needed for the world 's currency. 
 
 I may be in error, but in my humble judgment 
 
MONEY 201 
 
 he who would rob man of his necessary food, or 
 pollute the springs at which he quenches his thirst, 
 or steal away from him his accustomed rest, or 
 condemn his mind to the gloomy night of ignorance, 
 is no more an enemy of his race than the man who, 
 deaf to the entreaties of the poor and blind to the 
 suffering he would cause, seeks to destroy one of 
 the money metals given by the Almighty to supply 
 the needs of commerce. 
 
 I have on a former occasion referred to the lan- 
 guage used by Secretary Carlisle in 1878, then a 
 Representative in Congress, to describe the effect of 
 the annihilation of silver. I quote his words again, 
 because they present the danger which confronts us 
 in words so clear, so forcible, and so emphatic that 
 nothing can be added to them. In speaking of the 
 * ^ conspiracy " to destroy ''from three-sevenths to 
 one-half of the metalic money of the world," he 
 sa^^s : ^ ' The consummation of such a scheme would 
 ultimately entail more misery upon the human race 
 than all the wars, pestilences, and famines that ever 
 occurred in the history of the world. ' ' 
 
 Do we appreciate what that means? Do we 
 realize what is to follow the consummation of that 
 "conspiracy," the perpetration of that ''crime?" 
 Can we conceive the force, the full purport, the 
 meaning of those words ? Can we call up before the 
 mind's eye every battlefield of the past? Can we 
 review that history which, from the time when Cain 
 killed Abel until now, has been little more than a 
 record of warfare ? Can we look upon the innumer- 
 able number slain by javelin and spear and sword 
 and shot and shell ? Can we see in imagination the 
 
 1 17 
 
202 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 faces of the dead, disfigured by pain and anguish? 
 Can we think, too, of those made husbandless and 
 fatherless by their death? Can we measure the 
 tears shed in the service of Mars? Can we add to 
 those who fell in battle and who were wounded 
 there, all those who have succumbed to pestilence? 
 Aye, can we crowd into our thoughts, not only the 
 pestilence w^hich have from time to time scourged 
 the fair earth, but also add to them the famines 
 which have at times swept thousands and tens of 
 thousands into the grave ? Can we collect and com- 
 prehend all the misery, and all the suffering, and all 
 the sorrow, that these three dread destroyers have 
 wrought? And when we have put them all into 
 one group, when we have prest them all together, 
 can we imagine that the consummation of that 
 ** crime" means more of misery than all combined? 
 
 It is because we measure, to some extent, because 
 "we appreciate, at least in part, the misery that is 
 to follow, that we have felt it our duty as well as 
 our privilege — our duty to ourselves, our duty to 
 our families, our duty to our country, our duty to 
 our God — to cry out against the consummation of 
 that conspiracy ! And we do it, not to help the sil- 
 ver miners — we do it for Humanity ! 
 
 So long as there is a sufficient supply of metalic 
 money to meet the needs of commerce a reliance 
 upon that supply gives to the people protection 
 against those variations in the value of the mone- 
 tary unit which might be caused by legislative ac- 
 tion. The inconvenience of handling the coin itself 
 can be avoided by the use of certificates which, since 
 they merely replace an equal amount of coin, do not 
 
MONEY 203 
 
 affect the volume of the currency. But the accepta- 
 bility of metalic money as the only standard money 
 depends upon its sufficiency to supply an adequate 
 currency. 
 
 Some, who are ready to use the power of the Gov- 
 ernment to limit the supply of money, in order to 
 prevent injustice to the creditor, are slow to admit 
 the right of the Government to increase the cur- 
 rency when necessary to prevent injustice to the 
 debtor. I denounce that cruel interpretation of 
 governmental power which would grant the author- 
 ity to starve, but would withhold the authority to 
 feed our people — which would permit a contraction 
 of our currency, even to the destruction of all pros- 
 perity, but would prohibit the expansion of our cur- 
 rency to keep pace with the growing needs of a 
 growing nation! 
 
 Excluding the certificate, which is not really an 
 addition to the currency, but rather a substitution 
 of one form of money for another, there are two 
 kinds of paper money, namely, redeemable and irre- 
 deemable paper. Redeemable paper has two ad- 
 vantages of special importance. It conforms to the 
 prejudice of mankind in favor of metalic money, 
 and retains their confidence in the money as a me- 
 dium of exchange. 
 
 Custom is a very potent factor to be taken into 
 consideration, for the average man is conservative 
 and accepts innovations with great reluctance. The 
 second advantage inherent in redeemable paper is 
 that, being related in quantity to the volume of 
 metalic money, its amount is not quite so dependent 
 upon caprice, and therefore the value of the mone- 
 
204 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 tary unit is likely to remain more stable. Just to 
 what extent general prices are influenced by an 
 issue of redeemable money it is difficult to deter- 
 mine. That such a dollar is not equal in its effect 
 upon prices to an irredeemable or metalic dollar is 
 evident, for some coin must be held to insure prompt 
 redemption, and the amount so held is an offset to 
 an equal amount of redeemable paper outstanding. 
 
 The possible demand for additional coin at any 
 time to pay such notes on demand, to an indefinite 
 extent, reduces the value of such notes as an addi- 
 tion to the currency. There can be no question that 
 the influence of a given amount of redeemable paper 
 on the volume of the currency will increase as the 
 probability of presentation for redemption de- 
 creases. And there can be no doubt that a paper 
 money which is a full legal tender for all debts, 
 public and private, being less liable to return for 
 redemption, will, dollar for dollar, affect the volume 
 of the currency more than non-legal tender paper. 
 
 An irredeemable paper currency, properly lim- 
 ited, will affect the volume of the currency, and 
 therefore prices, to the same extent as a like addi- 
 tion of metalic money. That a government can issue 
 and maintain an irredeemable paper currency, when 
 strictly limited in volume, is not open to contro- 
 versy. John Stuart Mill, in his "Principles of Po- 
 litical Economy," both admits the possibility of 
 maintaining an irredeemable currency, and forcibly 
 points out the dangers which beset such a monetary 
 system. He says : 
 
 "In, the case supposed, the functions of money are per- 
 formed by a thing which derives its power of performing 
 
MONEY 205 
 
 them solely from convention, but convention is quite suffi- 
 cient to confer the power, since nothing more is needful to 
 make a person accept anything as money and even at any 
 arbitrary value, than the persuasion that it will be takeu 
 from him on the same terms by others. 
 
 iti ^ ^ --^ * !¥ 
 
 "After experience had shown that pieces of paper of no 
 intrinsic value, by merely bearing upon them the written 
 profession of being equivalent to a certain number of francs, 
 dollars, or pounds^ could be made to circulate as such, and 
 to produce all the benefit to the issuers which could have 
 been produced by the coin which they purported to repre- 
 sent, governments began to think that it would be a happy 
 device if they could appropriate to themselves this benefit, 
 free from the condition to which individuals issuing such 
 paper money substitutes for money were subject, of giving, 
 when required, for the sign, the thing signified. 
 
 H: * * * * * 
 
 "Such a power, in whomsoever vested, is an intolerable 
 evil. All variations in the value of the circulating medium 
 are mischievous ; they disturb existing contracts and expect- 
 ations, and the liability to such changes renders every pe- 
 cuniary engagement of long date entirely precarious. The 
 person who buys for himself, or gives to another, an an- 
 nuity of £100, does not know whether it will be equivalent to 
 £200 or to £50 a few years hence. 
 
 "Great as this evil would be if it depended only on acci- 
 dent, it is still greater when placed at the arbitrary disposal 
 of an individual, or a body of individuals, who may have any 
 kind or degree of interest to be served by an artificial fluc- 
 tuation in fortunes, and who have at any rate a strong in- 
 terest in issuing as much as possible, each issue being in 
 itself a source of profit. Not to add that the issuers may 
 have, and in the case of a government paper always have, 
 d. direct interest in lowering the value of the currency be- 
 cause it is the medium in which their own debts are to be 
 computed." 
 
 Irredeemable currency can only be issued by the 
 Government. "When the volume, and therefore the 
 value, of money is determined entirely by the legis- 
 lature, the value of all property becomes subject to 
 an act of Congress, and debts increase or decrease 
 in amount according to the latest legislative decree. 
 
206 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 A legislative body has two difficulties to contend 
 with in wisely fixing the volume of the currency — 
 first, the lack of knowledge as to the amount of 
 money needed, and, second, the conflicting interests 
 of creditor and debtor forces. We must assume 
 that Congress is composed of men of average intelli- 
 gence and average honesty. It might be difficult to 
 prove more, and to admit less woul'd cast a reflec- 
 tion upon their constituents. But men of average 
 intelligence will widely differ as to the amount of 
 money needed now^ and as to the necessary annual 
 increase or decrease. This difference of opinion will 
 arise partly because the representatives look at the 
 subject from different standpoints, and partly be- 
 cause of the great number of elements which must 
 be considered. Population is a factor, for it will 
 require more money for one hundred persons than 
 for ten to transact the same business and make the 
 same number of exchanges. The density of popula- 
 tion is a factor, for it will require more money per 
 capita, other things being equal, in a sparsely set- 
 tled than in a thickly populated country. 
 
 The banking facilities and facilities for exchange 
 must be considered, altho we must not conclude that 
 every check or draft lessens pro tanto the amount 
 of money needed. We must also calculate the dif- 
 ference between the need for money in a nation 
 whose resources are exhausted and the need for 
 money in a nation which is progressing and devel- 
 oping. These are suggested as some, not all, of the 
 factors to be considered in determining the amount 
 of money needed at a given time and the amount to 
 
MONEY 207 
 
 be supplied or withdrawn annually in order to make 
 the dollar stable in its purchasing power. 
 
 It is no reflection on the intelligence of the legis- 
 lative body to say that it might find it very difficult 
 to adjust with equity the volume of the currency 
 to the varj^ng needs of the people. The second dif- 
 ficulty is, perhaps, still greater. In the long run 
 the representative will correctly reflect the opinions 
 and interests of his constituents, or, at least, of that 
 portion of his constituency which controls public 
 sentiment. As different portions of our country 
 have different interests we could expect a continual 
 struggle with varying success between those who 
 favor more and those who favor less money. This 
 conflict forces itself upon us, to some extent, even 
 under present conditions. 
 
 Some assert now that our financial depression is 
 due to a flood of money, v\^hile others assert that it 
 is due to a drought of money. The creditor, through 
 his representative, will view with composure a de- 
 crease in the currency, because it will benefit him, 
 but he will contend with heroic fortitude against 
 any "wild and dangerous inflation of the cur- 
 rency." The debtor, on. the other hand, through 
 his representative, will regard as providential any 
 increase of the currency which will lighten his debt, 
 but will resist as a great injustice any attempt to 
 make money dearer by law. 
 
 . A constitutional regulation would be more perma- 
 nent, but it would make it difficult to correct a mis- 
 take. AVhen I remember how the creditor has over- 
 reached the debtor in the financial legislation of the 
 last thirty years; when I remember how great mon- 
 
20S BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 eyed interests, acting as a unit, have secured legis- 
 lation against the unorganized masses, I hesitate to 
 see any legislative body exercise the power to issue 
 irredeemable paper and fix the volume thereof. In 
 my judgment, the Government will not be com- 
 pelled to resort to this money system, unless the 
 pretended friends of a ''sound currency" make it 
 necessary by the complete demonetization of .silver 
 as a standard money. We may rest assured, how- 
 ever, that the people in a free government always 
 reserve the right of self-preservation, and will exer- 
 cise the power to provide for their own welfare. 
 
 Whenever the time comes, therefore, if it ever 
 does, that the people must choose between a con- 
 stantly appreciating metalic money and an irre- 
 deemable paper money which gives a hope of relief, 
 they will choose the latter system, with all its de- 
 fects and dangers. The choice may be avoided for 
 the present by the full and immediate restoration 
 of silver to its place as a coordinate part of the 
 metalic money of the world. Later, if that is not 
 sufficient to secure stability in the monetary unit, 
 it may be wise to prevent the use of gold and silver 
 for any purpose excepting coinage. 
 
 Redeemable paper money may be issued by the 
 General Government or by private persons or cor- 
 porations. If States could emit bills of credit and 
 make them good, either by coin redemption or by 
 investing them with legal tender qualities, we might 
 be called upon to choose between notes issued by the 
 States and notes issued by the General Government ; 
 but the Constitution of the United States expressly 
 prohibits States from issuing bills of credit and 
 
MONEY 209 
 
 from making anything but gold and silver a legal 
 tender, while it permits the General Government 
 to issue its notes and make them a legal tender. 
 
 If we have redeemable paper, then, it must be 
 issued by the General Government or by private 
 authority under the direction of Congress or the 
 State legislatures. It may be worth while to sub- 
 mit an authority on the power of the General Gov- 
 ernment to issue paper money and to make it a 
 legal tender for debt. An opinion was rendered by 
 the Supreme Court of the United States at the 
 October term, 1883 (110 U. S. Rep., 421), in what 
 is known as the Legal Tender Case, which settles 
 this question in so far as it can be settled by the 
 courts. The opinion delivered by Justice Gray was 
 concurred in by eight of the nine judges, and covers 
 every phase of the case. I quote the following ex- 
 tracts from the opinion : 
 
 "It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary 
 consequence, that Congress has the power to issue the obli- 
 gations of the United States in such form and to impress 
 upon them such qualities as currency for the purchase of 
 merchandise and payment of debts as accord with the usage 
 of sovereign gOTernments. The power, as incident to the 
 power of borrowing money and issuing bills or notes of the 
 Government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those 
 bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the 
 payment of private debts, was a power universally under- 
 stood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at 
 the time of the framing and adoption of the Constitution of 
 the United States. . . . The power of issuing bills of credit 
 and making them, at the discretion of the legislature, a 
 tender in payment of private debts, had long been exercised 
 in this country by the several colonies and States ; and 
 during the Revolutionary war the States, upon the recom- 
 mendation of the Congress of the Confederation, had made 
 the bills issued by Congress a legal tender. . . . 
 
 "The exercise of this power, not being prohibited to Con- 
 
210 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 gress by the Constitution, it is included in the power ex- 
 pressly granted to borrow money on a credit of the United 
 States. . . . Under the power to borrow money on the credit 
 of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the 
 money borrowed, its iK)wer to define the quality and force 
 of those notes as currency, is as broad as the like power 
 over a metalic currency under the power to coin money and 
 to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken 
 together. Congress is authorized to establish a national cur- 
 renc.v, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency 
 lawful money for all purposes as regards the National Gov- 
 ernment or private individuals. The power of making the 
 notes of the United States a legal tender in payment of 
 private debts, being included in the power to borrow money 
 and to provide a national currency, is not defeated or re- 
 stricted by the fact that its exercise may affect the value of 
 private contracts. . . . 
 
 "Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question 
 whether at any particular time, in war or in peace, the 
 exigency is such, by reason of unusual and pressing demands 
 on the resources of the Government, or of the inadequacy 
 of the supply of gold and silver coin to furnish the currency 
 needed for the uses of the Government and the people, that 
 it is, as a matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to 
 this means, is a political question, to be determined by Con- 
 gress when the question of exigency arises, and not a judi- 
 cial question to be afterwards passed on by the courts." 
 
 John C. Calhoun recognized the right of the Gov- 
 ernment to issue paper money when he said in 1816 : 
 
 "The right of making money, an attribute of sovereign 
 power, a sacred and important right, was exercised by 269 
 banks, scattered over every part of the United States, not 
 responsible to any power whatever for their issues of paper." 
 
 Thomas Jefferson, the Modern Lawgiver, who, 
 from his mountain home, as from a second Sinai, 
 brought down the Truth to his followers, not graven 
 upon stone but written in the hearts of men, recog- 
 nized both the right and the advantage of Govern- 
 ment paper. In a letter written from Monticello, 
 June 24, 1813, to John W. Epps, he said : 
 
MONEY 211 
 
 "This is equivalent to borrowiiiff that !?nm. and yet the 
 vendor, receiving payment in a medium as effectual as coin 
 for his purchases or payments, has no claim to interest. 
 And so the nation may continue to issue its bills as far as 
 its wants require and the limits of the circulation will ad- 
 mit. . . . But this, the only resource which the Govern- 
 ment could command with certainty, the States have unfor- 
 tunately fooled away, nay, corruptly alienated to swindlers 
 and shavers, under the cover of private banks. . . . The 
 States should be applied to, to transfer the right of 
 issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in per- 
 petuum, if possible, but during the war at least, with a sav- 
 ing of charter rights." 
 
 Six years later, in a letter written to Mr. Rives, 
 November 28, 1819, Jefferson went even farther, 
 and said : 
 
 "Interdict forever, to both the State and National Gov- 
 ernments the power of establishing any paper banks, for 
 without this interdiction we shall have the same ebbs and 
 flows of medium and the same revolutions of property to go 
 through every twenty or thirty years." 
 
 Assuming, then, that the United States can issue 
 paper money and make it a legal tender, and that 
 no other power can issue legal tender money; as- 
 suming that Congress can establish national banks 
 and authorize them to issue paper redeemable in 
 lawful money ; and assuming that the States, unless 
 prevented by some direct prohibition, or by some 
 indirect means like the 10 per cent, tax, can author- 
 ize banks to issue paper redeemable in lawful money, 
 let us consider which kind of paper money should 
 be issued when paper money is needed. Admitting, 
 in other words, the right to use various kinds of 
 paper money, which kind is best ? My investigation 
 has led me to the conclusion that the General Gov- 
 ernment not only has the right to issue all needed 
 
 i 
 
212 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 paper money, but, since it alone can issue legal ten- 
 der money, is in duty bound to provide a currency 
 sufficient for the needs of commerce. 
 
 Not only should the General Government supply 
 all needed paper money, but it should make all 
 money — that is, its gold, silver, and paper — a full 
 legal tender for all debts, public and private, and 
 should not permit the making of any contract here- 
 after for a particular kind of money. That the 
 G overnment has a right to prohibit special contracts 
 ill money cannot be doubted. If it has a right to 
 make any kind of monej^ a legal tender, it has a 
 right to prevent any citizen from demonetizing that 
 money by contract. Our Supreme Court has held 
 ihat the United States notes were a legal tender for 
 debts contracted previously when only gold and 
 silver were considered standard money. 
 
 The French courts have held that the notes of the 
 Bank of France cannot be refused as payment, even 
 when there is a prior special contract. The fact 
 that the coinage laws of 1878 and 1890 contained an 
 exception would indicate that, without such an ex- 
 ception, it would be unlawful to contract for a par- 
 ticular kind of money even without an exprest pro- 
 hibition, for, why should the law contain the words 
 * ' except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the 
 contract," if a citizen could without that exprest 
 permission discriminate by contract in favor of, or 
 against, a particular kind of money? 
 
 There are some who deny that the Government 
 should enact any legal tender law whatever. Those 
 who hold to this opinion believe that everything 
 should be left to contract. They scrupulously guard 
 
MONEY 213 
 
 what they call 'Hhe right of private contract''; but 
 there can be no freedom of contract unless the par- 
 ties stand upon an equal footing. Where one party 
 is under duress it is not freedom of contract, but 
 freedom to extort. The debtor and the creditor do 
 not necessarily stand on the same plane. It is as 
 true now as it was w^hen the wise man declared it, 
 that ''the borrower is a servant to the lender," and 
 is not at all times able to contract on equal terms 
 with the man from whom he obtains the money. 
 Jefferson, in speaking of the tendency of men to fol- 
 low their selfish instincts and to take advantage of 
 their fellows, once said: 
 
 "Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question 
 whether at any particular tirte, in war or in peace, the 
 the gfovernments of Europe, and to the general prey of the 
 rich on the poor." 
 
 It was Jefferson also who declared that one of the 
 important duties of government is " to restrain men 
 from injuring one another. ' ' I was riding through 
 Iowa a few weeks ago, when I noticed some hogs de- 
 stroying the sod in a pasture. It took me back to 
 the days when I lived upon a farm, and I recalled 
 the means by which we prevented hogs from rooting. 
 
 Rings were put in their noses, not to prevent their 
 eating, because we wanted them to get fat, but in 
 order that they might not destroy more than they 
 were worth while they were getting fat. And, as I 
 was thinking of this restraint placed upon the hogs, 
 it occurred to me that the Government is often com- 
 pelled to imitate the farmer, and to put rings in 
 the noses of hogs. When restrictions are placed up- 
 on the dealings of man with man, the Government 
 
214 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 is simply putting a ring in the nose of some human 
 hog, not to prevent him from taking advantage of 
 his energy, his industry, or his ability, but to pre- 
 vent him from interfering with the equal rights of 
 others. 
 
 I do not mean to use the word hog in an offensive 
 sense, but simply to describe those selfish instincts 
 which we all possess, and which, unless properly 
 curbed, do harm to others. We have no more right 
 to use a fortune as a means of oppression than we 
 have to use a club, and w^hen we speak of a man's 
 right to enjoy that which his ability can procure 
 we do not mean to justify the pickpocket, the bur- 
 glar, or the highwayman in the exercise of his pe- 
 culiar talents. It is only by the exercise of a most 
 watchful restraint that government can secure to 
 the citizen the right to life and liberty, and also to 
 the pursuit of happiness, with some prospect of 
 overtaking it. 
 
 All legal tender laws are intended to protect the 
 debtor from unreasonable demands. Non-legal ten- 
 der money multiplies the opportunities of the 
 sharper, and places a weapon in the hands of ava- 
 rice. The same public policy which justifies a legal 
 tender law and a law limiting the rate of interest 
 justifies a law preventing special contracts for a 
 particular kind of money. In fact, it is much more 
 important to prevent such contracts than it is to 
 regulate the rate of interest, for only the debtor 
 and creditor may be concerned in the rate of inter- 
 est, while speculation in a particular kind of money 
 may affect the whole community. 
 
 The tendency of special contracts is to create a 
 
MONEY ' 215 
 
 demand for a particular kind of money, and the de- 
 mand, if great enough, will raise that kind of money 
 to a premium. Thus such contracts may destroy 
 the parity between various kinds of money, and the 
 creditor then takes advantage of his own wrong by 
 collecting a dollar appreciated in part by his own 
 act. If these contracts are prohibited no hardship 
 is brought to the creditor, for the money which he 
 receives will be as useful to him as it was to the 
 debtor. The great mass of the people are so sit- 
 uated that they can never profit by the right to 
 contract for a particular kind of money, but are 
 always in danger of loss from it. Is it not time 
 to declare by law that that money which the Gov- 
 ernment makes good for the ninety-nine common 
 people is good enough for the one uncommon per- 
 son who wants to obtain an advantage by a special 
 contract ? 
 
 But I must return to the comparison between 
 Government monej" and bank notes. I have already 
 mentioned the advantage of Government paper over 
 bank paper, arising from the fact that the former 
 can be invested with legal tender qualities. One of 
 the great objections to bank notes is that they can 
 only be secured through legislation which violates 
 the Democratic principle of "equality before the 
 law." The language used by Andrew Jackson, in 
 the veto message sent to Congress July 10, 1832, is 
 as applicable to State banks as to national banks, 
 and as applicable to the banks of our times as to 
 the banks of his day. The truth, so forcibly ex- 
 pressed by the hero of New Orleans, like all great 
 truths, lives through all generations, and I com- 
 
216 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 mend it to those who insist that banks of issue are 
 Democratic institutions. Jackson said: 
 
 "It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often 
 bend the acts of Government to their selfish purposes. Dis- 
 tinctions in society will alv»'ays exist under every just gov- 
 ernment. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth 
 cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full en- 
 joyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior 
 industry, economy, and virtue every man is equally entitled 
 to protection by law. But when the laws undertake to add 
 to those natural and just advantages artificial distinctions 
 — to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges — to 
 make the rich richer and the potent more powerful — the 
 humble members of society, the farmers, mechanics, and the 
 laborers, who have neither the time nor the means of secur- 
 ing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of 
 the injustice of their government. 
 
 "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils 
 exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal 
 protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors 
 alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it 
 would be an unqualified blessing. 
 
 * * * * 4E * 
 
 "Every monopoly and all exclusive privileges are granted 
 at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair 
 equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to 
 bestow on the stockholders of the existing banks must come 
 directly or indirectly out of the earnings of the American 
 people." 
 
 No person or corporation has a natural right to 
 issue money. It is "an attribute of sovereignty," 
 and the banks can no more demand as a right the 
 power to supply a currency for the people than 
 they can demand the right to enact laws for the 
 general government of the people. I trust I shall 
 not offend any one when I iisy that banks are not 
 eleemosynary or philanthropic institutions. They 
 have their place in society and, when they conduct 
 themselves properly, contribute to the welfare of 
 
MONEY 217 
 
 society just as every good citizen contributes to 
 the welfare of society by his services. The business 
 of loaning and discounting is not necessarily con- 
 nected with issuing money, and if the banks join 
 to their legitimate business the issue of paper which 
 is to pass as money we may rest assured that they 
 will do it for the profit there is in it. 
 
 National banks do not make as much now as they 
 did during the war, but they are still able to realize 
 on the money actually invested in circulating paper 
 more than the average business man can expect to 
 make on invested capital. The official reports usual- 
 ly spread the profits of a national bank over its en- 
 tire business capital, and thus make it appear that 
 the profit on circulation is less than it really is. 
 Take, for instance, a national bank which desires 
 to issue currency. It can now buy 2 per cent, bonds 
 at about par. If the bank invests $100,000 in bonds 
 it can deposit them with the Comptroller and re- 
 ceive $90,000 in bank notes. Four thousand and 
 five hundred dollars will be held back as a reserve, 
 but as this sum can be counted by the bank as a 
 part of its necessary reserve, it is the same as if it 
 was in its vaults. 
 
 The $90,000 received in bank notes replaces so 
 much of the capital expended for the purchase of 
 bonds, so that the amount actually invested in cir- 
 culating notes is $10,000. On that sum the bank 
 makes about 10 per cent., for it receives $2,000 in- 
 terest and pays out $900 as a tax on circulation and 
 about $100 (estimated) for the expense of taking 
 out currency. We need not investigate the profit 
 
 made on the bank's capital, because the $90,000 re- 
 us 
 
218 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 eeived in bank notes is as good as ninety thousand 
 of the one hundred thousand paid for bonds. 
 
 To calculate the actual profit made by the issue 
 of national bank notes we need to know only the 
 difference between the notes received and the 
 amount paid for the bonds. When that is known, 
 we can find the rate of profit by subtracting the 
 expenses of the circulation (including tax) from the 
 interest on the bonds. Some have proposed, during 
 this debate, to allow the banks to issue notes to the 
 full face of the bonds instead of to 90 per cent, of 
 the face, and have also proposed to take off the 1 per 
 cent, tax on circulation. If these two changes are 
 made, the rate of profit will be largely increased, 
 because there will be no money actually invested in 
 the 2 per cent, bonds, unless the bonds go to a pre- 
 mium, and, the 1 per cent, on circulation being re- 
 moved, the interest on the bonds will be almost 
 clear profit. ' 
 
 When the national banks were first organized 
 there was still more profit in the circulation. When, 
 for instance, gold was at 200 per cent., a bank could 
 borrow $50,000 in gold and with it purchase $100,- 
 000 in greenbacks. W^ith $100,000 in greenbacks it 
 could buy $100,000 worth of 6 per cent, bonds, and 
 on these bonds could secure $90,000 in bank notes. 
 With the $90,000 in bank notes it could buy $45,000 
 worth of gold and repay all but $5,000 of the gold 
 first borrowed. On its investment of $5,000 in gold 
 — for that would be the amount really invested — it 
 would draw interest in gold to the amount of $6,000 
 on the bonds. 
 
 After deducting the tax on circulation and the 
 
MONEY 219 
 
 expense of procuring circulation the bank would 
 make in the transaction described nearly 100 per 
 cent, on the money actually invested. Thus did 
 patriotism brings its just (?) recompense to those 
 who, as the financiers say, **eame to the nation's 
 rescue in the hour of peril." Why should the law 
 thus discriminate between citizens? If a farmer 
 owns a Government bond, he can only draw interest 
 on the bond. If a bank holds the bond, it can not 
 only draw interest on it, but can use nearly all of 
 the money called for by the bond besides. The 
 farmer ' ' can either eat his cake or keep it, ' ' but the 
 banker is allowed to both *'eat his cake and 
 keep it.'' 
 
 Some one may say, in answer to this, that the 
 farmer can go into the banking business if he likes, 
 but that is no justification for class legislation. 
 Shall we vote a bounty of $1,000 a year to every 
 lawyer, and justify it by the assertion that the legal 
 profession is open to every one? Shall we vote a 
 bounty of $1,000 a year to every farmer, and justify 
 it on the ground that every person can become a 
 farmer? The national bank note is good only be- 
 cause the Government is behind it. The bank note 
 is redeemable in a greenback, and during the war 
 greenbacks and bank notes circulated together. If 
 the Government wants to issue notes through the 
 banks, \yhy does it not withhold the interest on the 
 bonds so long as the banks use the money. 
 
 A State bank circulation is open to the same ob- 
 jection, that is, that the Government singles out 
 some person or class of persons and grants to them 
 a special and valuable privilege denied to others. 
 
220 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 If a State bank was required to deposit with the 
 State authorities an amount of money equal to the 
 currency issued, there would be no addition to the 
 circulation and no profit to the bank. What the 
 State bank wants is the power to issue money, either 
 on its credit or on security deposited. If the bank 
 issues money on its credit it is permitted to create 
 value for its own advantage ; if it issues money on 
 deposited security it enjoys a privilege similar to 
 that now given to the national bank, that is, it re- 
 ceives the interest on securities, and at the same 
 time uses a part of the money invested in the se- 
 curities, and at the same time uses a part of the 
 money invested in the securities. 
 
 One plan proposed for the regulation of State 
 banks provides that the bank may issue 150 per cent, 
 on its capital stock by holding one-half of its capi- 
 tal to redeem the notes and investing the other half 
 in certain kinds of bonds. The bank, under such a 
 law, if its capital stock amounted to $100,000, would 
 be able to issue $150,000. Fifty thousand of the 
 money issued would be needed to offset the fifty 
 thousand held for redemption, and another fifty 
 thousand would reimburse the bank for the amount 
 invested in bonds. This would square the bank for 
 its investment, and it would receive as a considera- 
 tion for its services the use of the remaining fifty 
 thousand to loan and the interest on the fifty thou- 
 sand dollars worth of bonds deposited for security. 
 "Why should the bank be given this advantage over 
 the ordinary citizen? There is no magical means 
 by which the laborer can increase the capital which 
 he has saved from his toil. If he invests his earn- 
 
MONEY 221 
 
 ings in State or municipal bonds, he must content 
 himself with the interest only. 
 
 Why is he not as much entitled to favorable con- 
 sideration as the citizen who goes into the banking 
 business ? And, again, why should the Government 
 discriminate between different kinds of property? 
 If a bondholder can, by going into a bank, use both 
 the interest on the bond and the money for which it 
 calls, why not let the landowner put up his land as 
 a security for money, and at the same time draw a 
 profit from its cultivation ? 
 
 The plan, proposed by some, of issuing money on 
 land at a low rate of interest, is simply an applica- 
 tion of the national bank and state bank principle 
 to land instead of bonds. 
 
 The subtreasury plan is nothing but the applica- 
 tion of the same principle to personal property. If 
 it is just to extend this special privilege to the na- 
 tional banker who holds Government bonds and to 
 the State banker who holds State and municipal 
 bonds, why is it not just to extend it to those who 
 hold real and personal property? The difference 
 between bonds and other kinds of property is that 
 the other kinds of property make the bonds val- 
 uable, while too many bonds will make all other 
 kinds of property worthless. Bonds, it is true, find 
 a readier sale and are quoted daily in the market, 
 but other forms of property have value just as real. 
 
 The difference between loaning on bonds and 
 loaning on property is not a difference in principle, 
 but a difference in the character of the security. 
 If it is safe to issue on bonds at par, or up to 90 
 per cent, of their face, it would certainly be safe to 
 
222 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 issue on other kinds of property up to 50 per cent, 
 or 25 per cent, or at least to 10 per cent, of their 
 market value. I make this comparison between the 
 national banking principle and the subtreasury 
 idea, not to justify the policy of issuing money on 
 land or personal property — for I think it is better to 
 eradicate a vicious principle than to extend its ap- 
 plication — but to show that the principle which our 
 financiers denounce as wild and visionary when pro- 
 posed by the farmers is the same principle which 
 our bondholders have advocated wdth great profit 
 to themselves. 
 
 If it is said that we must institute banks of issue 
 in order to put money into circulation, I answer 
 that there is a better way. The issue of money by 
 the Government directly to the people gives us a 
 safer money and saves to the people as a whole the 
 profit arising from its issue. When a bank issues 
 money you must pay the market rate of interest in 
 order to get it, but w^hen the Government issues 
 money the people save the interest, if the money is 
 afterward called in, and they save the principal also 
 if the money is kept in circulation. Numerous plans 
 have been suggested for putting this money into 
 circulation. Some have an idea that a Government 
 issue can only be put forth by loaning it to the 
 people, either directly or through the agency of 
 banks. 
 
 There are, in my judgment, other and better 
 ways. If a limited amount is issued, and of course 
 the amount must be strictly limited, and it is loaned 
 to the people, partiality will be shown in its distri- 
 
MONEY 223 
 
 bution, for only a few, relatively speaking, can be 
 accommodated. 
 
 But aside from the danger of placing so great a 
 power in the hands of a dominant party, there are 
 plans more just and equitable than that of loaning. 
 The money can be used to pay the expenses of the 
 Government, as the greenbacks now in circulation 
 were issued to pay the expenses of war. If Con- 
 gress decides to increase the currency a certain 
 amount annually, say for illustration fifty millions 
 a 3"ear, it can reduce the tax levy to that extent and 
 the people will receive the benefit of the issue just 
 in proportion as they pay taxes, for they will save 
 to that extent the taxes which they would otherwise 
 pay. 
 
 Perhaps our well-to-do friends who object to the 
 income tax, and also oppose an increase in the vol- 
 ume of currency, would be willing to compromise on 
 an issue of money to take the place of a part of the 
 income tax. The tariff on some of the necessaries 
 of life might be reduced and the deficit made up 
 by an issue of money. Perhaps the beneficiaries of 
 the tariff, and probably the sugar trust, would ob- 
 ject, because they want a tariff — not for the revenue 
 which it brings to the Government, but for the rev- 
 enue which it brings to them. I am indulging the 
 hope, however, that we may in the course of time 
 reach a point in legislative independence when the 
 general public will be able to pass laws for the gen- 
 eral good without making a treaty with the aggre- 
 gations of capital which infest Washington during 
 the sessions of Congress. 
 
224 BEYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 If the people do not desire to reduce taxation, 
 Government paper can be issued to pay for special 
 improvements which Congress may deem desirable. 
 Harbors can be deepened and rivers can be im- 
 proved in this way. I have introduced a bill, now 
 before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
 Commerce, which provides for the issue of United 
 States notes, like those authorized in 1862 (now 
 called greenbacks) to an amount not exceeding sev- 
 enty millions, to pay for the construction of the 
 Nicaragua Canal. This issue would probably in- 
 crease the currency at a rate of about ten millions 
 a year for seven years. 
 
 The canal is of very great military and commer- 
 cial importance to the United States, and if the Gov- 
 ernment is going to assist in the building, is it not 
 far better to issue money for the purpose than to 
 borrow money on bonds? I would have preferred 
 to have the money so issued a full legal tender for 
 all debts, public and private, even when hereafter 
 contracted against, but I provided in the bill for 
 notes identical with the greenbacks in order to pre- 
 vent the discussion of any collateral questions, and 
 to bring a vote on the naked issue, ''money or 
 bonds. ' ' I have mentioned this one canal, but there 
 are other works of national importance. If we find 
 that the currency needs to be increased and do not 
 desire to reduce taxation, we can, by the issue of a 
 few millions a year, construct a ship canal from 
 Buffalo to the Hudson River, and thus give to the 
 grain of the Northwest ocean rates from Chicago 
 and Duluth to Liverpool, not to speak of the mili- 
 tary advantages of such a canal. 
 
MONET 225 
 
 We mi^ht by the issue of a few millions a year, 
 connect the Jlississippi River with Lake Michigan, 
 and thereby increase the commerce between the 
 Northwest and the South. Money could be issued 
 in another way. We can use any available coin on 
 hand to take up matured bonds and replace the com 
 so used with paper money. I have introduced a Ml 
 during this Congress to provide m this way f oi the 
 payment of the 2 per cent, bonds now outstanding 
 payable at the option of the Government and 
 amounting to about $25,000,000. /hese methods a^e 
 suggested as legitimate means of distributing Gov- 
 ernment issues without resorting to money-loaning 
 or to the use of banks. Government paper should 
 be issued in the place of national bank notes as they 
 
 '^''if'it'is'said that more coin will have to be gath- 
 ered into the Treasury to redeem these new notes, 
 I reply that the Government will need a less reserve 
 for a given amount of paper money than will be 
 required by private banks. Our coin reserve is not 
 Z drawn upon except for gold to export and 
 when our patriotic financiers desire a new issue of 
 bonds Whenever the Government exercises its 
 option by paying coin obligations in silver, when 
 £tTs more convenient, a much smaller reserve -1 
 be sufficient. So long as the option is given to the 
 note holder, the Government is at the mercy of any 
 band of conspirators who may seek to at.acU tne 
 go c reserve, for a small vohnne of redeemable cur- 
 rency reissued continually, is sufficient to draw out 
 in ti; course of time any gold reserve however 
 great We shall have no difficulty about our re- 
 
226 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 serve when we return to the principle of bimet- 
 alism, and use the option of paying gold or silver 
 in the interest of the people. 
 
 The second great objection to banks of issue — 
 and it applies to both State and national banks — is 
 that it places in the hands of interested parties the 
 power to regulate the volume of the currency, and 
 through it the market value of all other property. 
 I have already spoken of the dangers inherent in a 
 monetary system when the volume of money is reg- 
 ulated by a legislative body. I stated these dan- 
 gers as strongly as possible, for I believe them to be 
 real dangers which can scarcely be exaggerated, but 
 dangerous as it is to place such tremendous power 
 in the hands of a legislative body, it is infinitely 
 more dangerous to place that power in the hands of 
 banks. 
 
 If we depart from metalic money, whose volume 
 is largely dependent on natural laws — if the Gov- 
 ernment will keep its hands off — we must lodge 
 somewhere the power to control the currency. It 
 must be controlled by the Government or by indi- 
 viduals, and we are to choose in which way the sta- 
 bility of the dollar can best be secured. If value 
 becomes a matter of chance when the volume of 
 money is regulated by law, it is no advantage to go 
 from pure chance to loaded dice. I would far 
 rather trust the exercise of this power to representa- 
 tives who act before the public and are responsible 
 to their constituents, than to bank officers, who act 
 in private and are responsible to no one. 
 
 If banks control the volume of money they -^dll 
 control it in their own interest, and will be abso- 
 
MONEY 227 
 
 lutely indifferent to the general welfare except as 
 it conduces to their own welfare. This is not a 
 harsh criticism of bankers ; it is only a declaration 
 that they are human, like other people, and do busi- 
 ness on business principles. 
 
 Jefferson once said, in speaking of the power of 
 public opinion : 
 
 "Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep 
 alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their 
 errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once 
 they become inattentive to public affairs you and I, and 
 Congress and assemblies, judges and governors, shall all be- 
 come wolves." 
 
 If representatives are likely to become wolves, un- 
 less restrained by the watchful eyes and the ready 
 reproof of those who elect them, is the temptation 
 not greater when the individual is a financial master 
 instead of a public servant ? Let me call attention 
 to Jefferson's opinion of the manner in which banks 
 regulate the volume of the currency. In a letter 
 Avritten from Monticello, November 7, 1819, to John 
 Adams, Jefferson said : 
 
 "We were laboring under a dropsical fulness of circulating 
 medium. Nearly all of it is now called in by the banks, 
 who have the regulation of the safety valves of our for- 
 tunes, and who condense and explode them at their will. 
 
 In a letter written January 24, 1814, to Ex-Presi- 
 dent Adams, he said : 
 
 "I have ever been the enemy of banks, not of those dis- 
 counting for cash, but of those foisting their own paper 
 into circulation and thus banishing our cash. My zeal 
 a-ainst those institutions was so warm and open at the 
 establishment of the Bank of the United States that I was 
 derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank mongers who were 
 seeking to filch from the public their swindling and oarren 
 gains." 
 
22S BRYANTS SPEECHES 
 
 Some one has already referred to the remarks of 
 President Buchanan on this subject, but they will 
 bear repetition. In his first message to Congress in 
 1857, when he had before him in plain view the 
 distress caused by the suspension of State banks, 
 he said : 
 
 "In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly 
 attributed to a variety of co-operating causes ; but not so 
 upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing 
 misfortunes have proceeded from our extravagant and vicious 
 system of paper currency and bank credits, exciting the 
 people to wild speculations and gambling in stocks. These 
 revulsions must continue to recur at successive intervals, so 
 long as the amount of the paper currency and bank loans 
 and discounts of the country shall be left to the discretion 
 of fourteen hundred irresponsible banking institutions, which, 
 from the very law of their nature, will consult the interest 
 of their stockholders rather than the public welfare." 
 
 Testimony like this might be submitted to an in- 
 definite amount to show that State banks acted for 
 their own private gain in the issue of money and 
 not for the public good. The fact that national 
 banks have been less reckless than State banks must 
 be credited to circumstances rather than to any 
 special wisdom or virtue in the banks. Being con- 
 fined to Government bonds as a basis for their 
 money, their notes have been kept at par wdth green- 
 backs and the volume of bank notes has not been 
 subject to such violent fluctuations as marked State 
 bank issues. But in so far as they could, national 
 banks have consulted their own pecuniary interest 
 in regulating the volume of outstanding notes. I 
 give below a statement of the volume of national 
 bank notes in circulation on the first day of each 
 month since July 1, 1893 : 
 
MONEY 229 
 
 Jan. 1, 1804...$20S.5P>8.S44 
 Feb. 1, 1894... 207,862,107 
 Mar. 1, 1894... 207,479,520 
 Apr. 1, 1894... 207,875,095 
 May 1, 1894. . . 207,833.032 
 June 1, 1894. . . 207,245,049 
 
 July 1, 1893... $178,713,872 
 
 Aug. 1, 1893... 183,755,147 
 
 Sept. 1, 1893... 198,980,368 
 
 Oct. 1, 1893... 208,690..579 
 
 Nov. 1, 1893... 209.311,993 
 
 Dec. 1, 1893... 208,948,105 
 
 It will be noticed that the volume of notes in- 
 creased last summer when bonds went down and the 
 issue, therefore, became more profitable, and it will 
 be noticed, also, that the volume decreased after- 
 ward, when bonds rose, there being $2,000,000 less 
 in circulation on June 1, 1894, than on November 1, 
 1893. 
 
 The volume is now decreasing, altho the issue of 
 silver certificates has ceased and more money is 
 needed rather than less. The demand made by the 
 banks for the privilege of issuing notes up to the 
 face of their bonds, accompanied by the promise 
 that they will issue more notes if the privilege is 
 granted, is an admission that the issue depends en- 
 tirely on the profit there is in it, and not upon the 
 demand for more money. When we are trying to 
 destroy other kinds of trusts shall we put ourselves 
 in the power of the worst of all trusts — a money 
 trust ? 
 
 Another important objection to banks of issue, 
 whether State or national, is that, as soon as they 
 begin the issue of money themselves, they become 
 interested in preventing the circulation of any 
 money which will operate to the injury of their cur- 
 rency. They acquire what they call a "vested in- 
 terest" in the country's money, insist that it is a 
 breach of faith to disturb the business into which 
 they have been ** invited," and resent any inter- 
 
230 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ference whatever with what they regard as their 
 exclusive right to control our finances. 
 
 So strongly was Jefferson imprest with this dan- 
 ger that he wrote to John Ta^^lor : 
 
 "I sincerely believe with you that banking establishments 
 are more dangerous than standing armies." 
 
 We have found the national banks opposing as 
 far as possible a reduction of the bonded debt, be- 
 cause that would diminish the volume of their se- 
 curities. We have seen them opposing legislation 
 favorable to silver, and prophesying all manner of 
 evil. But they are unlike Cassandra in this, that, 
 while her true prophesy was unheeded, their false 
 prophecy finds ready believers. Just now most of 
 them are fighting the State bank currency because 
 it may destroy their monopoly of bank notes. This 
 is not strange, it is to be expected. Two thousand 
 years ago the silversmiths at Ephesus banded them- 
 selves together to drive Paul away because his 
 preaching interfered with their business — the mak- 
 ing of images. The cry that went up then was so 
 similar to that which we hear now that it may be 
 worth while to quote the account given in the nine- 
 teenth chapter of Acts: 
 
 2.3. And the same time there arose no small stir about that 
 way. 
 
 24. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, 
 which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain 
 unto the craftsmen : 
 
 25. Whom he called together with the workmen of like 
 occupation, and said. Sirs, ye know that by this craft we 
 have our wealth. 
 
 26. Moreover, ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, 
 but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded 
 and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, 
 which are made with hands. 
 
MONEY 231 
 
 27. So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set 
 at naught; but also that the temple of the great goddess 
 Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be 
 destroj'ed. whom all Asia and the world worshipeth. 
 
 28. And w'hen the3' heard these sayings they were full of 
 wrath, and cried out, saying, "Great is Diana of the Ephe- 
 sians." 
 
 I am not willing to increase the number of those 
 who have a pecuniary interest in a vicious system of 
 currency; I am not willing to establish throughout 
 the States powerful and influential enemies of finan- 
 cial reform ; I am not willing to build up more wor- 
 shipers of fal§e gods and more makers of images. 
 If we ever expect to bring the Government back to 
 correct principles and eliminate favoritism from 
 legislation, we must diminish rather than multiplif 
 the number of those who, mindful only of their own 
 craft, are willing to drown the voice of Truth with 
 their praise of Diana. 
 
 Still another objection to banks of issue is the 
 danger that their notes will become worthless. This 
 danger is now reduced to a minimum in the present 
 national banking system, but as we pay off the 
 public debt and retire the bonds the system must be 
 given up or other securities substituted for Govern- 
 ment bonds. Already the matter is being discussed 
 and bills have been introduced providing for vari- 
 ous kinds of security. No bank notes can rise in 
 value above the national currency and none can 
 equal it unless guaranteed by the Government. If 
 provision is made for a Government guarantee the 
 banks will make the money and the Government will 
 stand the loss. If the Government does not guaran- 
 tee the notes, then the note-holder is in constant 
 
232 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 danger of loss, so that it is simply a question 
 whether some of the people will suffer or all. It is 
 needless to recount the experiences through which 
 we have passed with State bank paper. 
 
 The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer], 
 whose ability, learning, and industry illumine every 
 subject which he discusses, has left little to be said 
 on this branch of the question. Having just passed 
 through a panic we can imagine how much worse it 
 would have been if a large volume of bank paper, 
 fluctuating in value, had contributed another ele- 
 ment of uncertainty. 
 
 Gentlemen say that we have learned by experi- 
 ence and will avoid the evils which overtook us be- 
 fore. The best evidence that we have not learned 
 by experience is found in the willingness of so many 
 gentlemen to risk the State bank circulation again. 
 Jefferson gave the best definition of government 
 which has ever been suggested when he said : ' ' The 
 whole art of government consists in the art of being 
 honest." And added: ''The great principles of 
 right and wrong are legible to every reader ; to pur- 
 sue them requires not the aid of many counselors. ' ' 
 
 Our forefathers were as honest as we, and under- 
 stood as well the principles of right and wrong, nor 
 were they more beset than we by the corrupting 
 influences which surround official life, and yet, in 
 spite of their intelligence and their probity, banks 
 were organized without capital and sent forth their 
 worthless paper to cheat and defraud the innocent 
 citizen. "We may not only expect a recurrence of 
 these evils under similar circumstances, but, if local 
 bonds are used for security, we may expect to see 
 
MONEY 233 
 
 bonds voted and public debts incurred in order to 
 secure a foundation for currency. The difficulty 
 lies not in the ignorance of legislators nor in the dis- 
 honesty of those who grant bank charters, but in 
 the fact that no legislative body can be trusted to 
 grant special privileges to favored individuals. 
 Whenever it is attempted government becomes an 
 instrument of injustice and law the means of plun- 
 der, because the few who receive will always be 
 present and clamorous, while the many who pay 
 remain at home unheeded and unheard. The only 
 sure protection from vicious legislation is to be 
 found in the rigid observance of the old Democratic 
 motto : 
 "Equal rights to all and special privileges to none." 
 
 It has been said that we need a flexible currency, 
 and the bank of issue has been advocated as the only 
 means of securing such a currency. Since the value 
 of a dollar depends upon the number of dollars, it 
 becomes a serious question whether we want a cur- 
 rency whose volume is subject to frequent change. 
 
 History has shown that while banks of issue make 
 a currencv flexible it is bent to their own interests, 
 and we must remember that the power to expand 
 the currency for the public good carries with it the 
 power to contract the currency for the public harm. 
 It may be, therefore, that even if flexibility is de- 
 sirable it may be necessarily associated with dan- 
 gers which would more than offset its advantages. 
 Perhaps what is meant by a flexible currency is a 
 currency which will be in the right place at the 
 right time. One of the oft-repeated arguments in 
 
 119 
 
234 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 favor of State bank notes is that they will provide a 
 local currency, and much just complaint has been 
 made against the congestion of money at the great 
 centers of trade. But is this not due to defects in 
 our banking system rather than to defects in our 
 monetary system? 
 
 It is now necessary that every bank in the country 
 shall keep a deposit in New York, and, perhaps, in 
 one or two other cities, for purposes of exchange. 
 This tends to make money plentiful in the great 
 cities and scarce in the country. 
 
 I desire to suggest a plan which, I think, will rem- 
 edy this evil, and which will not only establish a 
 banking center in each State, but will save the ex- 
 pense of transporting money. The Government al- 
 ways has on hand a large amount of money stored 
 at its principal treasuries. This money can be kept 
 just as safely if the number of branch offices is in- 
 creased and the amount divided up. If, for in- 
 stance, the Government establishes a branch of the 
 Treasury at every State capital and at other large 
 commercial centers, it can receive money at one 
 branch and give a draft on any other branch, and 
 thus relieve the country banks from keeping large 
 deposits far from home. The amount of money at 
 each branch will be so considerable that it will not 
 be necessary to transport money to any great ex- 
 tent, and thus the Government Avill be able to sell 
 exchange at a low rate, just sufficient to cover ex- 
 penses. This will aid in the decentralization of 
 money, and will enable us to keep our money at 
 home to a much greater extent than we can now. 
 
 It has grieved me much to be compelled to differ 
 
MONEY 235 
 
 from associates with whom I have agreed on abnost 
 every other question ; but when the Representative 
 has given to a subject his best thought and investi- 
 gation, it is his duty to be true to the interests of 
 his constituents and true to his own judgment. 
 Some gentlemen have urged that the Democratic 
 party should yield to the demand for State banks 
 in order to insure victory this fall. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson said, in speaking of one of his con- 
 temporaries : 
 
 "He has not discovered that sublime truth, that a bold 
 unequivocal virtue is the best handmaid even to ambition." 
 
 That is a sublime truth, a^d a truth as applicable 
 to a party as to an individual. If the issue of money 
 by private corporations is wrong, the Democratic 
 party cannot afford to favor it for the sake of tem- 
 porary^ success. 
 
 Great and important as is the State, we cannot 
 afford to allow even a State to substitute a poor 
 local currency for a good national currency. If the 
 General Government ought to issue and control all 
 paper money, let us take up the principle and bear 
 it to victory. Gentlemen have quoted platforms; 
 let me call your attention to the Democratic nation- 
 al platform adopted in 1884 : 
 
 "We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage 
 of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible 
 into such money without loss." 
 
 Because some of our Democratic brethren have 
 abandoned ' ' the gold and silver coinage of the Con- 
 stitution," shall w^e who still hold to that part of 
 the plank surrender the last part and restore a cur- 
 
236 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 rency which may he convertible only at a loss. I 
 know not by what course of reasoning those who 
 depart from the faith may justify their apostacy 
 but I shall still ^'hold to the use of both gold and 
 silver as the standard money of the country, and 
 to the coinage of both gold and silver without clis- 
 crimination against either metal or charge for 
 mintage/' and shall oppose the issue of any paper 
 money, except by the General Government, to the 
 end that all such paper money may be convertible 
 without loss." This position is m Ime with tke 
 teachings of the fathers. Andrew Jackson expressed 
 a great truth when he said : 
 
 "There are no necessary evils in government; evils exist 
 only in its abuses." 
 
 Is it not better to remove the existing abuses of 
 government than to encourage the establishment of, 
 new ones? Can we not better afford to suffer hasty 
 criticisms than to earn permanent censure? Is it 
 not better to climb on through the clouds up to the 
 sunlit summit than to begin a descent even amid; 
 
 applause? ^ . , t i 
 
 Let us, then, with the courage of Andrew Jack- 
 son, apply to present conditions the principles 
 taught by Thomas Jefferson— Thomas Jefferson, the 
 greatest constructive statesman whom the world has 
 ever known; the grandest warrior who ever battled 
 for human liberty ! He quarried from the mountain 
 of eternal truth the four pillars upon whose 
 strength all popular government must rest. In 
 the Declaration of American Independence he pro- 
 claimed the principles with which there is, without 
 
MONEY 237 
 
 which there cannot he, "a government of the people 
 by the people, and for the people." When he de- 
 clared that ''all men are created equal; that they 
 are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien- 
 able Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and 
 the pursuit of Happiness, and that to secure these 
 rights Governments are instituted among Men, de- 
 riving their just powers from the consent of th^ 
 governed," he declared all that lies between the 
 Alpha and Omega of Democracy. 
 
 Alexander 'Svept for other worlds to conquer" 
 after he had carried his victorious banner through- 
 out the then known world. Napoleon ''rearranged 
 the map of Europe with his sword" amid the lamen- 
 tations of those by whose blood he was exalted ; but 
 when these and other military heroes are forgotten 
 and their achievements disappear in the cycle's 
 sweep of years, children will still lisp the name of 
 Jefferson, and freemen will ascribe due praise to 
 him who filled the kneeling subject's heart with 
 hope and bade him stand erect — a sovereign among 
 his peers. 
 
VII 
 IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 
 
 Delivered on July 8, 1896, in closing the debate on the 
 adoption of the platform. This is sometimes called "The 
 Cross of Gold" speech and sometimes "The Crown of 
 Thorns" speech. 
 
 I WOULD be presumptuous, indeed, to present 
 myself against the distinguished gentlemen to 
 whom you have listened if this were a mere 
 measuring of abilities ; but this is not a contest be- 
 tween persons. The humblest citizen in all the land, 
 when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is 
 stronger than all the hosts of error. I come to speak 
 to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of 
 liberty — the cause of humanity. 
 
 When this debate is concluded, a motion will be 
 made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in 
 commendation of the administration, and also the 
 resolution offered in condemnation of the adminis- 
 tration. We object to bringing this question down 
 to the level of persons. The individual is but an 
 atom ; he is born, he acts, he dies ; but principles are 
 eternal ; and this has been a contest over a principle. 
 
 Never before in the history of this country has 
 there been witnessed such a contest as that through 
 which we have just passed. Never before in 
 the history of American politics has a great issue 
 been fought out as this issue has been, by the voters 
 
 (238) 
 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 239 
 
 I of a great party. On the fourth of March, 1895, a 
 lew Democrats, most of them memhers of Con-rcss 
 issued an address to the Democrats of the nation' 
 assertnig that the money question was the para' 
 mount issue of the hour; declarmg that a majority 
 o± the Democratic party had the right to control the 
 action of the party on this paramount issue; and 
 concluding with the request that the believers in 
 the free coinage of silver in the Democratic party 
 Should organize, take charge of, and control the 
 policy of the Democratic party. Three months 
 later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, 
 and the silver Democrats went forth openly and 
 bourageously proclaiming their belief, and declar- 
 ing that, if successful, they would crystallize into a 
 platform the declaration which th'ey had made, 
 rhen began the conflict. With a zeal approaching 
 ;he zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed 
 Peter the Hermit, our silver Democrats went forth 
 :rom victory unto victory until they are now^ assem- 
 )led. not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up 
 :he judgment already rendered by the plain people 
 )f this country. In this contest brother has been ar- 
 rayed against brother, father against son. The 
 varmest ties of love, acquaintance and association 
 lave been disregarded ; old leaders have been cast 
 iside when they have refused to give expression to 
 he sentiments of those whom they would lead, and 
 lew leaders have sprung up to give direction to 
 his cause of truth. Thus has the contest been 
 vaged, and we have assembled here under as bind- 
 ng and solemn instructions as were ever imposed 
 ipon representatives of the people. 
 
240 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 We do not come as individuals. As individuals 
 we might have been glad to compliment the gentle- 
 man from New York (Senator Hill), but we know 
 that the people for whom we speak would never be 
 willing to put him in a position where he could 
 thwart the will of the Democratic party. I say it 
 was not a question of persons ; it was a question of 
 principle, and it is not with gladness, my friends, 
 that we find ourselves brought into conflict with 
 those who are now arrayed on the other side. 
 
 The gentleman who preceded me (ex-Governor 
 Russell) spoke of the State of Massachusetts; let 
 me assure him that not one present in all this con- 
 vention entertains the least hostility to the people of 
 the State of Massachvisetts, but we stand here rep- 
 resenting people who are the equals, before the 
 law, of the greatest citizens in the State of Massa- 
 chusetts. "When you (turning to the gold delegates) 
 come before us and tell us that we are about to dis- 
 turb your business interests, we reply that you have 
 disturbed our business interests by your course. 
 
 We say to you that you have made the definition 
 of a business man too limited in its application. 
 The man who is employed for wages is as much a 
 business man as his employer, the attorney in a 
 country town is as much a business man as the 
 corporation counsel in a great metropolis ; the mer- 
 chant at the cross-roads store is as much a busi- 
 ness man as the merchant of New York; the 
 farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils 
 all day — who begins in the spring and toils all 
 summer — and who by the application of brain and 
 muscle to the natural resources of the country 
 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 241 
 
 creates wealth, is as much a business man as the 
 man who goes upon the board of trade and bets 
 upon the price of grain; the miners who go down 
 a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thou- 
 sand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from 
 their hiding places the precious metals to be poured 
 into the channels of trade are as much business 
 men as the few financial magnates who, in a back v 
 room, corner the money of the world. We come to 
 speak for this broader class of business men. 
 
 Ah, my friends, we say not one word against 
 those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the 
 hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of 
 the wilderness, who have made the desert to blos- 
 som as the rose — the pioneers away out there 
 (pointing to the West), who rear their children 
 near to Nature 's heart, where they can mingle their 
 voices with the voices of the birds — cut there where 
 they have erected schoolhouses for the education of 
 their young, churches where they praise their Cre- 
 ator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their 
 dead — these people, we say, are as deserving of the 
 consideration of our party as any people in this 
 country. It is for these that we speak. We do not 
 come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of con- 
 quest ; we are fighting in the defense of our homes, 
 our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, 
 and our petitions have been scorned; we have en- 
 treated, and our entreaties have been disregarded : 
 we have begged, and they have mocked when our 
 calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no 
 more ; we petition no more. We defy them. 
 
 Q"'he gentleman from Wisconsin has said that he 
 
242 BEYAX'S SPEECHES 
 
 fears a Robespierre. ISly friends, in this land of the 
 free you need not fear that a tyrant will spring up 
 from among the people. What we need is an An- 
 drew Jackson to stand, as Jackson stood, against 
 the encroachments of organized wealth. 
 
 They tell us that this platform was made to catch 
 votes. We reply to them that changing conditions 
 make new issues; that the principles upon which 
 Democracy rests are as everlasting as the hills, but 
 that they must be applied to new conditions as they 
 arise. Conditions have arisen, and we are here to 
 meet these conditions. They tell us that the income 
 tax ought not to be brought in here ; that it is a new 
 idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. 'My friends, 
 we have not criticized ; we have simply called atten- 
 tion to what you already know. If you want criti- 
 cisms, read the dissenting opinions of the court. 
 There you will find criticisms. They say that we 
 passed an unconstitutional law; we deny it. The 
 income tax law was not unconstitutional when it was 
 passed; it was not unconstitutional when it went 
 before the Supreme Court for the first time ; it did 
 not become unconstitutional until one of the judges 
 changed his mind, and we cannot be expected to 
 know when a judge will change his mind. The in- 
 come tax is just. It simply intends to put the bur- 
 dens of government justly upon the backs of the 
 people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I 
 find a man who is not willing to bear his share of 
 the burdens of the government which protects him, 
 I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings 
 of a government like ours. 
 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 243 
 
 They say that we are opposing national bank cur- 
 rency; it is true. If you will read what Thomas 
 Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching 
 history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew 
 Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the con- 
 spiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said 
 that Cicero only did for Eome what Jackson did for 
 us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved 
 America. We say in our platform that we believe 
 that the right to coin and issue money is a function 
 of government. We believe it. We believe that it 
 is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with 
 safety be delegated to private individuals than we 
 could afford to delegate to private individuals the 
 power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. 
 Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Demo- 
 cratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion 
 from the gentleman who has addrest us on the part 
 of the minority. Those who are opposed to this 
 proposition tell us that the issue of paper money 
 is a function of the bank, and that the Government 
 ought to go out of the banking business. I stand 
 with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell 
 them, as he did, that the issue of money is a func- 
 tion of government, and that the banks ought to go 
 out of the governing business. 
 
 They complain about the plank which declares 
 against life tenure in office. They have tried to 
 strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What 
 we oppose by that plank is the life tenure which is 
 being built up in Washington, and which excludes 
 from participation in official benefits the humbler 
 members of society. 
 
244 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Let me call your attention to two or three impor- 
 tant things. The gentleman from New York says 
 that he will propose an amendment to the platform 
 providing that the proposed change in our monetary 
 system shall not affect contracts already made. Let 
 me remind you that there is no intention of affect- 
 ing those contracts which according to present laws 
 are made payable in gold; but if he means to say 
 that we cannot change our monetary system with- 
 out protecting those who have loaned money before 
 the change was made, I desire to ask him where, 
 in law or in morals, he can find justification for not 
 protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was 
 passed, if he now insists that we must protect the 
 creditors. 
 
 He says he will also propose an amendment which 
 will provide for the suspension of free coinage if 
 we fail to maintain the parity within a year. We 
 reply that when we advocate a policy which we be- 
 lieve will be successful, we are not compelled to raise 
 a doubt as to our own sincerity by suggesting what 
 we shall do if we fail. I ask him, if he would apply 
 his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. 
 He says he wants this country to try to secure an 
 international agreement. Why does he not tell us 
 what he is going to do if he fails to secure an inter- 
 national agreement ? There is more reason for him 
 to do that than there is for us to provide against 
 the failure to maintain the parity. Our opponents 
 have tried for twenty years to secure an interna- 
 tional agreement, and those are waiting for it most 
 patiently who do not want it at all. 
 
 And noWj my friends, let me come to the para- 
 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 245 
 
 mount issue. If they ask us why it is that we say 
 more on the money question than we say upon the 
 tariff question, I reply that, if protection has slain 
 its thousands, the gold standard has slain its tens 
 of thousands. If they ask us why we do not em- 
 body in our platform all the things that we believe 
 in, we reply that when we have restored the money 
 of the Constitution all other necessary reforms will 
 be possible ; but that until this is done there is no 
 other reform that can be accomplished. 
 
 Why is it that within three months such a change 
 has come over the country? Three months ago, 
 when it was confidently asserted that those who 
 believe in the gold standard would frame our plat- 
 form and nominate our candidates, even the advo- 
 cates of the gold standard did not think that we 
 could elect a President. And they had good reason 
 for their doubt, because there is scarcely a State 
 here to-day asking for the gold standard which is 
 not in the absolute control of the Republican party. 
 But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated 
 at St. Louis upon a platform which declared for 
 the maintenance of the gold standard until it can be 
 changed into bimetalism by international agree- 
 ment. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man 
 among the Republicans, and three months ago every- 
 body in the Republican party prophesied his elec- 
 tion. How is it to-day? Why, the man who was 
 once pleased to think that he looked like Napoleon 
 — that man shudders to-day when he remembers 
 that he was nominated on the anniversary of the 
 battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens 
 he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the 
 
246 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely 
 shores of St Helena. 
 
 Why this change? Ah, my friends, is not the 
 reason for the change evident to any one who will 
 look at the matter? No private character, how- 
 ever pure, no personal popularity, however great, 
 can protect from the avenging wrath of an indig- 
 nant people a man who will declare that he is in 
 favor of fastening the gold standard upon this 
 country, or who is willing to surrender the right of 
 self-government and place the legislative control of 
 our affairs in the hands of foreign potentates and 
 powers. 
 
 We go forth confident that we shall win. Why ? 
 Because upon the paramount issue of this cam- 
 j)aign there is not a spot of ground upon which the 
 enemy will dare to challenge battle. If they tell 
 us that the gold standard is a good thing, we shall 
 point to their platform and tell them that their 
 platform pledges the party to get rid of the gold 
 standard and substitute bimetalism. If the gold 
 standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? 
 I call your attention to the fact that some of the 
 very people Avho are in this convention to-day and 
 who tell us that we ought to declare in favor of 
 international bimetalism — thereby declaring that 
 the gold standard is wrong and that the principle 
 of bimetalism is better — these very people four 
 months ago were open and avowed advocates of the 
 gold standard, and were then telling us that we 
 could not legislate two metals together, even with 
 the aid of all the world. If the gold standard is a 
 good thing, we ought to declare in favor of its 
 
IN THE CHICxiGO CONVENTION 247 
 
 retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and 
 if the gold standard is a bad thing why should \vc 
 wait until other nations are willing to help us to 
 let go? Here is the line of battle, and we care not 
 upon which issue they force the fight; we are pre- 
 pared to meet them on either issue or on both. If 
 they tell us that the gold standard is the standard 
 of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most 
 enlightened of all the nations of the earth, has never 
 declared for a gold standard and that both the 
 great parties this year are declaring against it. If 
 the gold standard is the standard of civilization, 
 why, my friends, should we not have it? If they 
 come to meet us on that issue we can present the 
 history of our nation. More than that; we can 
 tell them that they will search the pages of history 
 in vain to find a single instance where the common 
 people of any land have ever declared themselves 
 in favor of the gold standard. They can find where 
 the holders of fixt investments have declared for 
 a gold standard, but not where the masses have. 
 
 i\Ir. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle 
 between ' ' the idle holders of idle capital ' ' and ' ' the 
 struggling masses, who produce the wealth and 
 pay the tanes of the country ' ' ; and, my friends, the 
 question we are to decide is : Upon which side will 
 the Democratic party fight ; upon the side of ' ' the 
 idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of 
 *'the struggling masses"? That is the question 
 which the party must answer first, and then it must 
 be answered by each individual hereafter. The 
 sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by 
 the platform, are on the side of the struggling 
 
248 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 masses who have ever been the foundation of the 
 Democratic party. There are two ideas of govern- 
 ment. There are those who believe that, if you will 
 only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, 
 their- prosperity will leak through on those below. 
 The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you 
 legislate to make the masses prosperous, their pros- 
 perity will find its way up through every class which 
 rests upon them. 
 
 You come to us and tell us that the great cities 
 are in favor of the gold standard ; we reply that the 
 great cities rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. 
 Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and 
 your cities will spring up again as if by magic ; but 
 destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the 
 streets of every city in the country. 
 
 My friends, we declare that this nation is able to 
 legislate for its own people on every question, with- 
 out waiting for the aid or consent of any other 
 nation on earth; and upon that issue we expect to 
 carry every State in the Union. I shall not slander 
 the inhabitants of the fair State of Massachusetts 
 nor the inhabitants of the State of New York by 
 saying that, when they are confronted with the 
 proposition, they will declare that this nation is not 
 able to attend to its own business. It is the issue of 
 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three 
 millions in number, had the courage to declare their 
 political independence of every other nation; shall 
 we, their descendants, when we have grown to 
 seventy millions, declare that we are less independ- 
 ent than our forefathers? No, my friends, that wnll 
 never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we 
 
IN THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 249 
 
 care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If 
 they say bimetalism is good, but that we cannot 
 have it until other nations help us, we reply that, 
 instead of having a gold standard because England 
 has, we will restore bimetalism, and then let Eng- 
 land have bimetalism because the United States 
 has it. If they dare to come out in the open field 
 and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we 
 will fight them to the uttermost. lEIaving behind 
 us the producing masses of this nation and the 
 world, supported by the commercial interests, the 
 laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we 
 will answer their demand for a gold standard by 
 saying to them: You shall not press down upon 
 the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall 
 not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. 
 
 lao 
 
VIII 
 THE SILVER QUESTION 
 
 Delivered in Madison Square Garden, New York City, 
 on Aug. 10, 1896, in accepting the Democratic nomination 
 for the Presidency. This speech contains, in condensed form, 
 the arguments offered in support of the restoration of bi- 
 metalism. 
 
 I SHALL, at a future day and in a formal letter, 
 accept the nomination which is now tendered 
 by the Notification Committee, and I shall at 
 that time touch upon the issues presented by the 
 platform. It is fitting, however, that at this time, 
 in the presence of those here assembled, I speak at 
 some length in regard to the campaign upon which 
 we are now entering. We do not underestimate the 
 forces arrayed against us. nor are we unmindful of 
 the importance of the struggle in which we are en- 
 gaged ; but, relying for success upon the righteous- 
 ness of our cause, we shall defend with all possible 
 vigor the positions taken by our party. We are not 
 surprized that some of our opponents, in the absence 
 of better argument, resort to abusive epithets, but 
 they may rest assured that no language, however 
 violent, no invectives, however vehement, will lead 
 us to depart a single hair 's breadth from the course 
 marked out by the National Convention. The citi- 
 zen, either public or private, who assails the charac- 
 ter and questions the patriotism of the delegates 
 assembled in the Chicago Convention, assails the 
 
 (250) 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 251 
 
 character and questions the patriotism of the mill- 
 ions who have arrayed themselves under the banner 
 there raised. 
 
 It has been charged by men standing high in 
 business and political circles that our platform is 
 a menace to private security and public safety; 
 and it has been asserted that those whom I have the 
 honor for the time being, to represent, not only 
 meditate an attack upon the rights of property, but 
 are the foes both of social order and national honor. 
 
 Those who stand upon the Chicago platform are 
 prepared to make known and to defend every mo- 
 tive which influences them, every purpose which 
 animates them, and every hope which inspires them. 
 They understand the genius of our institutions, 
 they are staunch supporters of the form of govern- 
 ment under which we live, and they build their 
 faith upon foundations laid by the fathers. Andrew 
 Jackson has stated, with admirable clearness and 
 with an emphasis which cannot be surpassed, both 
 the duty and the sphere of government. He said: 
 
 "Distinctions in society will always exist under every 
 just government. Equality of talents, of education or of 
 wealth, cannot be produced by human institutions. In the 
 full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of 
 superior industry, economy and virtue, every man is equally 
 entitled to protection by law." 
 
 We yield to none in our devotion to the doctrine 
 just enunciated. Our campaign has not for its 
 object the reconstruction of society. We cannot 
 insure to the vicious the fruits of a virtuous life; 
 we would not invade the home of the provident in 
 order to supply the wants of the spendthrift; we 
 do not propose to transfer the rewards of industry 
 
252 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 to the lap of indolence. Property is and will re- 
 main the stimulus to endeavor and the compensa- 
 tion for toil. We believe, as asserted in the Dec- 
 laration of Independence, that all men are created 
 equal; but that does not mean that ail men are or 
 can be equal in possessions, in ability or in merit; 
 it simply means that all shall stand equal before 
 the law, and that government officials shall not, in 
 making, construing or enforcing the law, discrimi- 
 nate between citizens. 
 
 I assert that property rights, as well as the 
 rights of persons, are safe in the hands of the com- 
 mon people. Abraham Lincoln, in his message 
 sent to Congress in December, 1861, said : 
 
 "No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those 
 who toil up from poverty ; none less inclined to take or 
 touch aught which they have not honestly earned." 
 
 I repeat his language with unqualified approval, 
 and join with him in the warning which he added, 
 namely : 
 
 "Let them beware of surrendering a political power 
 which they already possess, and which power, if surren- 
 dered, will surely be used to close the doors of advancement 
 against such as they^ and to fix new disabilities and bur- 
 dens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost." 
 
 Those who daily follow the injunction, ^'In the 
 sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," are now, 
 as they ever have been, the bulwark of law and 
 order — the source of our nation's greatness in time 
 of peace, and its surest defenders in time of war. 
 
 But I have only read a part of Jackson's utter- 
 ance — let me give you his conclusion : 
 
 "But when the laws undertake to add to those natural 
 and just advantages artificial distinctions — to grant titles, 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 253 
 
 gratuities and exclusive privileges — to make the rich richer 
 and the potent more powerful — the humble members of so- 
 ciety — the farmers, mechanics and the laborers — who have 
 neither the time nor the means of securing like favors for 
 themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of 
 their government." 
 
 Those who support the Chicago platform endorse 
 all of the quotation from Jackson — the latter part 
 as well as the former part. 
 
 We are not surprized to find arrayed against us 
 those who are the beneficiaries of government fa- 
 voritism — they have read our platform. Nor are 
 we surprized to learn that we must in this cam- 
 paign face the hostility of those who find a pecuni- 
 ary advantage in advocating the doctrine of non- 
 interference when great aggregations of wealth are 
 trespassing upon the rights of individuals. We 
 welcome such opposition — it is the highest endorse- 
 ment which could be bestowed upon us. We are 
 content to have the cooperation of those who desire 
 to have the Government administered without fear 
 or favor. It is not the wish of the general public 
 that trusts should spring into existence and over- 
 ride the weaker members of society; it is not the 
 wish of the general public that these trusts should 
 destroy competition and then collect such tax as 
 they will from those who are at their mercy; nor 
 is it the fault of the general public that the instru- 
 mentalities of government have been so often pros- 
 tituted to purposes of private gain. Those who 
 stand upon the Chicago platform believe that the 
 government should not only avoid wrongdoing, but 
 that it should also prevent wrongdoing; and they 
 believe that the law should be enforced alike 
 
254 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 against all enemies of the public weal. They do 
 not excuse petit larceny, but they declare that grand 
 larceny is equally a crime ; they do not defend the 
 occupation of the highwayman who robs the un- 
 suspecting traveler, but they include among the 
 transgressors those who, through the more polite 
 and less hazardous means of legislation, appropri- 
 ate to their own use the proceeds of the toil of 
 others. The commandment, ' ' Thou shalt not steal, ' * 
 thundered from Sinai and reiterated in the legis- 
 lation of all nations, is no respecter of persons. It 
 must be applied to the great as well as to the small ; 
 to the strong as well as to the weak; to the cor- 
 porate person created by law as well as to the 
 person of flesh and blood created by the Almighty. 
 No government is worthy of the name which is not 
 able to protect from every arm uplifted for his in- 
 jury the humblest citizen who lives beneath the 
 flag. It follows as a necessary conclusion that 
 vicious legislation must be remedied by the people 
 who suffer from the effects of such legislation, and 
 not by those who enjoy its benefits. 
 
 The Chicago platform has been condemned by 
 some because it dissents from an opinion rendered 
 by the Supreme Court declaring the income tax law 
 unconstitutional. Our critics even go so far as to 
 apply the name anarchist to those who stand upon 
 that plank of the platform. It must be remem- 
 bered that we expressly recognize the binding force 
 of that decision so long as it stands as a part of 
 the law of the land. There is in the platform no 
 suggestion of an attempt to dispute the authority 
 of the Supreme Court. The party is simply pledged 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 255 
 
 to use "all the constitutional power which remains 
 after that decision, or which may come from its 
 reversal by the Court as it may hereafter be con- 
 stituted.'' Is there anj^ disloyalty in that pledge? 
 For a hundred years the Supreme Court of the 
 United States has sustained the principle which 
 underlies the income tax. Some twenty years ago 
 this same Court sustained, without a dissenting 
 voice, an income tax law almost identical with the 
 one recently overthrown. Has not a future court 
 as much right to return to the judicial precedents 
 of a century as the present Court had to depart 
 from them? When courts allow rehearings they 
 admit that error is possible ; the late decision against 
 the income tax was rendered by a majority of one 
 after a rehearing. 
 
 "While the money question overshadows all other 
 questions in importance, I desire it distinctly un- 
 derstood that I shall offer no apology for the income 
 tax plank of the Chicago platform. The last in- 
 come tax law sought to apportion the burdens of 
 government more equitably among those who en- 
 joy the protection of the Government. At present 
 the expenses of the Federal Government, collected , 
 through internal revenue taxes and import duties, [ 
 are especially burdensome upon the poorer classes 
 of society. A law which collects from some citizens 
 more than their share of the taxes and collects from 
 other citizens less than their share is simply an in- 
 direct means of transferring one man's property 
 to another man 's pocket, and, while the process may 
 be quite satisfactory to the men w^ho escape just 
 taxation, it can never be satisfactory to those who 
 
256 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 are overburdened. The last income tax law, with 
 its exemption provisions, when considered in con- 
 nection with other methods of taxation in force, 
 was not unjust to the possessors of large incomes, 
 because they were not compelled to pay a total 
 Federal tax greater than their share. The income 
 tax is not new, nor is it based upon hostility to the 
 rich. The system is employed in several of the most 
 important nations of Europe, and every income tax 
 law now upon the statute books in any land, so far 
 as I have been able to ascertain, contains an ex- 
 emption clause. While the collection of an income 
 tax in other countries does not make it necessary 
 for this Nation to adopt the system, yet it ought to 
 moderate the language of those who denounce the 
 income tax as an assault upon the well-to-do. 
 
 Not only shall I refuse to apologize for the ad- 
 vocacy of an income tax law by the National Con- 
 vention, but I shall also refuse to apologize for 
 the exercise by it of the right to dissent from a 
 decision of the Supreme Court. In a government 
 like ours every public official is a public servant, 
 whether he holds office by election or by appoint- 
 ment, whether he serves for a term of years or dur- 
 ing good behavior, and the people have a right to 
 criticize his official acts. ''Confidence is every- 
 where the parent of despotism ; free government 
 exists in jealousy and not in confidence" — these are 
 the words of Thomas Jefferson, and I submit that 
 they present a truer conception of popular govern- 
 ment than that entertained by those who would 
 prohibit an unfavorable comment upon a court de- 
 cision. Truth will vindicate itself ; only error fears 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 257 
 
 free speech. No public official who conscientiously 
 discharges his duty as he sees it will desire to deny 
 to those whom he serves the right to discuss his 
 official conduct. 
 
 Now let me ask you to consider the paramount 
 question of this campaign — the money question. It 
 is scarcely necessary to defend the principle of 
 bimetalism. No national party during the entire 
 history of the United States has ever declared 
 against it, and no party in this campaign has had 
 the temerity to oppose it. Three parties — the Dem- 
 ocratic, Populist and Silver parties — have not only 
 declared for bimetalism, but have outlined the 
 specific legislation necessary to restore silver to its 
 ancient position by the side of gold. The Republi- 
 can platform expressly declares that bimetalism is 
 desirable when it pledges the Republican party to 
 aid in securing it as soon as the assistance of certain 
 foreign nations can be obtained. Those who rep- 
 resented the minority sentiment in the Chicago 
 Convention opposed the free coinage of silver by 
 the United States by independent action, on the 
 ground that, in their judgment, it "would retard 
 or entirely prevent the establishment of interna- 
 tional bimetalism, to which the efforts of the Gov- 
 ernment should be steadily directed." When they 
 asserted that the efforts of the Government should 
 be steadily directed toward the establishment of 
 international bimetalism, they condemned mono- 
 metalism. The gold standard has been v/eighed in 
 the balance and found wanting. Take from it the 
 powerful support of the money-owning and the 
 money-changing classes and it cannot stand for one 
 
253 BRYAN'S 'SPEECHES 
 
 day in any nation in the world. It was fastened 
 upon the United States without discussion before 
 the people, and its friends have never yet been will- 
 ing to risk a verdict before the voters upon that 
 issue. 
 
 There can be no sympathy or cooperation between 
 the advocates of a universal gold standard and the 
 advocates of bimetalism. Between bimetalism — 
 whether independent or international — and the gold 
 standard there is an impassable gulf. Is this quad- 
 rennial agitation in favor of international bimetal- 
 ism conducted in good faith, or do our opponents 
 really desire to maintain the gold standard per- 
 manently? Are they willing to confess the superi- 
 ority of a double standard when joined in by the 
 leading nations of the world, or do they still insist 
 that gold is the only metal suitable for standard 
 money among civilized nations? If they are in 
 fact desirous of securing bimetalism, w^e may expect 
 them to point out the evils of a gold standard and 
 defend bimetalism as a system. If, on the other 
 hand, they are bending their energies toward the 
 permanent establishment of a gold standard under 
 cover of a declaration in favor of international 
 bimetalism, I am justifiel in suggesting that honest 
 money cannot be expected at the hands of those 
 who deal dishonestly with the American people. 
 
 What is the test of honesty in money? It must 
 certainly be found in the purchasing power of the 
 dollar. An absolutely honest dollar would not vary 
 in its general purchasing power ; it would be abso- 
 lutely stable when measured by average prices. A 
 dollar which increases in purchasing power is just 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 259 
 
 as dishonest as a dollar which decreases in pur- 
 chasing power. Prof. Laughlin, now of the Uni- 
 versity of Chicago, and one of the highest gold- 
 standard authorities, in his work on bimetalism not 
 only admits that gold does not remain absolutely 
 stable in value, but expressly asserts "that there is 
 no such thing as a standard of value for future 
 payments, either in gold or silver, which remains 
 absolutely invariable.'^ He even suggests that a 
 multiple standard, wherein the unit is ''based upon 
 the selling prices of a number of articles of general 
 consumption," would be a more just standard than 
 either gold or silver, or both, because "a long time 
 contract would thereby be paid at its maturity by 
 the same purchasing power as was given in the be- 
 ginning. " 
 
 It cannot be successfully claimed that mono- 
 metalism or bimetalism, or any other system, gives 
 an absolutely just standard of value. Under both 
 monometalism and bimetalism the Government fixes 
 the weight and fineness of the dollar, invests it with 
 legal tender qualities, and then opens the mints to 
 its unrestricted coinage, leaving the purchasing 
 power of the dollar to be determined by the num- 
 ber of dollars. Bimetalism is better than mono- 
 metalism, not because it gives us a perfect dollar — 
 that is, a dollar absolutely unvarying in its gen- 
 eral purchasing power — but because it makes a 
 nearer approach to stability, to honesty, to justice, 
 than a gold standard possibly can. Prior to 1873, 
 when there were enough open mints to permit all 
 the gold and silver available for coinage to find 
 entrance into the w^orld's volume of standard 
 
260 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 money, the United States might have maintained a 
 gold standard with less injury to the people of this 
 country ; but now, when each step toward a univer- 
 sal gold standard enhances the purchasing power 
 of gold, depresses prices, and transfers to the pock- 
 ets of the creditor class an unearned increment, the 
 influence of this great nation must not be thrown 
 upon the side of gold unless we are prepared to 
 accept the natural and legitimate consequences of 
 such an act. Any legislation which lessens the 
 world's stock of standard money increases the ex- 
 changeable value of the dollar; therefore, the cru- 
 sade against silver must inevitably raise the pur- 
 chasing power of money and lower the money value 
 of all other forms of property. 
 
 Our opponents sometimes admit that it was a 
 mistake to demonetize silver, but insist that we 
 should submit to present conditions rather than 
 return to the bimetalic system. They err in sup- 
 posing that we have reached the end of the evil 
 results of a gold standard ; we have not reached the 
 end. The injury is a continuing one, and no per- 
 son can say how long the world is to suffer from 
 the attempt to make gold the only standard money. 
 The same influences which are now operating to 
 destroy silver in the United States will, if successful 
 here, be turned against other silver-using countries, 
 and each new convert to the gold standard will add 
 to the general distress. So long as the scramble 
 for gold continues, prices must fall, and a general 
 fall in prices is but another definition of hard 
 times. 
 
 Our opponents, while claiming entire disinter- 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 261 
 
 esteclness for themselves, have appealed to the self- 
 ishness of nearh' every class of society. Recogniz- 
 ing the disposition of the individual voter to con- 
 sider the effect of any proposed legislation upon 
 himself, we present to the American people the 
 financial policy' outlined in the Chicago platform, 
 believing that it will result in the greatest good to 
 the greatest number. 
 
 The farmers are opposed to the gold standard 
 because they have felt its effects. Since they sell at 
 wholesale and buy at retail they have lost more than 
 they have gained by falling prices, and, besides 
 this, they have found that certain fixt charges have 
 not fallen at all. Taxes have not been perceptibly 
 decreased, altho it requires more of farm products 
 now than formerly to secure the money with which 
 to pay taxes. Debts have not fallen. The farmer 
 who owed $1,000 is still compelled to pay $1,000, 
 altho it may be twice as difficult as formerly to 
 obtain the dollars with which to pay the debt. 
 Railroad rates have not been reduced to keep pace 
 with falling prices, and besides these items there are 
 many more. The farmer has thus found it more 
 and more difficult to live. Has he not a just com- 
 plaint against the gold standard? 
 
 The wage earners have been injured by a gold 
 standard, and have exprest themselves upon the 
 subject with great emphasis. In February, 1895, 
 a petition asking for the immediate restoration of 
 the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver 
 at 16 to 1 was signed by the representatives of all, 
 or nearly all, the leading labor organizations and 
 presented to Congress. Wage-earners know that 
 
262 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 while a gold standard raises the purchasing power 
 of the dollar, it also makes it more difficult to obtain 
 possession of the dollar; they know that employ- 
 ment is less permanent, loss of work more probable, 
 and reemployment less certain. A gold standard 
 encourages the hoarding of money, because money 
 is rising; it also discourages enterprise and para- 
 lyzes industry. On the other hand, the restoration 
 of bimetalism will discourage hoarding because, 
 when prices are steady or rising, money cannot 
 afford to lie idle in the bank vaults. The farmers 
 and wage-earners together constitute a considerable 
 majority of the people of the country. Why should 
 their interests be ignored in considering financial 
 legislation? A monetary system which is pecu- 
 niarily advantageous to a few syndicates has far 
 less to commend it than a system which would give 
 hope and encouragement to those who create the 
 nation 's wealth. 
 
 Our opponents have made a special appeal to 
 those who hold fire and life insurance policies, but 
 these policy-holders know that, since the total pre- 
 miums received exceed the total losses paid, a 
 rising standard must be of more benefit to the com- 
 panies than to the policy-holders. 
 
 ]\Iuch solicitude has been exprest by our oppo- 
 nents for the depositors in savings banks. They 
 constantly parade before these depositors the ad- 
 vantages of a gold standard, but these appeals will 
 "be in vain, because savings bank depositors know 
 that under a gold standard there is increasing dan- 
 ger that they will lose their deposits because of the 
 inability of the banks to collect their assets; and 
 
THE SIL\^p]R QUESTION 263 
 
 they still further know that, if the gold standard is 
 to continue indefinitely, they may be compelled to 
 withdraw their deposits in order to pay living ex* 
 penses. 
 
 It is only necessary to note the increasing num- 
 ber of failures in order to know that a gold stand- 
 ard is ruinous to merchants and manufacturers. 
 These business men do not make their profits from 
 the people from whom they borrow money, but 
 from the people to whom they sell their goods. If 
 the people cannot buy, retailers cannot sell, and, if 
 retailers cannot sell, wholesale merchants and man- 
 ufacturers must go into bankruptcy. 
 
 Those who hold, as a permanent investment, the 
 stock of railroads and of other enterprises — I do not 
 include those who speculate in stocks or use stock 
 holdings as a means of obtaining an inside advant- 
 age in construction contracts — are injured by a gold 
 standard. The rising dollar destroys the earning' 
 power of these enterprises without reducing their 
 liabilities, and, as dividends cannot be paid until 
 salaries and fixt charges have been satisfied, the 
 stockholders must bear the burden of hard times. 
 
 Salaries in business occupations depend upon 
 business conditions, and the gold standard both 
 lessens the amount and threatens the permanency 
 of such salaries. 
 
 Official salaries, except the salaries of those who 
 hold office for life, must, in the long run, be adjusted 
 to the conditions of those who pay the taxes, and if 
 the present financial policy continues we must ex- 
 pect the contest between the taxpayer and the tax- 
 eater to increase in bitterness. 
 
264 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 The professional classes — in the main — derive 
 their support from the producing classes, and can 
 only enjoy prosperity when there is prosperity 
 among those who create wealth. 
 
 I have not attempted to describe the effect of the 
 gold standard upon all classes — in fact, I have 
 only had time to mention a few — but each person 
 will be able to apply the principles stated to his 
 own occupation. 
 
 It must also be remembered that it is the desire 
 of people generally to convert their earnings into 
 real or personal property. This being true, in con- 
 sidering any temporary advantage which may come 
 from a system under which the dollar rises in its 
 purchasing power, it must not be forgotten that the 
 dollar cannot buy more than formerly unless prop- 
 erty sells for less than formerly. Hence, it will be 
 seen that a large portion of those who may find 
 some pecuniary advantage in a gold standard will 
 discover that their losses exceed their gains. 
 
 It is sometimes asserted by our opponents that a 
 bank belongs to the debtor class, but this is not true 
 of any solvent bank. Every statement published 
 by a solvent bank shows that the assets exceed the 
 liabilities. That is to say, while the bank owes a 
 large amount of money to its depositors, it not only 
 has enough on hand in money and notes to pay its 
 depositors, but, in addition thereto, has enough to 
 cover its capital and surplus. When the dollar is 
 rising in value slowly, a bank may, by making 
 short-time loans and taking good security, avoid 
 loss; but when prices are falling rapidly, the bank 
 is apt to lose more because of bad debts than it can 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 265 
 
 gain by the increase in the purchasing power of its 
 capital and surplus. 
 
 Some bankers, however, combine the business of 
 a bond broker with the ordinary banking business, 
 and these may make enough in the negotiation of 
 loans to offset the losses arising in legitimate bank- 
 ing business. As long as human nature remains as 
 it is, there will always be danger that, unless re- 
 strained by public opinion or legal enactment, those 
 who see a pecuniary profit for themselves in a cer- 
 tain condition may yield to the temptation to bring 
 about that condition. Jefferson has stated that one 
 of the main duties of government is to prevent men 
 from injuring one another, and never was that duty 
 more important than it is to-day. It is not strange 
 that those who have made a profit by furnishing 
 gold to the Government in the hour of its extremity 
 favor a financial policy which will keep the Gov- 
 ernment dependent upon them. I believe, however, 
 that I speak the sentiment of the vast majority of 
 the people of the United States when I say that a 
 wise financial policy administered in behalf of all 
 the people would make our Government independ- 
 ent of any combination of financiers, foreign or 
 domestic. 
 
 Let me say a word, now, in regard to certain per- 
 sons who are pecuniarily benefited by a gold stand- 
 ard, and Vv^ho favor it, not from a desire to trespass 
 upon the rights of others, but because the circum- 
 stances which surround them blind them to the 
 effect of the gold standard upon others. I shall ask 
 you to consider the language of two gentlemen 
 whose long public service and high standing in the 
 
 121 
 
266 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 party to which they belong will protect them from 
 adverse criticism by our opponents. In 1869 Sena- 
 tor Sherman said : 
 
 "The contraction of the currency is a far more distressing 
 operation than Senators suppose. Our own and other nations 
 have gone through that operation before. It is not possible 
 to take that voyage without the sorest distress. To every 
 person, except a capitalist out of debt, or a salaried officer, 
 or annuitant, it is a period of loss, danger, lassitude of trade, 
 fall of wages, suspension of enterprise, bankruptcy and dis- 
 aster. It means ruin to all dealers whose debts are twice 
 their busines capital, tho one-third less than their actual 
 property. It means the fall of all agricultural production 
 •without any great reduction of taxes What prudent man 
 ^ould dare to build a house, a railroad, a factory, or a barn 
 with this certain fact before him?" 
 
 As I have said before, the salaried officer referred 
 to must be the man whose salary is fixt for life, and 
 not the man whose salary depends upon business 
 conditions. When Mr. Sherman describes contrac- 
 tion of the currency as disastrous to all the people 
 except the capitalist out of debt and those who 
 stand in a position similar to his, he is stating a 
 truth which must be apparent to every person who 
 will give the matter careful consideration. Mr. 
 Sherman was at that time speaking of the contrac- 
 tion of the volume of paper currency, but the prin- 
 ciple which he set forth applies, if there is a con- 
 traction of the volume of the standard money of the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. Blaine discust the same principle in connec- 
 tion with the demonetization of silver. Speaking 
 in the House of Representatives on the 7th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1878, he said : 
 
 "I believe the struggle now going on in this country and 
 other countries for a single gold standard would, if success- 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 267 
 
 ful, produce widespread disaster in and throughout the ooin- 
 mercial world. The destruction of silver as money, and the 
 establishing of gold as the sole unit of value must have a 
 ruinous effect on all forms of property, except those invest- 
 ments which yield a fixt return in money. These would be 
 enormously enhanced in value, and would gain a dispropor- 
 tionate and unfair advantage over every other species of 
 property." 
 
 It is strange that the ''holders of investments 
 which yield a fixt return in money" can regard 
 the destruction of silver with complacency. May 
 we not expect the holders of other forms of prop- 
 erty to protest against giving to money a "dis- 
 proportionate and unfair advantage over every 
 other species of property?" If the relatively few 
 whose wealth consists largely in fixt investments 
 have a right to use the ballot to enhance the value 
 of their investments, have not the rest of the people 
 the right to use the ballot to protect themselves 
 from the disastrous consequences of a rising stand- 
 ard? The people who must purchase money with 
 the products of toil stand in a position entirely dif- 
 ferent from the position of those who own money 
 or receive a fixt income. The well-being of the na- 
 tion — aye, of civilization itself — depends upon the 
 prosperity of the masses. What shall it profit us to 
 have a dollar which grows more valuable every day 
 if such a dollar lowers the standard of civilization 
 and brings distress to the people? "What shall it 
 profit us if, in trying to raise our credit by increas- 
 ing the purchasing power of our dollar, we destroy 
 our ability to pay the debts already contracted by 
 lowering the purchasing power of the products with 
 which those debts must be paid? If it is asserted, 
 
268 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 as it constantly is asserted, that the gold standard 
 will enable us to borrow more money from abroad, 
 I reply that the restoration of bimetalism will re- 
 store the parity between money and property, and 
 thus permit an era of prosperity which will enable 
 the American people to become loaners of money 
 instead of perpetual borrowers. Even if we desire 
 to borrow, how long can we continue borrowing 
 under a system which, by lowering the value of 
 property, weakens the foundation upon which credit 
 rests ? 
 
 Even the holders of fixt investments, tho they 
 gain an advantage from the appreciation of the 
 dollar, certainly see the injustice of the legislation 
 w^hicli gives them this advantage over those whose 
 incomes depend upon the value of property and 
 products. If the holders of fixt investments will not 
 listen to arguments based upon justice and equit3% 
 I appeal to them to consider the interests of pos- 
 terity. "We do not live for ourselves alone; our 
 labor, our self-denial, and our anxious care — all 
 these are for those who are to come after us as 
 much as for ourselves, but we cannot protect our 
 children beyond the period of our lives. Let tho:;e 
 who are now reaping advantage from a vicious 
 financial system remember that in the years to come 
 their own children and their children's children 
 may, through the operation of this same system, be 
 made to pay tribute to the descendants of those who 
 are wronged to-day. 
 
 As against the maintenance of a gold standard, 
 either permanently or until other nations can be 
 united for its overthrow, the Chicago platform 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 269 
 
 presents a clear and emphatic demand for the im- 
 mediate restoration of the free and unlimited coin- 
 age of silver and gold at the present legal ratio of 
 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of 
 any other nation. We are not asking that a new 
 ' experiment be tried ; we are insisting upon a return 
 to a financial policy approved by the experience 
 of history and supported by all the prominent 
 statesmen of our nation from the days of the first 
 President down to 1873. When we ask that our 
 mints be opened to the free and unlimited coinage 
 of silver into full legal tender money, we are simply 
 asking that the same mint privileges be accorded to 
 silver that are now accorded to gold. When we ask 
 that this coinage be at the ratio of 16 to 1, we simply 
 ask that our gold coins and the standard silver dol- 
 lar — which, be it remembered, contains the same 
 amount of pure silver as the first silver dollar 
 coined at our mints — retain their present weight 
 and fineness. 
 
 The theoretical advantage of the bimetalic system 
 is best stated by a European writer on political 
 economy, who suggests the following illustration: 
 A river fed from two sources is more uniform in 
 volume than a river fed from one source — the rea- 
 son being that when one of the feeders is swollen the 
 other may be low; whereas, a river which has but 
 one feeder must rise or fall with that feeder. So in 
 the case of bimetalism; the volume of metalic 
 money receives contributions from both the gold 
 mines and the silver mines, and therefore varies 
 less, and the dollar resting upon two metals is less 
 
270 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 changeable in its purchasing power than the dollai? 
 which rests upon one metal only. 
 
 If there are two kinds of money, the option must 
 rest either with the debtor or with the creditor. 
 Assuming that their rights are equal, we must look 
 at the interest of society in general in order to de- 
 termine to which side the option should be given. 
 Under the bimetalic system gold and silver are 
 linked together by law at a fixt ratio, and any per- 
 son or persons owning any quantity of either metal 
 can have the same converted into full legal-tender 
 money. If the creditor has the right to choose the 
 metal in which payment shall be made, it is rea- 
 sonable to suppose that he will require the debtor 
 to pay in the dearer metal if there is any percepti- 
 ble difference between the bullion values of the 
 metals. This new demand created for the dearer 
 metal will make that metal dearer still, while the 
 decreased demand for the cheaper metal will make 
 that metal cheaper still. If, on the other hand, the 
 debtor exercises the option, it is reasonable to sup- 
 pose that he will pay in the cheaper metal if one 
 metal is perceptibly cheaper than the other; but 
 the demand thus created for the cheaper metal will 
 raise its price, while the lessened demand for the 
 dearer metal will lower its price. In other words^ 
 when the creditor has the option, the metals are 
 drawn apart; whereas, when the debtor has the 
 option, the metals are held together approximately 
 at the ratio fixed by law, provided the demand cre- 
 ated is sufficient to absorb all of both metals pre- 
 sented at the mint. Society is, therefore, interested 
 in having the option exercised by the debtor. In- 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 271 
 
 deed, there can be no such thing as real bimetal ism 
 unless the option is exercised by the debtor. The 
 exercise of the option by the debtor compels the 
 creditor classes, whether domestic or foreign, to 
 exert themselves to maintain the parity between 
 gold and silver at the legal ratio, whereas they 
 might find a profit in driving one of the metals to a 
 premium if they could then demand the dearer 
 metal. The right of the debtor to choose the coin 
 in which payment shall be made extends to obliga- 
 tions due from the government as well as to con- 
 tracts between individuals. A government obliga- 
 tion is simply a debt due from all the people to one 
 of the people, and it is impossible to justify a policy 
 which makes the interests of the one person who 
 holds the obligation superior to the rights of the 
 many who must be taxed to pay it. When, prior 
 to 1873, silver was at a premium, it was never con- 
 tended that national honor required the payment 
 of government obligations in silver, and the Mat- 
 thews resolution, adopted by Congress in 1878, 
 expressly asserted the right of the United States 
 to redeem coin obligations in standard silver dol- 
 lars as well as in gold coin. 
 
 Upon this subject the Chicago platform reads: 
 
 "We are opposed to the policy and practise of surren- 
 dering to the holders of the obligations of the United States 
 the option reserved by law to the Government of redeeming 
 such obligations in either silver coin or gold coin." 
 
 It is constantly assumed by some that the United 
 States notes, commonly called greenbacks, and the 
 treasury notes issued under the act of 1890, are 
 responsible for the recent drain upon the gold re- 
 
272 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 serve, but tliis assumption is entirely without foun- 
 dation. Secretary Carlisle appeared before the 
 House Committee on Appropriations on January 
 21, 1895, and I quote from the printed report of his 
 testimony before the committee: 
 
 "Mr. Sibley : I would like to ask you (perhaps not en- 
 tirely connected with the matter under discussion) what ob- 
 jection there could be to having the option of redeeming 
 either in silver or gold lie with the Treasury instead of the 
 note holder? 
 
 "Secretary Carlisle : If that policy had been adopted at 
 the beginning of resumption — and I am not saying this for 
 the purpose of criticizing the action of any of my prede- 
 cessors, or anybody else — but if the policy of reserving to 
 the Government, at the beginning of resumption, the option 
 of redeeming in gold or silver all its paper presented, I be- 
 lieve it would have worked beneficially, and there would 
 have been no trouble growing out of it, but the Secretaries 
 of the Treasury from the beginning of resumption have pur- 
 sued a policy of redeeming in gold or silver, at the option 
 of the holder of the paper, and if any Secretary had after- 
 ward attempted to change that policy and force silver upon 
 a man who wanted gold, or gold upon a man who wanted 
 silver, and especially if he had made that attempt at such a 
 critical period as we have had in the last two years, my judg- 
 ment is it would have been very disastrous." 
 
 I do not agree with the Secretary that it was 
 wise to follow a bad precedent, but from his answer 
 it will be seen that the fault does not lie with the 
 greenbacks and treasury notes, but rather with the 
 executive officers who have seen fit to surrender a 
 right which should have been exercised for the pro- 
 tection of the interests of the people. This execu- 
 tive action has already been made the excuse for 
 the issue of more than $250,000,000 in bonds, and 
 it is impossible to estimate the amount of bonds 
 which may hereafter be issued if this policy is con- 
 tinued. We are told that any attempt upon the 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 273 
 
 part of the Government at this time to redeem its 
 obligations in silver would put a premium upon 
 gold, but why should it? The Bank of France 
 exercises the right to redeem all bank paper in 
 either gold or silver, and yet Prance maintains the 
 parity between gold and silver at the ratio of 15>^ 
 to 1, and retains in circulation more silver per 
 capita than we do in the United States. 
 
 It may be further answered that our opponents 
 have suggested no feasible plan for avoiding the 
 dangers which they fear. The retirement of the 
 greenbacks and treasury notes would not protect the 
 Treasury, because the same policy which now leads 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem all Gov- 
 ernment paper in gold, when gold is demanded, will 
 require the redemption of all silver dollars and sil- 
 ver certificates in gold, if the greenbacks and treas- 
 ury notes are withdrawn from circulation. More 
 than this, if the Government should retire its paper 
 and throw upon the banks the necessity of fur- 
 nishing coin redemption, the banks would exercise 
 the right to furnish either gold or silver. In other 
 words, they would exercise the option, just as the 
 Government ought to exercise it now. The Gov- 
 
 - ernment must either exercise the right to redeem 
 its obligations in silver when silver is more con- 
 venient, or it must retire all the silver and silver 
 certificates from circulation and leave nothing but 
 gold as legal tender money. Are our opponents 
 
 - willing to outline a financial system which will carry 
 out their policy to its legitimate conclusion, or will 
 they continue to cloak their designs in ambiguous 
 phrases ? 
 
274 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 There is an actual necessity for bimetalism as 
 well as a theoretical defense of it. During the last 
 twenty-three years legislation has been creating an 
 additional demand for gold, and this law-created 
 demand has resulted in increasing the purchasing 
 power of each ounce of gold. The restoration of 
 bimetalism in the United States will take away from 
 gold just so much of its purchasing power as was 
 added to it by the demonetization of silver by the 
 United States. The silver dollar is now held up to 
 the gold dollar by legal-tender laws and not by 
 redemption in gold, because the standard silver dol- 
 lars are not now redeemable in gold either in law or 
 b^^ administrative policy. 
 
 We contend that free and unlimited coinage by 
 the United States alone will raise the bullion value 
 of silver to its coinage value, and thus make silver 
 bullion worth $1.29 per ounce in gold throughout 
 the world. This proposition is in keeping with 
 natural laws, not in defiance of them. The best 
 known law of commerce is the law of supply and 
 demand. We recognize this law and build our argu- 
 ment upon it. We apply this law to money when 
 we say that a reduction in the volume of money 
 will raise the purchasing power of the dollar; we 
 also apply the law of supply and demand to silver 
 when we say that a new demand for silver created 
 by law will raise the price of silver bullion. Gold 
 and silver are different from other commodities, in 
 that they are limited in quantity. Corn, wheat, 
 manufactured products, etc., can be produced 
 almost without limit, provided they can be sold at 
 a price sufficient to stimulate production, but gold 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 275 
 
 and silver are called precious metals because they 
 are found, not produced. These metals have been 
 the objects of anxious search as far back as history 
 runs, yet, according to Mr. Harvey's calculation, 
 all the gold coin of the world can be melted into a 
 22-foot cube and all the silver coin in the world into 
 a 66-foot cube. Because gold and silver are limited, 
 both in the quantity now in hand and in annual 
 production, it follows that legislation can fix the 
 ratio between them. Any purchaser who stands 
 ready to take the entire supply of any given article 
 at a certain price can prevent that article from 
 falling below that price. So the Government can 
 fix a price for gold and silver by creating a demand 
 greater than the supply. International bimetalists 
 believe that several nations, by entering into an 
 agreement to coin at a fixt ratio all the gold and sil- 
 ver presented, can maintain the bullion value of the 
 metals at the mint ratio. When a mint price is thus 
 established, it regulates the bullion price, because 
 any person desiring coin may have the bullion con- 
 verted into coin at that price, and any person de- 
 siring bullion can secure it by melting the coin. 
 The only question upon which international bimet- 
 alists and independent bimetalists differ is : Can the 
 United States, by the free and unlimited coinage 
 of silver at the present legal ratio, create a demand 
 for silver which, taken in connection with the de- 
 mand alreadj^ in existence, will be sufficient to 
 utilize all the silver that will be presented at the 
 mints ? They agree in their defense of the bimetalic 
 principle, and they agree in unalterable opposi- 
 tion to the gold standard. International bimetalists 
 
276 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 cannot complain that free coinage gives a benefit 
 to the mine owner, because international bimetalism 
 gives to the owner of silver all the advantages 
 offered by independent bimetalism at the same 
 ratio. International bimetalists cannot accuse the 
 advocates of free silver of being ''bullion owners 
 who desire to raise the value of their bullion"; or 
 ''debtors who desire to pay their debts in cheap 
 dollars " ; or " demagogues who desire to curry favor 
 with the people. ' ' They must rest their opposition 
 upon one ground only, namely: that the supply of 
 silver available for coinage is too large to be utilized 
 by the United States. 
 
 In discussing this question we must consider the 
 capacity of our people to use silver, and the quan- 
 tity of silver which can come to our mints. It must 
 be remembered that we live in a country only par- 
 tially developed, and that our people far surpass 
 any equal number of people in the world in their 
 power to consume and produce. Our extensive rail- 
 road development and enormous internal commerce 
 must also be taken into consideration. Now, how 
 much silver can come here? Not the coined silver 
 of the world, because almost all of it is more valu- 
 able at this time in other lands than it will be at our 
 mints under free coinage. If our mints are opened 
 to free and unlimited coinage at the present ratio, 
 merchandise silver cannot come here, because the 
 labor applied to it has made it worth more in the 
 form of merchandise than it will be worth at our 
 mints. We cannot even expect all of the annual 
 product of silver, because India, China, Japan, 
 Mexico, a'nd all the other silver-using countries must 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 277 
 
 satisfy their annual needs from the annual pro- 
 duct ; the arts will require a large amount, and the 
 gold standard countries will need a considerable 
 quantity for subsidiary coinage. We will be re- 
 quired to coin only that which is not needed else- 
 where; but, if we stand ready to take and utilize 
 all of it, other nations will be compelled to buy at 
 the price which we fix. Many fear that the opening 
 of our mints will be followed by an enormous in- 
 crease in the annual production of silver. This is 
 conjecture. Silver has been used as money for thou- 
 sands of years, and during all that time the world 
 has never suffered from an over-production. If, 
 for any reason, the supply of gold or silver in the 
 future ever exceeds the requirements of the arts 
 and the needs of commerce, we confidently hope that 
 the intelligence of the people will be sufficient to 
 devise and enact any legislation necessary for the 
 protection of the public. It is folly to refuse to the 
 people the money which they now need for fear they 
 may hereafter have more than they need. I am 
 firmly convinced that by opening our mints to the 
 free and unlimited coinage at the present ratio we 
 can create a demand for silver which will keep the 
 price of silver bullion at $1.29 per ounce, measured 
 by gold. 
 
 Some of our opponents attribute the fall in the 
 value of silver, when measured by gold, to the fact 
 that during the last quarter of a century the world 's 
 supply of silver has increased more rapidly than 
 the world's supply of gold. This argument is en- 
 tirely answered by the fact that, during the last 
 five years, the annual production of gold has in- 
 
278 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 creased more rapidly than the annual production of 
 silver. Since the gold price of silver has fallen more 
 during these five years than it ever fell in any pre- 
 vious five years in the history of the world, it is 
 evident that the fall is not due to increased pro- 
 duction. Prices can be lowered as effectually by de- 
 creasing the demand for an article as by increasing 
 the supply of it, and it seems certain that the fall 
 in the gold price of silver is due to hostile legisla- 
 tion and not to natural laws. 
 
 In answer to the charge that gold will go abroad 
 under free coinage, it must be remembered that no 
 gold can leave this country until the owner of the 
 gold receives something in return for it which he 
 would rather have. In other words, when gold 
 leaves the country those who formerly owned it will 
 be benefited. There is no process by which we can 
 be compelled to part with our gold against our 
 will, nor is there any process by which silver can be 
 forced upon us without our consent. Exchanges are 
 matters of agreement, and if silver comes to this 
 country under free coinage it will be at the invita- 
 tion of some one in this country who will give some- 
 thing in exchange for it. 
 
 Our opponents cannot ignore the fact that gold is 
 now going abroad in spite of all legislation intended 
 to prevent it, and no silver is being coined to take 
 its place. Not only is gold going abroad now, but 
 it must continue to go abroad as long as the pres- 
 ent financial policy is adhered to, unless we con- 
 tinue to borrow from across the ocean, and even 
 then we simply postpone the evil, because the 
 amount borrowed, together with interest upon it, 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 279 
 
 must be repaid in appreciating dollars. The Ameri- 
 can people now owe a large sum to European cred- 
 itors, and falling prices have left a larger and 
 larger margin between our net national income and 
 our annual interest charge. There is only one way 
 to stop the increasing flow of gold from our shores, 
 and that is to stop falling prices. The restoration 
 of bimetalism will not only stop falling prices, but 
 will — to some extent — restore prices by reducing 
 the world's demand for gold. If it is argued that 
 a rise in prices lessens the value of the dollars 
 which we pay to our creditors, I reply that, in the 
 balancing of equities, the American people have as 
 much right to favor a financial system which will 
 maintain or restore prices as foreign creditors have 
 to insist upon a financial system that will reduce 
 prices. But the interests of society are far superior 
 to the interests of either debtors or creditors, and 
 the interests of society demand a financial system 
 which wdll add to the volume of the standard money 
 of the world, and thus restore stability to prices. 
 
 Perhaps the most persistent misrepresentation 
 that we have to meet is the charge that we are 
 advocating the payment of debts in fifty-cent dol- 
 lars. At the present time and under present laws 
 a silver dollar, when melted, loses nearly half its 
 value, but that will not be true when we again 
 establish a mint price for silver and leave no surplus 
 silver upon the market to drag down the price of 
 bullion. Under bimetalism silver bullion will be 
 worth as much as silver coin, just as gold bullion 
 is now worth as much as gold coin, and we believe 
 
280 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 that a silver dollar will be worth as much as a gold 
 dollar. 
 
 The charge of repudiation comes with poor grace 
 from those who are seeking to add to the weight 
 of existing debts by legislation which makes money 
 dearer, and who conceal their designs against the 
 general welfare under the euphonious pretense that 
 they are upholding public credit and national 
 honor. 
 
 Those who deny the ability of the United States 
 to maintain the parity between gold and silver at 
 the present legal ratio without foreign aid point to 
 ]\Iexico and assert that the opening of our mints 
 will reduce us to a silver basis and raise gold to a 
 premium. It is no reflection upon our sister re- 
 public to remind our people that the United States 
 is much greater than Mexico in area, in population, 
 and in commercial strength. It is absurd to assert 
 that the United States is not able to do anything 
 which Mexico has failed to accomplish. The one 
 thing necessary in order to maintain the parity is 
 to furnish a demand great enough to utilize all the 
 silver which will come to the mints. That Mexico 
 has failed to do this is not proof that the United 
 States would also fail. 
 
 It is also argued that, since a number of the na- 
 tions have demonetized silver, nothing can be done 
 until all of those nations restore bimetalism. This 
 is also illogical. It is immaterial how many or how 
 few nations have opened mints, provided there are 
 sufficient open mints to furnish a monetary demand 
 for all the gold and silver available for coinage. 
 
 In reply to the argument that improved ma- 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 281 
 
 chinery has lessened the cost of producing silver, it 
 is sufficient to say that the same is true of the pro- 
 duction of gold, and yet, notwithstanding that, gold 
 has risen in value. As a matter of fact, the cost of 
 production does not determine the value of the 
 precious metals, except as it may affect the supply. 
 If, for instance, the cost of producing gold should 
 be reduced ninety per cent, without any increase 
 in the output, the purchasing power of an ounce of 
 gold W'Ould not fall. So long as there is a mone- 
 tary demand sufficient to take at a fixt mint price 
 all the gold and silver produced, the cost of produc- 
 tion need not be considered. 
 
 It is often objected that the prices of gold and 
 silver cannot be fixt in relation to each other, be- 
 cause of the variation in the relative production of 
 the metals. This argument also overlooks the fact 
 that, if the demand for both metals at a fixt price 
 is greater than the supply of both, relative produc- 
 tion becomes immaterial. In the early part of the 
 present century the annual production of silver was 
 worth, at the coinage ratio, about three times as 
 much as the annual production of gold; whereas, 
 soon after 1849, the annual production of gold be- 
 came worth about three times as much, at the coin- 
 age ratio, as the annual production of silver; and 
 yet, owing to the maintenance of the bimetalic 
 standard, these enormous changes in relative pro- 
 duction had but a slight effect upon the relative 
 values of the metals. 
 
 If it is asserted by our opponents that the free 
 coinage of silver is intended only for the benefit of 
 the mine owners, it must be remembered that free 
 
 122 
 
282 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 coinage cannot restore to the mine owners any more 
 than demonetization took away ; and it must also be 
 remembered that the loss which the demonetization 
 of silver has brought to the mine owners is insig- 
 nificant compared to the loss which this policy has 
 brought to the rest of the people. The restoration 
 of silver will bring to the people generally many 
 times as much advantage as the mine owners can. 
 obtain from it. While it is not the purpose of free 
 coinage to specially aid any particular class, yet 
 those who believe that the restoration of silver is 
 needed by the whole people should not be deterred 
 because an incidental benefit will come to the mine 
 owner. The erection of forts, the deepening of har- 
 bors, the improvement of rivers, the erection of 
 public buildings — all these confer incidental bene- 
 fits upon individuals and communities, and yet these 
 incidental benefits do not deter us from making ap- 
 propriations for these purposes whenever such ap- 
 propriations are necessary for the public good. 
 
 The argument that a silver dollar is heavier than 
 a gold dollar, and that, therefore, silver is less con- 
 venient to carry in large quantities, is completely 
 answered by the silver certificate, which is as easily 
 carried as the gold certificate or any other kind of 
 paper money. 
 
 There are some who, while admitting the benefits 
 of bimetalism, object to coinage at the present ratio. 
 If any are deceived by this objection they ought to 
 remember that there are no bimetalists who are 
 earnestly endeavoring to secure it at any other ratio 
 than 16 to 1. We are opposed to any change in the 
 ratio for two reasons : first, because a change would 
 
I'HE SILVER QUP^STIOX 283 
 
 produce great injustice; and, second, because a 
 change in the ratio is not necessary. A change would 
 produce injustice because, if effected in the manner 
 usually suggested, it would result in an enormous 
 contraction in the volume of standard money. 
 
 If, for instance, it was decided by international 
 agreement to raise the ratios throughout the world 
 to 32 to 1, the change might be effected in any one 
 of three ways: the silver dollar could be double in 
 size, so that the new silver dollar would weigh 
 thirty-two times as much as the present gold dol- 
 lar ; or the present gold dollar could be reduced one- 
 half in weight, so that the present silver dollar 
 would weigh thirty-two times as much as the new 
 gold dollar ; or the change could be made by in- 
 creasing the size of the silver dollar and decreasing 
 the size of the gold dollar until the new silver dollar 
 would weigh thirty-two times as much as the new 
 gold dollar. Those who have advised a change in 
 the ratio have usually suggested that the silver dol- 
 lar be doubled. If this change were made it would 
 necessitate the recoinage of four billions of silver 
 into two billions of dollars. There would be an im- 
 mediate loss of two billions of dollars either to in- 
 dividuals or to the Government, but this would be 
 the least of the injury. A shrinkage of one-half in 
 the silver money of the world would mean a shrink- 
 age of one-fourth in the total volume of metalic 
 money. This contraction, by increasing the value 
 of the dollar, would virtually increase the debts of 
 the world billions of dollars, and decrease still more 
 the value of the property of the world as measured 
 by dollars. Besides this immediate result, such a 
 
284 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 change in the ratio would permanently decrease the 
 annual addition to the world's supply of money ^ 
 because the annual silver product, when coined into 
 dollars twice as large, would make only half as 
 many dollars. 
 
 The people of the United States would be injured 
 by a change in the ratio, not because they produce 
 silver, but because they own property and owe 
 debts, and they cannot afford to thus decrease the 
 value of their property or increase the burden of 
 their debts. 
 
 In 1878 Mr. Carlisle said : 
 
 "Mankind will be fortunate indeed if the annual prd- 
 duction of gold and silver coin shall keep pace with the 
 annual increase of population and industry." 
 
 I repeat this assertion. All of the gold and silver 
 annually available for coinage, when converted inta 
 coin at the present ratio, will not, in my judgment, 
 more than supply our monetary needs. 
 
 In supporting the act of 1890, known as the Sher- 
 man act, Senator Sherman, on June 5 of that year, 
 said: 
 
 "Under the law of February, 1878, the purchase of $2,000,- 
 000 worth of silver bullion a month has by coinage pro- 
 duced annually an average of nearly $3,000,000 per month 
 for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of 
 the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase our cur- 
 rency in proportion to our increasing population. If our 
 present currency is estimated at $1,400,000,000, and our 
 population is increasing at the ratio of 3 per cent, per an- 
 num, it would require $42,000,000 increased circulation each 
 year to keep pace with the increase of population ; but, as 
 the increase of population is accompanied by a still greater 
 ratio of increase of wealth and business, it was thought that 
 an immediate increase of circulation might be obtained by 
 larger purchases of silver bullion to an amount sufficient to* 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 285 
 
 make good the retirement of bank notes and keep pace with 
 the growth of population. Assuming that $54,000,000 a 
 year of additional currency is needed upon this basis, that 
 amount is provided for in this bill by the issue of Treasury 
 notes in exchange for bullion at the market price." 
 
 If the United States then needed more than forty- 
 two millions annually to keep pace with population 
 and business, it now, with a larger population, needs 
 a still greater annual addition; and the United 
 States is only one nation among many. Our op- 
 ponents make no adequate provision for the in- 
 creasing monetary needs of the w^orld. 
 
 In the second place, a change in the ratio is not 
 necessary. Hostile legislation has decreased the de- 
 mand for silver and lowered its price when meas- 
 ured by gold, while this same hostile legislation, by 
 increasing the demand for gold, has raised the value 
 of gold when measured by other forms of property. 
 
 We are told that the restoration of bimetalism 
 would be a hardship upon those who have entered 
 into contracts payable in gold coin, but this is a 
 mistake. It will be easier to obtain the gold with 
 which to meet a gold contract, when most of the 
 people can use silver, than it is now when every 
 one is trying to secure gold. 
 
 The Chicago platform expressly declares in favor 
 of such legislation as may be necessary to prevent, 
 for the future, the demonetization of any kind of 
 legal tender money by private contract. Such con- 
 tracts are objected to on the ground that they are 
 against public policy. No one questions the right 
 of legislatures to fix the rate of interest which can 
 be collected by law; there is far more reason for 
 preventing private individuals from setting aside 
 
286 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 legal tender law. The money which is by law made 
 a legal tender, must, in the course of ordinary busi- 
 ness, be accepted by ninety-nine out of every hun- 
 dred persons. Why should the one-hundredth man 
 be permitted to exempt himself from the general 
 rule ? Special contracts have a tendency to increase 
 the demand for a particular kind of money, and 
 thus force it to a premium. Have not the people 
 a right to say that a comparatively few individuals 
 shall not be permitted to derange the financial sys- 
 tem of the nation in order to collect a premium in 
 case they succeed in forcing one kind of money to 
 a premium ? 
 
 There is another argument to which I ask your 
 attention. Some of the more zealous opponents of 
 free coinage point to the fact that thirteen months 
 must elapse between the election and the first reg- 
 ular session of the next Congress, and assert that 
 during that time, in case people declare themselves 
 in favor of free coinage, all loans will be withdrawn 
 and all mortgages foreclosed. If these are merely 
 prophecies indulged in by those who have forgotten 
 the provision of the Constitution, it will be sufficient 
 to remind them that the President is empowered 
 to convene Congress in extraordinary session when- 
 ever the public good requires such action. If, in 
 November, the people by their ballots declare them^ 
 selves in favor of the immediate restoration of bi- 
 metalism, the system can be inaugurated within a 
 few months. 
 
 If, however, the assertion that loans will be with- 
 drawn and mortgages foreclosed is made to prevent 
 such political action as the people may believe to 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 287 
 
 be necessary for the preservation of their rights, 
 then a new and vital issue is raised. Whenever it 
 is necessary for the people as a whole to obtain con- 
 sent from the owners of money and the changers of 
 money before they can legislate upon financial ques- 
 tions, we shall have passed from a democracy to a 
 plutocracy. But that time has not yet arrived. 
 Threats and intimidation will be of no avail. The 
 people who, in 1776, rejected the doctrine that 
 kings rule hy right divine, will not, in this gene- 
 ration subscribe to the doctrine that money is 
 omnipotent. 
 
 In conclusion, permit me to say a word in regard 
 to international bimetalism. We are not opposed to 
 an international agreement looking to the restora- 
 tion of bimetalism throughout the world. The advo- 
 cates of free coinage have on all occasions shown 
 their willingness to cooperate with other nations in 
 the reinstatement of silver, but they are not willing 
 to await the pleasure of other governments when 
 immediate relief is needed by the people of the 
 United States, and they further believe that inde- 
 pendent action offers better assurance of interna- 
 tional bimetalism than servile dependence upon for- 
 eign aid. For more than twenty years we have in- 
 vited the assistance of European nations, but all 
 progress in the direction of international bimetalism 
 has been blocked by the opposition of those who 
 derive a pecuniary benefit from the appreciation of 
 gold. How long must we wait for bimetalism to 
 be brought to us by those who profit by monomet- 
 alism? If the double standard will bring benefits 
 to our people, who will deny them the right to en- 
 
288 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 joy those benefits? If our opponents would admit 
 the right, the ability and the duty of our people 
 to act for themselves on all public questions with- 
 out the assistance and regardless of the wishes of 
 other nations, and then propose the remedial legis- 
 lation which they consider sufficient, we could meet 
 them in the field of honorable debate; but, when 
 they assert that this nation is helpless to protect the 
 rights of its own citizens, we challenge them to sub- 
 mit the issue to a people whose patriotism has never 
 been appealed to in vain. 
 
 We shall not offend other nations when we de- 
 clare the right of the American people to govern 
 themselves, and, without let or hindrance from 
 without, decide upon every question presented for 
 their consideration. In taking this position, we 
 simply maintain the dignity of seventy million citi- 
 zens who are second to none in their capacity for 
 self-government . 
 
 The gold standard has compelled the American 
 people to pay an ever-increasing tribute to the cred- 
 itor nations of the world — a tribute which no one 
 dares to defend. I assert that national honor re- 
 quires the United States to secure justice for all its 
 citizens as well as do justice to all its creditors. 
 For a people like ours, blest with natural resources 
 of surpassing richness, to proclaim themselves im- 
 potent to frame a financial system suited to their 
 own needs is humiliating beyond the power of lan- 
 guage to describe. We cannot enforce respect for 
 our foreign policy so long as we confess ourselves 
 unable to frame our own financial policy. 
 
 Honest differences of opinion have always existed, 
 
THE SILVER QUESTION 289 
 
 and ever will exist, as to the legislation best calcu- 
 lated to promote the public weal; but when it is 
 seriously asserted that this nation must bow to the 
 dictation of other nations and accept the policies 
 which they insist upon, the right of self-government 
 is assailed, and until that question is settled all 
 other questions are insignificant. 
 
 Citizens of New York, I have traveled from the 
 center of the continent to the seaboard that I might, 
 in the very beginning of the campaign, bring you 
 greeting from the people of the West and South 
 and assure you that their desire is not to destroy 
 but to build up. They invite you to accept the 
 principles of a living faith rather than listen to 
 those who preach the gospel of despair and advise 
 endurance of the ills you have. The advocates of 
 free coinage believe that, in striving to secure the 
 immediate restoration of bimetalism, they are la- 
 boring in your behalf as well as in their own behalf. 
 A few of your people may prosper under present 
 conditions, but the permanent welfare of New York 
 rests upon the producers of wealth. This great city 
 is built upon the commerce of the nation and must 
 suffer if that commerce is impaired. You cannot 
 sell unless the people have money with which to 
 buy, and they cannot obtain the money with which 
 to buy unless they are able to sell their products 
 at remunerative prices. Production of wealth goes 
 before the exchange of wealth; those who create 
 must secure a profit before they have anything to 
 share with others. You cannot afford to join the 
 money changers in supporting a financial policy 
 which, by destroying the purchasing power of the 
 
290 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 products of toil, must in the end discourage the 
 creation of wealth. 
 
 I ask, I expect, j^our cooperation. It is true -that 
 a few of your financiers would fashion a new figure 
 — a figure representing Columbia, her hands bound 
 fast with fetters of gold and her face turned toward 
 the East, appealing for assistance to those who live 
 beyond the sea — but this figure can never express 
 your idea of this nation. You will rather turn for 
 inspiration to the heroic statue which guards the 
 entrance to your city — a statue as patriotic in con- 
 ception as it is colossal in proportions. It was the 
 gracious gift of a sister republic and stands upon a 
 pedestal which was built by the American people. 
 That figure — Liberty enlightening the world — is 
 emblematic of the mission of our nation among the 
 nations of the earth. With a government which de- 
 rives its powers from the consent of the governed, 
 secures to all the people freedom of conscience, free- 
 dom of thought and freedom of speech, guarantees 
 equal rights to all, and promises special privileges 
 to none, the United States should be an example in 
 all that is good, and the leading spirit in every 
 movement which has for its object the uplifting of 
 the human race. 
 
IX 
 THE TARIFF 
 
 Delivered at Des Moines, Ta, on the 21st of August 1908 
 and setting forth the party's position m the campaign of , 
 that year. 
 
 IN my notification speech I stated that, as the 
 campaign progressed, I would discuss the 
 question, ''Shall the People Rule," as it ap- 
 plies to the various issues involved m this cam- 
 paign I begin with the tariff question, because it 
 is the most lasting of our economic questions and 
 the one upon which the leading parties have most 
 frequently opposed each other. Other questions 
 may come and go, but questions which affect taxa- 
 tion, like Tennyson's "Brook," "go on and on for- 
 ever " As the Government is not a Lady 13ounti- 
 f ul with unlimited means, but merely an organiza- 
 tion which must collect on the one hand what it 
 Davs out on the other, the subject of taxation is an 
 ever-present one. We may discuss how much we 
 should collect, what methods we should employ m 
 collecting, and how best to distribute, through ap- 
 propriations, the money collected, but we are never 
 far removed from the subject of taxation. Iowa 
 has been selected for the presentation of what I de- 
 sire to say upon this subject, because the Iowa Re^ 
 publicans were pioneers in the effort to secure tariff 
 revision at the hands of the Republican party. 1 
 
 (291) 
 
292 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 come among them to define and defend the Demo- 
 cratic position on the tariff question, because I be- 
 lieve it will commend itself to them. That the issue 
 may be clearly stated, I shall read you the Demo- 
 cratic plank on this subject, and then the Repub- 
 lican plank. 
 
 The Democratic platform says : 
 
 "We welcome the belated promise of tariff reform now 
 offered by the Republican party as a tardy recognition of 
 the righteousness of the Democratic position on this ques- 
 tion ; but the people cannot safely entrust the execution 
 of this important work to a party which is so deeply obli- 
 gated to the highly protected interests as is the Republi- 
 can party. We call attention to the significant fact that 
 the promised relief was postponed until after the coming 
 election — an election to succeed in which the Republican 
 party must have the same support from the beneficiaries 
 of the high protective tariff as it has always heretofore 
 received from them : and to the further fact that during 
 years of uninterrupted power, no action whatever has been 
 taken by the Republican congress to correct the admittedly 
 existing tariff iniquities. 
 
 "We favor immediate revision of the tariff by the re- 
 duction of import duties. Articles entering into competition 
 with trust-controlled products should be placed upon the 
 free list; material reductions should be made in the tariff 
 upon the necessities of life, especially upon articles com- 
 peting with such American manufactures as are sold abroad 
 more cheaply than at home: and gradual reductions should 
 be made in such other schedules as may be necessary to 
 restore the tariff to a revenue basis. 
 
 "Existing duties have given the manufacturers! of paper 
 a shelter behind which they have organized combinations 
 to raise the price of pulp and paper, thus imposing a tax 
 upon the spread of knowledge. 
 
 "We demand the immediate repeal of the tariff on wood 
 pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs, and that these 
 articles be placed upon the free list." 
 
 The Republican platform says : 
 
THE TARIFF 293 
 
 "The Republican party declares unequivocally for a re- 
 vision of the tariff by a special session of congress im- 
 mediately following the inauguration of the next president 
 and commends the steps already taken to this end in the 
 work assigned to the appropriate committees of congress, 
 which are now investigating the operation and effect of 
 existing schedules. In all tariff legislation the true prin- 
 ciple of protection is best maintained by the imposition of 
 such duties as will equal the difference between the cost 
 of production at home and abroad, together with a reason- 
 able profit to American industries, 
 
 "We favor the establishment of maximum and minimum 
 rates to be administered by the president under limitations 
 fixt in the law, the maximum to be available to meet dis- 
 criminations by foreign countries against American goods 
 entering their markets and the minimum to represent the 
 normal measure of protection at home ; the aim and purpose 
 of the Republican policy being not only to preserve, with- 
 out excessive duties, that security against foreign com- 
 petition to which American manufacturers, farmers and 
 producers are entitled, but also to maintain the high stand- 
 ard of living of the wage-earners of this country, who are 
 the most direct beneficiaries of the protective system. 
 
 "Between the United States and the Philippines, we be- 
 lieve in a free interchange of products, with such limita- 
 tions as to sugar and tobacco as will afford adequate pro- 
 tection to domestic interests." 
 
 Secretary Taft refers to this subject briefly in 
 his notification speech — only briefly — but as I shall 
 quote such passages from his speech as are pertinent 
 to this discussion, it is not necessary to read his re- 
 marks in full. 
 
 It will be noticed that the Republican party has 
 abandoned the earlier arguments advanced in sup- 
 port of a high tariff. We hear no more of the ' ' In- 
 fant Industries," that must be tenderly cared for 
 * ' until they can stand upon their feet ' ' ; there is no 
 suggestion that the * ' foreigner pay the tariff, ^ ' and 
 nothing about the ''home market." These catch 
 phrases have had their day — they are worn out and 
 
294 BRYAN'S SPEECHEl 
 
 cast aside. The Republican leaders are no longer 
 arrogant and insolent; they cannot longer defy 
 tariff reform. Their plan now is to seem to yield 
 without really yielding. 
 
 I submit that the Democratic platform accurately 
 described the Republican position when it refers to 
 "the belated promise" made by the Republican 
 leaders as " a tardy recognition of the righteousness 
 of the Democratic position on this question." The 
 Democratic party in its platforms and through its 
 representatives in Congress has for years pointed 
 out that the tariff schedules are excessively high and 
 ought to be reduced, but the Republicans have, un- 
 til recently, refused to admit that there was any 
 necessity for reduction. They now confess, through 
 their platform and through their presidential can- 
 didate, that the need for revision is so great as to 
 justify the party in declaring "unequivocally for 
 a revision of the tariff" and the need is so urgent 
 that the work is to be undertaken at "a special ses- 
 sion of Congress immediately following the inaugu- 
 ration of the next president. ' ' The use of the word 
 * ' unequivocally ' ' indicates that those who wrote the 
 platform recognize that they are under suspicion. 
 They want to distinguish this promise from the 
 unkept promises of the past by adding as emphatic 
 an adjective as could be found in the dictionary. 
 If former Republican promises had been conscien- 
 tiously fulfilled, it might not have been necessary to 
 thus strengthen the promise made this year. The 
 use of the words "immediately after the inaugura- 
 tion" is evidence that the Republican leaders are 
 conscious that the patience of the public has been 
 
THE TARIFF 295 
 
 strained to the point of breaking, and it is almost 
 pathetic to note the solicitude which they now feel 
 about doing a thing which, but for wilful neglect, 
 might have been done at any time during the last 
 ten years. 
 
 Are we not justified in saying that "the people 
 cannot safely entrust the execution of this impor- 
 tant work to a party which is so deeply obligated 
 to the highly protected interests as is the Repub- 
 lican party"? The ''fat-frying" process has be- 
 come familiar to the American people. Pressure 
 has been brought to bear upon the protected inter- 
 ests every four years — and to a less extent in the 
 congressional campaigns between presidential elec- 
 tions — to compel contributions to the campaign 
 fund in return for former favors and in anticipa- 
 tion of favors yet to come. It is difficult to over- 
 estimate the corrupting influences introduced into 
 the political life of the nation by this partnership 
 between the Government and the favored industries. 
 The literature circulated in support of a protective 
 tariff has studiously cultivated the idea that suf- 
 frage should be employed to secure pecuniary re- 
 turns, and the appeal made by the Republican lead- 
 ers has come to be more and more a selfish one. 
 Every man engaged in a protected industry has 
 been approached with the proposition that it is dol- 
 lars in his pocket to maintain the system, while 
 those who could not possibly trace any tangible 
 benefits to themselves have been beguiled with the 
 assurance that it was all a matter of public spirit 
 and that they ought to support the system out of 
 patriotic love of country. If attention was called 
 
296 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 to the fact that the farmer was taxed for the benefit 
 of the manufacturer, the triple answer was that it 
 would come back to him indirectly ; that it did not 
 amount to much for each farmer anyhow ; and that 
 a man was small minded who could begrudge so in- 
 significant a contribution to the nation's prosperity. 
 The plan has been to keep the taxpayers quiet by 
 keeping them in the dark as to the operation of the 
 law, and then to concentrate the votes and influence 
 of the tax-eaters in favor of a continuation of high 
 tariff legislation. If a tariff of fifty per cent, was 
 imposed upon a given article of merchandise, it was 
 assumed that those engaged in the production of 
 the article would contribute liberally to keep up the 
 tariff. It was also assumed that the employees 
 would vote with their employers to keep from hav- 
 ing their wages reduced, and it was expected that 
 the business men of the town would also vote for 
 the tariff because of the business brought to the 
 community by the protected industry. Those who 
 are acquainted with the tariff fight know to what 
 an extent the pecuniary argument has been used. 
 The recent Republican platform is a bugle call to 
 every beneficiary of special privilege, to enlist again 
 under the Republican banner, and when the election 
 is over and the Republican committee publishes the 
 list of contributors — too late to make the informa- 
 tion valuable — it will be found that the Republican 
 party has again so obligated itself to the protected 
 interests as to be unable to make a revision in the 
 interests of the consumers. 
 
 With a President who, toward the close of his 
 term, admitted the necessity for tariff revision, with 
 
THE TARIFF 297 
 
 a two-thirds majority iu the Senate and nearly sixty 
 majority in the House, the Republican party has 
 refused to permit any revision whatever. Mr. Will- 
 iams, the leader of the minority in the House, intro- 
 duced a bill providing for a reduction of the tariff 
 to 100 per cent., wherever it is now more than 100 
 per cent. It would look as if the Republican party 
 might have taken this step toward tariff revision, 
 had it been deeply in earnest; but no, the bill was 
 not even reported from the committee. Whenever 
 attention was called to an indefensible schedule, the 
 answer was that they could not afford to open the 
 subject for debate just before a campaign, but there 
 is no force in this objection because the House rules 
 are so framed that the majority can cut off debate, 
 prevent amendment and silence opposition. 
 
 The administration has claimed credit for the fine 
 against the Standard Oil Company in the case 
 which was lately reversed, but no effort has been 
 made to relieve the people from the fine which is 
 imposed upon them every day by the Standard Oil 
 Company through the operation of the tariff law 
 which gives that company more than 100 per cent, 
 protection against its chief rival, Russia. What 
 faith can a real tariff reformer, whether he be a 
 Republican or a Democrat, repose in the Republican 
 leaders, when they deliberately put off all reduc- 
 tion until after election, and then call for contribu- 
 tions, with the understanding that the public shall 
 not know the names of the contributors until after 
 the polls are closed? 
 
 The Republican platform says that the tariff is 
 intended for the American manufacturers, farmers 
 
 123 
 
298 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 and producers, and especially for the wage-earners. 
 If the farmer and the wage-earner are really the 
 chief beneficiaries of the protective system, will the 
 Republican candidate explain why the farmer and 
 the wage-earner have contributed so little to the 
 Republican campaign fund ? Is he willing to pub- 
 lish a list of contributors on the 15th day of next 
 October and allow the relative advantage of protec- 
 tion to the manufacturer, the farmer and the wage- 
 earner to be measured by the contributions received 
 from each class ? Why is it that the manufacturers 
 are expected to furnish so large a proportion of the 
 money to run the campaign, if, as the Republicans 
 claim, the farmers and the laborers enjoy so large 
 a proportion in the benefits of the system ? Is it not 
 a significant fact that the farmers and wage-earners 
 who are always put in the foreground when the 
 blessings of a high tariff are being enumerated are 
 in the background when the collections are being 
 made ? Is it not significant that the manufacturers, 
 who furnish the funds, are so little advertised as 
 beneficiaries? Is it not significant also that the 
 wage-earners, instead of the manufacturers, are al- 
 ways described as ''the most direct beneficiaries of 
 the protective system ? ' ' 
 
 But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that 
 the Republican party sincerely repents of its delay 
 in beginning tariff reform, repudiates its obligations 
 to the contributing manufacturers and honestly be- 
 gins a ''revision." What rule is to govern the re- 
 vision ? The Republican platform says : 
 
 "In all tariff legislation, the true principle of protection 
 is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will 
 
THE TARIFF 299 
 
 equal the difference between the cost of prorluction at home 
 and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American 
 industries." 
 
 Mr. Taft endorses this rule and says that '*in a 
 number of schedules the tariff now exceeds this dif- 
 ference, and that the excess offers a temptation to 
 those who would monopolize the production and 
 sale of such articles in this country." He adds, 
 however, that ''there are some few articles on which 
 the tariff is not sufficiently high to give them the 
 measure of protection they should receive. * ' 
 
 Will he explain upon what rule the present tariff 
 was framed? When have the Republicans claimed 
 more protection than enough to cover the difference 
 in the cost of production here and abroad? The 
 "reasonable profit to American Industries" is an 
 addition to the rule, and is likely to be used as an 
 excuse for raising the tariff. And, by the way, to 
 what other business does the Government guarantee 
 a "reasonable profit"? To the farmer, or the mer- 
 chant, or the laborer? To none of these. If in re- 
 vising the tariff the Republican party is to work up- 
 on exactly the same plan (or a plan contemplating 
 a higher rate) what hope have we that the new 
 tariff will be lower than the present one? Are the 
 present leaders more honest than the ones who 
 framed the existing tariff? Are they not, in fact, 
 the same men who are responsible for tariff extor- 
 tion during the last decade ? If this new-born zeal 
 for revision were a hundred times greater than his 
 notification speech indicates, what chance would the 
 Republican candidate have of securing any real 
 tariff reform at the hands of such Republicans as 
 
300 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 now represent that party in the Senate and House, 
 the very men who represented it in the recent na- 
 tional convention? Speaker Cannon, who has sup- 
 prest tariff legislation in the present Congress, was 
 a dominating factor in the convention and, if the 
 Republicans retain control of the House, will be the 
 Speaker of the next Congress. Does his prominence 
 afford tariff reformers any assurance of a reduction 
 of the tariff in the interest of the consumers? In 
 case of a Republican victory. Congressman Sherman 
 will become the presiding of^cer of the Senate. He 
 has been the confidential companion of Speaker 
 Cannon, and in the convention it was Speaker Can- 
 non who vouched for him. But as a matter of fact, 
 Mr. Sherman's stand-patism needed no endorse- 
 ment; his record is a guaranty that no beneficiary 
 of special privileges will be disturbed. It was Con- 
 gressman Sherman who, in a speech in the House on 
 the 18th of last April, boastfully declared, 
 
 "We recognize the fact that we have a Republican ma- 
 jority in the Senate, that we have a Republican majority in 
 this House, that is ready to resort to every legal, every 
 proper constitutional right to enact such legislation as it 
 deems for the best interest for the greatest number of our 
 people, and which is willing and ready to accept full re- 
 sponsibility for all those measures which are introduced 
 here and ichich are not enacted into law." 
 
 The Republican platform suggests that there 
 should be a maximum tariff and a minimum, the 
 maximum to be used in retaliation and the mini- 
 mum in ordinary case^. This is merely adding de- 
 lusion to,procrastination and uncertainty. We have 
 prominent Republican authority, Senator Dolliver 
 and Senator Hanna, to prove that in the present 
 
THE TARIFF 301 
 
 law the rates were knowingly made higher than 
 necessary with the understanding that reductions 
 would be made to secure foreign trade. Mr. Dol- 
 liver said in the Senate on January 13, 1903: ''It 
 is true that in the bill which he (Mr. Dingley) re- 
 ported from the committee on ways and means he 
 did put duties up for the express purpose of having 
 them traded down. ' ' Mr. Dolliver insisted that the 
 reciprocity provision in the Dingley act was as dis- 
 tinctly a part of the tariff policy as the coal sched- 
 ule and complained that "not one line of the wis- 
 dom of James G. Blaine remained on the statute 
 books," and that ''not a step had been taken to 
 fulfil the purpose of the last Buffalo address of 
 President McKinley." And yet the very men who 
 present this new plan prevented the carrying out 
 of the old plan. 
 
 The schemes resorted to by the men who have 
 grown rich by laying tariff burdens upon the coun- 
 try are more numerous than novel. Tariff meas- 
 ures which embody the principles of protection are 
 not drawn by legislators, altho as a matter of 
 courtesy they generally bear the names of legis- 
 lators ; they are really drawn by the representatives 
 of the interests which demand protection. These 
 representatives claim to be the guardians of the 
 laboring men, and yet they carefully avoid writing 
 into the law anything that will require the guard- 
 ians to execute the trust. It is strange that so many 
 voters have been so long deceived as to the object 
 and the operation of the laws which are ostensibly 
 designed for the protection of the wage-earners ; it 
 can only be accounted for ^n the theory that the 
 
302 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 voters have not understood either the theory of 
 protection or the facts that are relied upon to sup- 
 port it. 
 
 In ordinary affairs there is no difference between 
 a tariff reformer and a protectionist. They meet 
 together in business, in society, in the lodge room 
 and in the church. In their daily life they apply 
 the same rules and are guided by the same business 
 rules. This similarity manifests itself all through 
 life and up to the very hour of death. If a protec- 
 tionist makes a will, he makes it upon the same plan 
 that the tariff reformer follows. As death ap- 
 proaches, he estimates the value of his property, 
 leaves to his wife and children what he wishes them 
 to have, and then makes such bequests as he likes 
 to public institutions and to those outside of the 
 family; and such part as he leaves to his wife and 
 children, he carefully divides among them, giving 
 to each a definite share. He does not give all his 
 property to one child and say that he trusts the 
 child to deal fairly with the rest of the family. 
 Why? Because he knows his children and would 
 not put a child in a position where selfishness 
 might lead him to do injustice to other members 
 of the family. No, he would not trust his own flesh 
 and blood to deal fairly with those reared at the 
 same fireside with him; and he is wise in not 
 placing this temptation before one of his own fam- 
 ily. But when a protectionist comes to make a 
 tariff law, he acts on an entirely different plan; 
 he votes millions, yes, hundreds of millions of dol- 
 lars, to manufacturers whom he has never seen, 
 and trusts them to be just in the distribution of 
 
THE TARIFF 303 
 
 the trust fund among their employees. And what 
 has been the result? Just what might have been 
 expected — the manufacturers have appropriated 
 the trust fund to their own use and have paid their 
 employees only such wages as trade conditions com- 
 pelled. 
 
 The Homestead strike occurred after the Repub- 
 lican convention of 1892, but before the Republican 
 candidate wrote his letter of acceptance. He could 
 not ignore the strike, for it presented an object 
 lesson which even a high-tariff Republican could 
 not fail to see. So Mr. Harrison, the candidate, re- 
 ferring to the strike, said : 
 
 "I regret that all employers of labor are not just and 
 considerate and that capital sometimes takes too large a 
 share of the profits !" 
 
 **Too large a share of the profits?" Yes; more 
 than that. The protected manufacturers have se- 
 cured, in many eases, a tariff of more than twice the 
 percentage paid to workmen in wages. The net 
 profits of the steel trust last year were just about 
 equal to the entire amount paid in wages, and the 
 wages constituted less than twenty-five per cent, of 
 the total value of the product. According to this 
 statement, each workingman employed by the steel 
 trust earned, on an average, not only the amount 
 paid to him, but one hundred per cent, profit besides 
 for his employer. And, I may add, while these 
 beneficiaries of protection have been pretending 
 to make the tariff laws for the direct benefit of the 
 employees, these same employees have, as a rule, 
 been kept close to the hunger line, v/hile many of 
 the employers have become the possessors of the 
 
304 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 *' swollen fortunes" which now menace the nation's 
 morals as well as its business. 
 
 And yet the Republican party was not willing 
 that a single item on the steel schedule should be 
 touched, and the Republican campaign committee 
 will not dare to publish, before the election, the 
 contributions that have been made or will be made 
 to the Republican campaign fund by the men most 
 largely interested in the steel trust. 
 
 Let me show you how the tariff operates. I have 
 here a statement made by Mr. H. E. Miles, Chair- 
 man of the Tariff Committee of the National Asso- 
 ciation of Manufacturers and head of the Agri- 
 cultural Implement Association. The statement 
 appears in the American Industries of November 
 15th, 1907, a paper which is now supporting the 
 Republican ticket and making a special fight 
 against the labor plank of the Democratic platform. 
 Here is what Mr. Miles says : 
 
 "I have made money every year out of the Tariff Graft. 
 Not much, but still a little. 
 
 "The tariff barons raised their price $50,000 to me. I 
 made a charge against the jobber of $60,000 and I know 
 that he charged more than $70,000 for the $60,000 he 
 paid me. Before reaching the consumer the $50,000 charge 
 became about $100,000 to be paid by the agricultural con- 
 sumer. 
 
 "The manufacturer who would prosper must make a 
 double profit, ome by the shrewd management of his busi- 
 ness and another by still shrewder manipulation in Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 "We have no great difficulty in shipping* abroad for we 
 could get as high prices as at home. We are so held up, 
 however, by our supply people that to most of us there is 
 very scant profit in foreign business. 
 
 "When Congress gave us forty-five per cent., we needing 
 only twenty per cent, they gave us a congressional peiTnit, 
 
THE TARIFF 305 
 
 if not an invitation, to consolidate, form one great trust 
 and advance our prices twenty-five per cent., being the 
 difference between the twenty per cent, needed and the 
 forty-five per cent given." 
 
 Mr. Miles shows how the tariff raises prices to 
 those who, in manufacturing, have to buy other 
 manufactured products. This expense is trans- 
 ferred to the next purchaser. The jobber charges 
 a profit on the tariff as well as on the cost of the 
 article, and each person who handles the product 
 collects a profit, so that, according to Mr. Miles, 
 the first charge of $50,000 becomes $100,000 by the 
 time it reaches the consumer. Mr. Miles in another 
 article estimates the total tariff* tax on the people 
 at $500,000,000 annually. The statement of Mr. 
 Miles also shows that the tariff law is an invitation 
 to consolidate, and that having been given the tariff 
 on the theory that it is needed, the manufacturers 
 naturally assume that it is intended that they shall 
 take advantage of it, even if they have to combine 
 to do so. 
 
 How will Mr. Taft explain to the average man 
 the benefits of protection ? He can easily convince 
 a trust that it profits by the tariff, but what about 
 the victim of the trust ? 
 
 No Republican leader will now deny that reduc- 
 tions ought to be made, but who is to make the re- 
 ductions? The only answer given by the Repub- 
 licans is that the tariff ought to be reformed by its 
 ''friends"; that is, that those who made the last 
 tariff law should be entrusted with the making of 
 a new tariff law. But suppose the people adopt the 
 Republican idea and entrust the making of the 
 tariff law to Republican Congressmen j what will be 
 
306 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 the method of procedure? Fortunately for the 
 voter, Mr. Miles explains this also. In the April, 
 1908, number of American lyidustries, Mr. Miles 
 says: ''The people instruct and trust Congress to 
 grant just, equitable and ample protection." 
 
 Is not that just what the Republican leaders 
 claim to favor? They want you to "instruct and 
 trust Congress to grant just, equitable and ample 
 protection.'' And what does that mean? Mr. 
 Miles says that Congress ''trusts the Ways and 
 Means Committee. ' ' And a Republican leader will 
 tell you that this is also proper. Then what ? Mr. 
 Miles says that "this committee trusts such per- 
 sons as Mr. Dalzell," and that "they — they trust 
 the trusts." 
 
 The method of procedure is simple. It is a case 
 of confidence. The voters have confidence in Re- 
 publican leaders; the leaders have confidence in a 
 Republican Congress; a Republican Congress has 
 confidence in the Ways and Means Committee; the 
 Ways and Means Committee has confidence in the 
 men who represent the trusts, and the trusts write 
 the tariff law and thus secure to themselves the 
 right to levy tribute upon the public. So accus- 
 tomed have Republican leaders become to allowing 
 the protected interests to write the tariff schedules 
 that so eminent and honorable a man as Senator 
 Hoar of Massachusetts said, in discussing the Mc- 
 Kinley bill, then before the Senate : 
 
 "Instead of coming' before your subcommittee for a for- 
 mal hearing on our Massachusetts industries, I thought the 
 best way was to carefully prepare a table of all the various 
 industries, perhaps some sixty or seventy in all, and ask 
 
THE TARIFF 307 
 
 Brother Aldrich to go over them with me and ascertain 
 what the people wanted in each case, and if there were 
 any cases where the committee had not already done ex- 
 actly what the petitioners desired or had not inflexibly 
 passed upon the question, I could have a hearinjr before 
 you, but I find in every instance the action of the C.'om- 
 mittee, as Mr. Aldrich thinks it likely to be, is entirely 
 satisfactory to the interests I represent, with the excep- 
 tion of one or two, and the papers in regard to those cases 
 I have handed to Mr. Aldrich." 
 
 Mr. Miles, whom I have before quoted, says, in 
 
 American Industries of April of this year : 
 
 "People asking a government representative for relief on 
 another schedule were by that representative referred to a 
 New England manufacturer, the official agreeing to act in 
 accordance with the protected manufacturer's wishes. Said 
 the manufacturer : 'I wrote that schedule myself. I did 
 not intend that it should be interpreted as severely as it 
 has been, but having been so interpreted, I will not con- 
 sent to a modification of it.' And this man's will remains 
 the law." 
 
 We would not expect a jury to do justice to the 
 defendant if it was composed entirely of the rela- 
 tives of the plaintiff; neither can we expect a Con- 
 gress to do justice to the masses if it is composed 
 of men who are in sympathy with, and obligated 
 to, the corporations which have for a generation 
 been enjoying special privileges. 
 
 There is no prospect of relief from a Republican 
 President and Congress. The Democratic party, if 
 entrusted with power, can and will reduce the 
 tariff. 
 
 The Democratic platform not only demands a re- 
 duction of the tariff, but it plainly outlines the 
 course to be pursued in securing the reduction. It 
 begins by proposing that articles vv^hich come into 
 competition with articles controlled by a trust be- 
 
308 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 placed on the free list. "What better place to be- 
 gin? Years ago Mr. Havemeyer, the head of the 
 Sugar Trustj said that the tariff was the mother of 
 trusts — and her children are many. Secretary 
 Taft, in his notification speech, says that an excess- 
 ive tariff serves no useful purpose, *'but offers a 
 temptation to those who would monopolize the pro- 
 duction and the sale of such articles in this coun- 
 try, to profit by the excessive rate." 
 
 Now, suppose the manufacturers, who have been 
 favored by legislation, do conspire against the pub- 
 lie and enter into a monopoly. What penalty do 
 the Republicans suggest? None whatever. These 
 men are to be consulted about proposed changes, 
 and if the next Republican tariff is made like for- 
 mer Republican tariffs, nothing will be done with- 
 out the unanimous consent of the beneficiaries. 
 
 What would be the effect of the remedy pro- 
 ])osed by the Democratic platform? Simply this: 
 a law goes into effect at some fixt date in the 
 future, and if the Democrats pass a law, putting 
 upon the free list articles coming into competition 
 with those controlled by a trust, the trust will have 
 until that date to dissolve. If the trust considers 
 the law too drastic, it can avoid it by giving up 
 its monopoly. 
 
 Secretary Taft calls this remedy ** utterly de- 
 structive," and in his anxiety to prevent it over- 
 looks the fact that the Democratic party has other 
 remedies for the trusts. If we can succeed in dis- 
 solving existing trusts, and in preventing the or- 
 ganization of new ones, there will be no trusts 
 against which to use the remedy of which he com- 
 
THE TARIFF 309 
 
 plains. There is now a law against trusts, but it 
 has not been sufficiently enforced to prevent trusts. 
 The Democrats demand its enforcement; if its en- 
 forcement rids the country of trusts, then this pol- 
 icy which Mr. Taft so much fears will become per- 
 fectly harmless. If the Democrats secure control 
 of both the House and the Senate, they are pledged 
 to legislation which will make a private monopoly 
 impossible. If the Republicans retain control of 
 part of the legislative machinery of the Govern- 
 ment and refuse to join in the effort to make a 
 private monopoly impossible, they are not in a po- 
 sition to complain of tariff legislation aimed at 
 trusts. If they refuse to assist us in exterminating 
 the principle of private monopoly, they cannot well 
 object to legislation necessary to protect the people 
 from trust extortion. 
 
 Mr. Taft did not refer to the platform demand 
 that wood pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and 
 logs be placed upon the free list. Why? Because 
 the President vainly besought Congress to enact 
 a law embodying part of this demand. It is absurd 
 to complain of the exhaustion of our forests while 
 we encourage their destruction by a tariff on the 
 products of foreign forests. But such legislation 
 becomes not only a folly but a crime when it is re- 
 membered that a handful of men monopolize the 
 benefits flowing from the tariff on these things 
 while the whole country bears the burden of the 
 tax. Hon. R. F. Pettigrew, of South Dakota, in a 
 speech made in the United States Senate, referred 
 to an important statement, which appeared in The 
 Northivesterfh Lumherman, February 27, 1897. 
 
310 BEYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Senator Burrows, of Michigan, had referred to a 
 Mr. Winchester as a man of great reliability and 
 truthfulness, and Senator Pettigrew quoted Mr. 
 Winchester as saying in The Northwestern Lum- 
 berman : 
 
 "There were a lot of gentlemen from the Northwest, up 
 Minnesota way, in Washington the other day, and they 
 were sitting in Senator Brown's room. An interesting 
 incident occurred there. Senator Burrows is chairman of 
 the committee. The committee had not had a meeting for 
 a long time. They happened to be seated in that room, 
 and one of the gentlemen from M'innesota had an envelope 
 and lead pencil. He walked around the room and ciphered 
 up a little bit, and he said : 
 
 " 'Mr. Burrows, do you know what $1 a thousand would 
 mean to this crowd of men in here?' 
 
 "There were not as many in the room as there are 
 here. He said : 
 
 " 'An advance of $1 a thousand on lumber would mean 
 ?6,125,000 on last year's product.' " 
 
 Could more conclusive proof be desired? And 
 the Senator Burrows mentioned is the same Sena- 
 tor Burrows who acted as Temporary Chairman 
 of the last Republican National Convention, and 
 sounded the keynote of the campaign. 
 
 How long will the Republican farmers, mer- 
 chants and laboring men permit a few men to make 
 the tariff laws for their own pecuniary advantage 
 and at the expense of the rest of the country ? 
 
 The second step in the reduction of the tariff is 
 a ''material reduction upon the neoessities of life, 
 especially upon goods competing with such Ameri- 
 can manufactures as are sold abroad more cheaply 
 than at home." At present the articles used by 
 the poor bear a higher rate, ad valorem, than the 
 articles used by the rich. This statement can be 
 
THE TARIFF 311 
 
 verified by an examination of any of the schedules. 
 A tax upon consumption, even when laid with ab- 
 solute impartiality, bears heaviest upon the poor, 
 because our necessities are much more uniform 
 than our possessions. People do not eat in pro- 
 portion to their income ; they do not wear clothing 
 in proportion to their income; they do not use 
 taxed goods in proportion to their income. As all 
 taxes must come out of one's income, no matter 
 through what sj'stem levied or collected, they are, 
 in effect, income taxes, and taxes on consumption 
 are really graduated income taxes, the largest per 
 cent, being collected from those with the smallest 
 income and the smallest per cent, from those with 
 the largest income. It is only fair, therefore, that 
 in an attempt to relieve the people from the iniqui- 
 ties of a high tariff, the poor, who are overbur- 
 dened, should be given first consideration. Then, 
 too, a reduction in the tariff on the necessities of 
 life brings a benefit to all the people, while a reduc- 
 tion in the tax upon luxuries would benefit but a 
 portion of the people. 
 
 Surely no one will object to a reduction being 
 made upon articles which come into competition 
 with American manufactures which are sold abroad 
 more cheaply than at home. The American manu- 
 facturer who sends his goods to foreign lands and 
 there, without any protection whatever, competes 
 successfully with the manufacturers of all the 
 world, does not need a high tariff to meet competi- 
 tion in the home market. And there are enough 
 articles sold abroad at a low price to assure a large 
 
812 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 advantage to the ximerican consumers through the 
 carrying out of this one plank. 
 
 Mr. Taft, however, finds the greatest alarm in 
 the following clause in our platform: ** Gradual 
 reductions should be made in such other schedules 
 as may be necessary to restore the tariff to a reve- 
 nue basis.'' 
 
 He regards this threatened departure from the 
 protective system as fatal. We are here brought 
 face to face with the theoretical difference between 
 the positions of the two parties on the subject of 
 tariff. The Democratic party regards a tariff law 
 as a revenue law, the protection it gives being in- 
 cidental ; the Republican party regards a tariff law 
 as framed primarily for protection, the revenue 
 being incidental. As the effect of a given rate on 
 a particular article is the same, whether levied for 
 the purpose of revenue or for the purpose of pro- 
 tection, it may be well to define the difference be- 
 tween a revenue tariff and a protective tariff. A 
 revenue tariff is so framed as to collect a revenue 
 and you stop when you get enough; a protective 
 tariff may be so framed as to collect but little reve- 
 nue, and yet lay a heavy burden upon the people — 
 and you never know when to stop. To illustrate: 
 a tariff may be made so high as to absolutely pro- 
 hibit importation. If, in such a case, the manu- 
 facturers yield to the temptation mentioned by 
 Mr. Taft and combine to take advantage of the 
 duty, the consumers will be heavily taxed, and yet 
 none of the money will reach the treasury. 
 
 Let us suppose another case. If we import one- 
 tenth of a certain kind of merchandise and produce 
 
THE TARIFF 313 
 
 at home nine-tenths, and the imported and domes- 
 tic articles sell at the same price, then the treasury 
 receives duty on the foreign article and the manu- 
 facturers collect nine times as much on the do- 
 mestic article as the treasury collects on the one- 
 tenth imported. It becomes a matter of great im- 
 portance, therefore, to the people at large, whether 
 the tariff is intended to raise a revenue or is framed 
 in the interest of the manufacturers and for the 
 purpose of protection. No one would think of 
 employing in a city, a county or a State, a tax 
 system under which the bulk of the tax would go 
 to the collectors, and yet the Republican leaders 
 demand the continuance of a system under which 
 the protected interests receive far more than half 
 the money collected from the people through the 
 operation of a high tariff. 
 
 As a tariff law interferes with the natural laws 
 of trade, one who proposes a protective tariff takes 
 upon himself the burden of proof to show, first, 
 that a protective tariff is right in principle; sec- 
 ond, that it is wise as a public policy, and, third, 
 that it is necessary. And yet what protectionist 
 attempts to present an argument in support of any 
 one of these propositions? 
 
 Is it right to tax all of the people for the benefit 
 of a few? Where a community has attempted to 
 collect taxes for the aid of an industry, even when 
 the industry was to be located in the community, 
 the highest court in the land has declared such a 
 tax to be larceny in the form of law. If a city 
 government cannot rightfully tax all the people to 
 bring an industry into the city, where such bene- 
 
 124 
 
314 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 fits as are conferred are more easily seen and more 
 universally enjoyed, who .will say that a farmer 
 in the Missouri Valley can be rightfully taxed to 
 support an industry in a distant State? 
 
 As a matter of public policy, is it wise that the 
 industries that do pay should be compelled to carry 
 upon their backs industries which, according to the 
 arguments made by their representatives, could not 
 live without aid? Have we not seen this system 
 introducing corruption into politics, and is it not 
 building business upon an unsubstantial basis? 
 Having secured a tariff from one party, the bene- 
 ficiaries loudly declare that the country will be 
 ruined if any other party obtains control of the 
 Government. Manufacturers have intimidated 
 their employees and threatened them with a re- 
 duction in wages unless a party favorable to the 
 system was continued in power. This is an old 
 device, and there are indications that it is being 
 resorted to again. The New York Leather Belting 
 Company has sent out a number of letters to com- 
 panies with which it has business dealings, asking 
 them to post in their factories a notice saying: 
 
 "Believing that the election of Taft and Sherman means 
 a safe and conservative administration, the day following 
 the election we shall start this plant on full time and keep 
 going." 
 
 Here is a direct attempt to influence the election 
 by a bribe. It is virtual!}^ a promise of wages if 
 the Republican ticket is successful and an implied 
 threat in case of Democratic success; but the offer 
 is so made that it gives the employees no guaranty 
 of its fulfilment. The same kind of promises were 
 
THE TARIFF 315 
 
 made in 1896, and yet for six months after the 
 election times were worse than they were before. 
 There were business failures and bankruptcies, and 
 many institutions that promised their employees 
 steady work and good wages, shut down or reduced 
 wages. If any factory posts up the sign which the 
 Leather Belting Company is sending out, the em- 
 ployees ought to get together and ask for a guar- 
 anty as to the amount of the wages they are to re- 
 ceive and as to the length of time during which the 
 guaranty is to extend. If the votes are to be 
 bought, the purchase price, at least, should be made 
 secure. If the employee's heritage — citizenship — 
 is to be sold, he ought, at kast, to be sure of his 
 mess of pottage. 
 
 But the whole system is vicious. Business should 
 not be built upon legislation ; it should stand upon 
 its own merit, and when it does stand upon its own 
 merit we shall not only have purer politics, but we 
 shall have less fluctuation in business conditions 
 and a more equitable distribution of the proceeds 
 of toil. 
 
 I cannot pass from this part of my subject, with- 
 out calling attention to the fact that Secretary Taft 
 has allowed himself to be drawn into the use of an 
 argument which the beneficiaries of protection have 
 been employing for a generation. Speaking of the 
 gradual substitution of a revenue tariff for the pro- 
 tective system, he says in his notification speech : 
 
 "The introduction in power of a party with this avowed 
 purpose cannot but halt the gradual recovery from our 
 recent financial depression and produce business disaster, 
 compared with which our recent panic and depression will 
 seem small indeed." 
 
316 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Here is a threat of a panic if the Republican 
 party is not retained in power. This panic argu- 
 ment was worked overtime in 1896, but I am sur- 
 prised that a Republican refers to it in the present 
 campaign. 
 
 We have had three panics since the Republican 
 party was born: the panic of 1873, the panic of 
 1893 and the panic of 1907. The panic of 1873 
 came after the Republican party had been in com- 
 plete control of the Federal Government for twelve 
 years, and eleven years before our party succeedsd 
 in securing control of the executive branch of the 
 Government. That startling "panic and depres- 
 sion" occurred in the very midst of Republican 
 rule, just after a Republican victory, and under a 
 high tariff. Is it not strange that Secretary Taft 
 should forget this panic, when he warns us to 
 beware of any departure from the protective sys- 
 tem? 
 
 The panic of 1907 came after the Republicans 
 had been in complete control of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment for more than ten years. They had had 
 an opportunity to do everything that they wanted 
 to do and to undo everything that needed to be 
 undone, and we were under such a high tariff that 
 even Secretary Taft admits the necessity for re- 
 vision. This panic was so bad that banks felt it 
 necessary to do something that they had never 
 done before, namely, arbitrarily limit the amount 
 of money that depositors could draw on their own 
 accounts. Ex-Secretary Shaw says that the strin- 
 gency of 1907 was "the severest the world has 
 ever witnessed." "With this panic fresh in his 
 
THE TARIFF 317 
 
 mind, is it not strange that he should argue that 
 his election is necessary to prevent a panic ? 
 
 I have referred to two of the three panics, both 
 of these coming under conditions which compel 
 the Republican party to accept the responsibility 
 for them. Now, let us consider the panic of 1893. 
 If that could be properly charged to the Demo- 
 cratic party, it would only be one Democratic panic 
 to two Republican panics. But can it be fairly 
 charged to the Democrats? It came, it is true, a 
 few months after the inauguration of a Democratic 
 president, but it came while the McKinley high 
 tariff was still in effect and before a single Repub- 
 lican law had been repealed, and it came from 
 causes that were in operation before the election. 
 In fact, it was the failure of the Republican party 
 to do its duty and satisfy the people that brought 
 about a Democratic victory, and these causes would 
 have brought on a panic, even if the Republican 
 party had remained in powder. Now, this is the 
 record, and yet, in spite of this record, the Re- 
 publican candidate presumes to threaten a panic 
 in case of Democratic success. 
 
 The third proposition w^hich the protectionist 
 must establish, namely, that the tariff asked for is 
 necessary, is still less considered. It is true that we 
 pay higher wages per day than are paid elsewhere, 
 but that does not necessarily mean that the actual 
 labor cost of an article is higher here than abroad. 
 On the contrary, the rule is that high-priced labor 
 produces a cheaper article than low-priced labor. 
 Manufacturers of hardware will tell you that they 
 can export hardware which contains a great deal of 
 
318 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 labor and a small amount of raw material, but that 
 they cannot export hardware in which the raw 
 material constitutes a large proportion of the value. 
 We are sending manufactures of steel all over the 
 world. The steam engine, for instance, is made by 
 skilled labor, and yet we can send it abroad and 
 defy competition. Our electrical machinery is made 
 by skilled labor, and yet we have no fear of foreign 
 competition, even in the foreign markets. Our ag- 
 ricultural machinery is made by skilled labor, and 
 yet we export it to all countries. Our sewing ma- 
 chines are manufactured by skilled labor, but the 
 American traveler finds our sewing machines every- 
 where; and the list could be extended indefinitely. 
 
 For twenty-five years the American workingman 
 has been told that he receives higher wages than 
 the English workman solely because of protection, 
 but our wage-earners now know that this cannot be 
 due to protection, because the English workman 
 receives higher wages than the German workman, 
 altho the German tariff is higher than the tariff of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Protection does not make good wages. Our bet- 
 ter wages are due to the greater intelligence and 
 skill of our workmen, to the greater hope which 
 free institutions give them, to improved machinery, 
 to the better conditions that surround them, and 
 to the organizations which have been formed among 
 the wage-earners. 
 
 A revenue tariff will not bring a panic; it will 
 not inaugurate industrial depression ; it will not 
 reduce wages; on the contrary, it will stimulate 
 business and give more employment, and a larger 
 
THE TARIFF 319 
 
 demand for labor will be a guaranty against a 
 reduction of wages. A reduction of the tariff will 
 reduce the extortion that is now practised because 
 of the high schedules; a reduction in price will 
 enable more people to buy, and this larger demand 
 for the goods will put more people to work and 
 increase the number of industries. A lower price 
 will greatly stimulate exportation, and manufac- 
 turers who are now crippled by a tariff upon what 
 they use will be better prepared to enter the contest 
 for supremacy in the world's trade. 
 
 We cannot hope to invade foreign markets to 
 the extent we should, until we relieve our manu- 
 facturers of the handicap that protection places 
 upon them in the purchase of materials they have 
 to use. Neither can we hope to continually increase 
 our exports without increasing our imports. Trade 
 must be mutual if it is to be permanent. Presi- 
 dent McKinley recognized this, and in the last 
 speech that he made he pointed out that we must 
 buy from other nations if we expect to sell to other 
 nations. 
 
 The Democratic plan does not contemplate an 
 immediate change from one system to the other; 
 it expressly declares that the change shall be grad- 
 ual, and a gradual change is only possible where 
 the country is satisfied with the results of each 
 step taken. We elect a Congress every two years 
 and a President every four years, and the people 
 can soon stop any policy if the results of that 
 policy are not satisfactory. But we believe that 
 the experience the people have had with "protec- 
 tion for protection 's sake ' ' has led them to favor a 
 
320 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 restoration of the tariff by gradual steps to a reve- 
 nue basis, and we are convinced that the advan- 
 tages following each step will be so pronounced 
 and that the benefits will be so universally enjoyed 
 that there will be no halt in the progress toward 
 a system under which the tariff will be levied for 
 the purpose of revenue and limited to the needs of 
 the government. The low tariff law of 1846 did 
 not produce a panic; on the contrary, it was so 
 satisfactory that when the Republican party wrote 
 its first platform, ten years afterward, the protec- 
 tive principle was not endorsed. 
 
 The Democratic party has declared for an in- 
 come tax as a part of the revenue system, and for 
 a constitutional amendment as a means of secur- 
 ing this tax. Secretary Taft announces in his noti- 
 fication speech that he is in favor of an income 
 tax whenever the revenues are so low as to require 
 it, and expresses his belief that it is possible to 
 secure such a tax without a constitutional amend- 
 ment. If it is possible to frame a law which will 
 avoid the objections raised to the income tax law of 
 1894, well and good, but that is uncertain. If an 
 income tax is desirable, surely Secretary Taft can 
 not consistently oppose the adoption of a consti- 
 tutional amendment. If the principle is right and 
 the tax wise, Congress ought to have authority to 
 levy and collect such a tax, and no supporter of 
 Secretary Taft can oppose our position without 
 dissenting from the Republican candidate. 
 
 The whole aim of our party is to secure justice 
 in taxation. We believe that each individual should 
 contribute to the support of the Government in 
 
THE TARIFF 321 
 
 proportion to the benefits which he receives under 
 the protection of the Government. We believe 
 that a revenue tariff, approached gradually, ac- 
 cording to the plan laid down in our platform, will 
 equalize the burdens of taxation, and that the 
 addition of an income tax will make taxation still 
 more equitable. If the Republican party is to 
 have the support of those w^io find a pecuniary 
 profit in the exercise of the taxing power, as a 
 private asset in their business, we ought to have 
 the support of that large majority of the people 
 who produce the nation's wealth in time of peace, 
 protect the nation's flag in time of war, and ask 
 for nothing from the Government but even-handed 
 justice. 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN 
 NEBRASKA 
 
 Delivered at the Democratic State Convention in Grand 
 Island, Nebraska, July 2Gth, 1910, in support of the minor- 
 ity report presented by him as a member of the Resolutions 
 Committee. 
 
 I SHALL read the substitute which I offer for 
 the majority report on this subject: ''We 
 favor county option as the best method of 
 dealing with the liquor question. ' ' I appreciate the 
 spirit of fairness that has characterized the demo- 
 crats who, if we can judge by what has occurred, 
 are in a majority in this convention, and I assure 
 you that it is with very great regret that I find 
 myself compelled to differ from those with whom 
 I have been associated so intimately and so» pleas- 
 antly for so many years. In view of the fact that 
 many democrats think me responsible for the intro- 
 duction of this question, and accuse me of disturb- 
 ing the harmony of the party at this time ; in viev/ 
 of the fact that many feel that I have forfeited my 
 right to your confidence, I think I am entitled to 
 present my defense. 
 
 Demosthenes defined the duty of a statesman by 
 saying that he should ' ' foresee and foretell. ' ' Pos- 
 sibly after three nominations for the presidency 
 it would not be presumptuous to count myself an 
 humble member of the group called statesmen ; but 
 if there is objections to that I am sure you will 
 
 (322) 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 323 
 
 allow me to call myself one of the leaders of the 
 democratic party in Nebraska. And I think it 
 is only fair to apply to the leader the definition 
 of statesmanship given by Demosthenes. It is the 
 duty of the leader to "foresee and foretell," 
 and I shall not ask you to deal leniently with 
 me if I have fallen below this standard. If I 
 have not foreseen coming evils and told you of 
 them, spare me not ; if I have advocated that which 
 is not good for this State, let me feel j^our wrath. 
 "While I am not willing to accept that definition of 
 party loyalty that puts consideration for the party 
 good above consideration for the State's welfare, 
 yet, for the sake of argument, I am willing to accept 
 that definition of party loyalty, and have you 
 measure me by it. If you find that I have done 
 anything that is not for the benefit of the demo- 
 cratic party, I ask no mercy at your hands. 
 
 Do not accuse me of indifference to the harmony 
 of the democratic party. Who among you has more 
 reason to desire harmony than I ? For sixteen years 
 we have never had a dissenting vote on our platform 
 in Nebraska ; for sixteen years we have been in full 
 and hearty agreement in regard to platforms. For 
 sixteen years you have trusted me and I have 
 trusted you. Who could desire, less than I, to dis- 
 turb the harmony of the party? You must make 
 a strong case against me if you would overcome the 
 presumption in my favor. 
 
 Not only that, but who will suffer more than I if 
 I find myself justly repudiated by my own people 1 
 My work is in national politics ; I travel from State 
 to State, and I am aware that a repudiation by you 
 
324 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 will be heralded throughout the land and used 
 against me. Do I not know that the paragraphers 
 are already saying that I am to be turned down 
 in my own State? Is that a matter of no conse- 
 quence to me? Can you believe that anything less 
 than an imperative sense of duty would lead me to 
 differ from you? Never in my life have I per- 
 formed a duty that I less desired to perform; and 
 never have I felt more sure that I was perform- 
 ing a duty. 
 
 It has been said by some that I am fighting on 
 this subject now because I am not a candidate. 
 That is unkind, niy friends. No one who knows my 
 record will accuse me of fighting under conditions 
 under which I would have kept still if I was a can- 
 didate. Go back to '92 when I was a candidate — a 
 candidate for Congress without opposition. I went 
 into the State convention, with only three men 
 encouraging me and began a fight. They refused 
 to put me on the committee on resolutions from my 
 own county, and I was put on by act of the conven- 
 tion. I brought in a minority report signed by my- 
 self alone and made my fight when friends told me 
 it would defeat me for Congress. In '93 I was a 
 member of Congress, and yet I came back to a State 
 convention at Lincoln — a convention controlled by 
 candidates for federal offices — and there again I made 
 a fight, although I knew that my resolution was 
 sure to be defeated. Did I show cowardice? Was 
 I afraid to jeopardize my own chances by taking 
 a position ? 
 
 And the year afterwards I made a fight for a 
 policy against the national administration of my 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 325 
 
 party, against the committee then in charge and I 
 was then a candidate for the United States Senate. 
 Some who now tell me that I must not disturb the 
 harmony of the party were with me then, fighting 
 for principle and not asking what the effect was 
 going to be on the party. I remember that in '9-i 
 the distinguished democrat, Judge Oldham, who 
 has just addressed you, was with us, and we made 
 him our permanent chairman at a time when the 
 money question was so acute that there was a bolt 
 from our convention. If you will look back over the 
 last eighteen years you will not accuse me of being 
 in this fight because I am not a candidate. I am 
 interested because it is an issue, and because in- 
 dividuals and parties must meet issues as they arise. 
 
 I have been called a dictator because I expressed 
 my opinion on this subject. Have n©t others ex- 
 pressed their opinions? Have not the candidates 
 for Governor told you what they thought ought to 
 go into the platform and what ought to be left out ? 
 Have not the candidates for Senator expressed their 
 opinion ? Have not many individuals expressed an 
 opinion ? By what law am I compelled to suppress 
 an opinion upon a question which affects my State's 
 welfare and my party's interest? Is it because I 
 have been your candidate for president? I would 
 not accept an office or a nomination if there were 
 attached to it a pledge that I would see wrong done 
 and not raise my voice in protest. 
 
 And some have said that I am actuated by a spirit 
 of resentment; that I am mad because the liquor 
 interests were against me last fall. Well, my 
 friends, it is true that the liquor democrats and 
 
326 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 liquor republicans put the liquor question above all 
 else. They traded me in this and in other States; 
 I would have been defeated in my own State, if it 
 had not been for republicans who, because of State 
 pride, came to my rescue and took the place of 
 democrats who deserted me. In Missouri, also, I 
 have no hesitancy in saying, the influence of the 
 liquor element was sufficient to account for my 
 loss of that democratic State. We had the same 
 difficulty in Indiana and in Ohio. We had the 
 same trouble in Illinois and in New York. And 
 do you say that I must not refer to the liquor in- 
 fluence in ix)litics for fear somebody will accuse me 
 of being sore over being defeated ? I expect to be 
 in politics many years yet, and I expect to do what 
 I can to help the democratic party, but of what 
 use is it to go out and appeal to democrats on na- 
 tional issues if, when we have done our best, a 
 band of political assassins can come in and rob 
 us of victory? 
 
 The liquor question has entered politics, and he 
 is blind who does not see it. Just at the time when 
 we were about to overthrow Cannonism the special 
 interests — the liquor interests among them — drew 
 away enough democrats to save Cannon. Do you 
 call it resentment to oppose those interests ? I ask 
 why you democrats who have fought with me do 
 not show resentment at the treatment our party 
 has received? (Voice — Hit them again.) 
 
 No, do not say fthat ; I am not here to hit anybody. 
 I am here to present the facts as I find them ; and 
 I want you to sit in judgment upon them, remem- 
 bering that after you have acted, there is a court 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 327 
 
 of appeals, composed of one hundred and thirty 
 thousand democrats, that will render a decision. 
 
 Some have said that I ought not to oppose the 
 opinion of my party on this subject. Pray, who is 
 to tell me the opinion of my party? To whom am 
 I to go to find out what ni}^ party thinks? Might 
 I not assume that I know my party as well as any- 
 one does? Is there any democrat who is acquainted 
 with more of the democrats of Nebraska than I am ? 
 Is there any democrat who has kept in closer touch 
 with these people than I have? Who is to tell me 
 what the party wants before the party itself has 
 had a chance to give expression to its views? But 
 you say I ought to be satisfied when I see this con- 
 vention. I can endorse Avhat Judge Oldham has 
 said about the character of this body, and yet I 
 could bring you to-morrow a body ten times as large 
 and just as good looking who would vote exactly 
 contrary to you. You must pardon me if my ex- 
 perience has taught me not to place too much re- 
 liance upon an opinion expressed by a convention 
 on a subject that has not been generally discussed. 
 Judge Oldham says he does not know what county 
 option means; if he does not know, how can you 
 expect one hundred and thirty thousand fellow 
 democrats to express an intelligent opinion? How 
 many of the one hundred and thirty thousand dem- 
 ocrats of Nebraska attended the primaries that se- 
 lected and instructed you? How many of the fif- 
 teen thousand democrats of Douglas county at- 
 tended the primaries? 
 
 Do not be angry ; I am simply calling your atten- 
 tion to what you know, namely, that you had no 
 
328 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 primaries in Douglas county. Your county com- 
 mittee selected delegates to the county convention, 
 and they selected the delegates (largely themselves) 
 to the State convention. How many, I ask, of the 
 democrats of Douglas county had a voice in select- 
 ing you and in instructing you to vote as you do? 
 I venture the assertion that not one per cent, had 
 any voice. Not that I mean to say that you do not 
 accurately represent them ; you may, but they took 
 no part in your selection. I read of Adams county 
 that there were but three precincts outside of the 
 city of Hastings represented in that convention. Let 
 me ask the delegates whether that report is correct. 
 How many were present outside of Hastings ? 
 
 A voice — "Three, three — six." 
 
 Somebody says six, do I hear a better bid ? What 
 right has Hastings, with a brewery, to say she re- 
 flects the opinions of the men in the country ? And 
 so I might take county after county. I will venture 
 the assertion that not ten per cent of the democrats 
 of this State were present at the primaries when 
 these men were selected. I do not mean to say that 
 you necessarily misrepresent the people who did 
 not take part, and I do not excuse the people who 
 did not attend the primaries — they ought to have 
 been there, but I remind you that you represent 
 only a small proportion. I read in a Jefferson 
 county paper, and I believe it is published by one 
 of the members of our resolutions committee, that 
 one reason why the initiative and referendum was 
 voted down, was that the county convention was not 
 sufficiently representative. No, I am not willing to 
 take the opinion of this convention as necessarily 
 
. THE LIQUOR QUESTION 329 
 
 deciding this question; on the contrary, when a 
 question like this is at issue where a city with sa- 
 loons has an interest adverse to the people outside — 
 so adverse that the people in the city are not willing 
 to allow the country people to vote — you can not 
 say that a convention selected by the cities is neces- 
 sarily representative of the democracy of this State. 
 
 But suppose that this convention was composed 
 of delegates who had been so selected that every 
 democrat had expressed himself in their selection— 
 this question of county option has not been carefully 
 considered. I remember that in 1893 we had a State 
 convention, a convention in which the majority was 
 overwhelming against bimetallism, and I remember 
 that Douglas county was in that convention in- 
 structed to vote as a unit against it ; and I remember 
 that one year -afterwards we had a fight in Douglas 
 county, and by a vote of two to one secured a dele- 
 gation to stand with us for the free and unlimited 
 coinage of silver. And the State convention gave 
 a two to one majority for bimetallism. That is 
 history in this State, and I am not willing that this 
 shall be accepted as a final settlement of this ques- 
 tion. If it is not, then you can not properly charge 
 that I am guilty of disloyalty to my party when I 
 dissent from the opinion expressed by a majority of 
 you in this convention. I will go further ; I believe 
 it is the duty of every democrat to have an opinion 
 and to express his opinion, without asking what 
 others believe. 
 
 You will agree with me that rt is sound democratic 
 doctrine, and has been from time immemorial, for 
 a man to express his opinion and accept responsi- 
 
330 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 bility for it. This is a moral question ; your major- 
 ity report says so. On a moral question, I have a 
 right to an opinion. I am not required to ask any- 
 body what I shall think on a moral question. 
 
 Now let me take the next objection that is made, 
 namely, that 1 am forcing a new issue, that I am 
 guilty of introducing a disturbing factor when the 
 democratic party is at peace. Let me give you the 
 history of this question. I did not create the county 
 option issue; it was here before I knew anything 
 about it. It was here four years ago when I never 
 heard of it at all ; two years ago it was an issue in 
 our legislature, and I refused to express an opinion 
 on the subject. They asked me to say a word in 
 favor of county option, but I said, *'No, these men, 
 elected as democrats on the ticket with me, have 
 been pledged, some for and some against, and I shall 
 not embarrass them by expressing an opinion on the 
 subject." 
 
 I refused to let anybody know where I stood or 
 what I thought, and yet, the question was so much 
 an issue then that the brewers of Omaha sent a re- 
 publican lobbyist down to Lincoln to tell democrats 
 how to vote in the legislature on this subject. If 
 it was not an issue then, why had the liquor interests 
 gone from place to place and pledged men to vote 
 against county option? They had made it an 
 issue before I knew anything about it or ex- 
 pressed an opinion. Not only that, but Douglas 
 county declared against county option last summer 
 before I had expressed an opinion on the subject. 
 Do not accuse me of bringing this question into 
 politics; I met an issue after it had been intro- 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 331 
 
 duced, and if I have any apologies to offer, I shall 
 not offer them to the liquor interests for speaking 
 now ; I shall offer them to the fathers and mothers of 
 this state for not speaking sooner. If I am to blame 
 at all, it is for keeping silent when they had more 
 reason to expect me to speak, than the brewers 
 have to expect me to keep silent at this time. 
 
 But even after I had expressed an opinion on 
 this subject, I did not at once decide to m^ake an 
 active fight. I dreaded, as I have never dreaded 
 anything before, entering into a discussion where 
 I might find myself out of harmony with men 
 whom I have loved and with whom I have worked 
 all these years. Not until I came home from a 
 trip to South America, arriving here in April, did 
 I decide what I would do. When I reached home 
 I learned what was being done ; I found that the 
 liquor interests of the nation had entered Nebraska 
 politics, and that the liquor interests of the nation 
 were joined with the brewers of Omaha, for I re- 
 ceived the information from one who talked with 
 both. They were banded together to select the Sena- 
 tors in this State that they might block legislation 
 that was unfavorable to them. I satisfied myself 
 that the other special interests were allied with 
 the brewery interests, that they were about to bur- 
 glarize the State of Nebraska and that they in- 
 tended to use the democratic party as the tool with 
 which to break into the State house. What could 
 I do but give the alarm? I acted as I would if 
 I saw a man attempting to burglarize the house of 
 a neighbor. You may not believe me, or if you 
 do believe me, you may be indifferent, but I shalJ 
 
332 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 warn you that the conspiracy was formed and is 
 being carried out. 
 
 But, they ask, why not be content with a declara- 
 tion in favor of the initiative and referendum? 
 I tried my best to get the initiative and referendum 
 in the last legislature; I not only made a speech 
 before the Senate and House but I went personally 
 •and solicited men whom I knew to vote for it. 
 They .told me that the liquor interests were against 
 it; t'hey gave as their reason for voting against 
 it that their people were afraid that if we secured 
 the initiative and referendum county option would 
 be submitted and that they opposed the measure 
 as a means of defeating •county option. I warned 
 them that the liquor interests had enough to do 
 to take care of the saloon business ; that it was not 
 their duty to legislate or to run the State of Ne- 
 braska. I reminded them that the initiative and 
 referendum did riot deal with this one question 
 alone, but with all questions; that it was first em- 
 bodied in our platform fourteen years ago when the 
 liquor question was not before the State. 
 
 But they would not listen to argument and they 
 defeated the initiative and referendum. We had 
 the Governor on our side, we had an overwhelming 
 majority of the democrats on our side in the House, 
 and a majority of the democrats in the Senate, 
 but there were nine democrats in the Senate who 
 would not join with the rest, and they are to blame 
 for the fact that we have not the initiative and 
 referendum as our paramount State issue this year. 
 I want you to know upon whom to place the blame. 
 I object to having Democrats lay it at my door when 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 333 
 
 I endeavored to give you a means of submitting 
 this question that would have avoided the necessity 
 of bringing it up at this -time, but the legislature 
 adjourned and nothing was done. The Democratic 
 party was denied the splendid advantage we would 
 have derived from submitting the initiative and 
 referendum to the people. 
 
 Democrats, do you feel no resentment towards 
 the liquor interests when for money only they were 
 willing to prevent our party from going before 
 the people of this State with a proposition so in 
 harmony with popular government? 
 
 I was not willing to stop there; when I found 
 that there was danger of a fight in this State, 
 I decided to try once more, and so I wrote the 
 members of the legislature and asked them if 
 they would agree to vote for the initiative and 
 referendum at a special session. I had no author- 
 ity, and Republicans said I was trying to ' ' help the 
 Democratic party out of a hole"; that I was trying 
 to ' ' get rid of an issue that was embarrassing, ' ' try- 
 ing to ''fight the campaign on national issues" ; and 
 why not? We have a Senator to elect, why not 
 elect him on national issues? We have six Con- 
 gressmen to elect, why not elect them on national 
 issues ? I made one more effort to get countj^ option 
 out of the way, and I came so near — nineteen Sen- 
 ators pledged — that if one of these Senators who re- 
 fused to vote aye, had joined the nineteen we 
 would have had the necessary twenty in the Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 Who has tried harder than I to save the party 
 from this issue ? I made this fight to get a special 
 
334 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 session, and had 1 had the support that I had a 
 right to expect we would have had the special ses- 
 sion, would be out fighting for the initiative and 
 referendum, and county option w^ould not have 
 troubled us in this convention. Do not blame me, 
 blame the Senators who, even after the Democratic 
 State convention of 1909 had declared for the initd- 
 ative and referendum, still refused to promise to 
 vote for it. And why? Because of the opposition 
 of the liquor interests in their districts. And these 
 men are here to-day, nearly every one of them 
 delegates to this convention, and coming from coun- 
 ties which, with one exception, did not indorse 
 the initiative and referendum. 
 
 You ask me why I do not trust a platform prom- 
 ise in favor of the initiative and referendum now? 
 Because I will not trust any man who is under 
 secret promise to the liquor interests, no matter 
 ■what he promises in his platform. It has been 
 said by the opponents of county option that a coun- 
 ty option plank in the State platform will not bind 
 a man in a district that is opposed to county option. 
 If that be true, then who says that a plank in favor 
 of the initiative and referendum will bind a man 
 in a district where his people are against it? If 
 these men would not vote for the initiative and 
 referendum after their party had declared for it 
 last year, what assurance have we that they will 
 vote for it this year? Did not Democrats in Colo- 
 rado refuse to vote for the initiative and referen- 
 dum although it was in their platform? In Minne- 
 sota, also, the Democrats declared for it in their 
 platform, but some Democrats voted against it in 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 335 
 
 the Legislature. I was not willing to go out and 
 promise the people that it would be done next year 
 unless this convention would sever the tie that binds 
 it to the liquor interests. News has come this after- 
 noon that the Republicans have declared for the 
 initiative and referendum in their State convention, 
 and that the Populists have also declared for it. 
 Are you glad? (Cries of yes, yes, no.) 
 
 Why do you not applaud? You ought to ap- 
 plaud, because that is the only way we have a 
 chance of getting it. If we had to depend on Demo- 
 crats alone we would never get it as long as our 
 party marches behind the brewers. I am glad the 
 Republicans and Populists have declared for it, be- 
 cause I think that with all parties for it, the liquor 
 interests will not be able to get enough legislators 
 to violate their pledges to defeat it. 
 
 Who made county option the paramount issue in 
 this State? Do you say I did? You flatter me. 
 I appreciate it, but I can not accept the compli- 
 ment. Did I make the Republican party declare 
 for county option at Lincoln? If so, I had more 
 influence with the Republican party than I seem 
 to have with the Democratic party. Did I make 
 the Populists declare for county option? If so, 
 let me thank the Populists for being nearer to me 
 than the Democrats are. I did not make the Re- 
 publican party do this ; I foresaw that they would 
 do it. I did not make the Populists do it ; they did 
 it two years ago, before I expressed an opinion on 
 the subject. Who forced this issue? Your liquor 
 dealers; they made county option paramount. How? 
 By telling us that we could not have self-govern- 
 
336 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 ment as long as the fear of county option stood in 
 the way, and so the people said: '*If we can not 
 govern ourselves until we get it out of the way, 
 then we will act upon it at once so we can pro- 
 ceed with other things.'* 
 
 As a result of their stupid opposition the liquor 
 interests will probably have county option two years 
 sooner than they would have had it if they had 
 not prevented the submission of the initiative and 
 referendum. Had we succeeded in submitting the 
 initiative and referendum, it could not have been 
 voted upon until next November, and then county 
 option could not have been submitted under the 
 initiative and referendum until two years from next 
 November. If the Legislature this year gives you 
 statutory county option, a committee ought to be 
 appointed to thank the brewers for unintentionally 
 advancing temperance legislation in this State. 
 These are the men who made county option the 
 paramount issue, and now let us meet the issue that 
 they have made paramount. 
 
 Sometimes you read in the papers that this ques- 
 tion is not acute. There is one peculiarity about 
 it: it is only acute on one side. The men opposed 
 to county option can not understand why anybody 
 wants it, but they can understand why every per- 
 son who is opposed to it should leave the Demo- 
 cratic party if the party declares for it. Did you 
 ever know a question so one-sided? I affirm that 
 county option is a Democratic proposition ; I refuse 
 to go to the brewers to learn either constitutional 
 law or the principles of the Democratic party. Do 
 you doubt that this State ean vote on the liquor 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 337 
 
 question? Do you doubt that a city can vote on 
 the liquor question? Of course you do not. Why 
 can not a county, larger than a city, but smaller 
 than a State, vote on the liquor question? Is it 
 democratic for a State to vote on it, and democratic 
 for a town to vote on it, but undemocratic for a 
 county to vote on it ? Who will say so ? 
 
 You can not find an argument against county 
 option from a Democratic standpoint. Either a 
 majority of the county or the minority will rule. 
 And who says it is democratic to have a minority 
 decide what ought to be done in a county against 
 the protest of the majority? If you desire Demo- 
 cratic authority consider the States that have coun- 
 ty option. Texas, that gave me my largest majority 
 in three campaigns — Texas has it. Is it undemo- 
 cratic? If so, why did Texas adopt it? Missouri 
 has it. Is Missouri Democracy a kind that you 
 can sneer at? It is true they exempt towns of a 
 certain size, but remember Missouri has the county 
 unit. Ohio has it, too, and I remind you that Ohio 
 has large cities. I do not want to hurt the pride of 
 Omaha, and yet there are several cities in Ohio as 
 large as Omaha. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, 
 Columbus, Youngstown, Springfield, not all these 
 are as large as Omaha, but they are of considerable 
 size. There are a great many of these cities and 
 yet they have county option. 
 
 Tell me you can not have county option where 
 Germans are numerous? Do they not have Ger- 
 mans in Ohio? Is there any State that has more 
 Germans ? Is there any city other than Milwaukee 
 more known as a German city than Cincinnati, 
 
338 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 Ohio? And yet they not only have county option, 
 but the Democratic convention that met the other 
 day did not dare condemn it. It has been adopted 
 in more ithan half the counties. I know Germans 
 who are not interested in the saloon question be- 
 yond all other questions. Four German ministers 
 worked for the closing of every saloon in the city 
 of Lincoln, and I have talked with Germans who 
 feel as much interest in protecting the young men 
 of their neighborhood from these "man-traps" as 
 other Americans. We have no German saloons in this 
 State or nation. Ask the German who has come 
 from the fatherland and he will tell you that the 
 German saloon is different from ours — there is no 
 treating there, and there ought to be none here. 
 The largest German society in the United States 
 has declared against treating. We have a statute 
 against it, and yet it is violated in nearly every 
 saloon in this State. Give us the German saloon 
 and then it will be time to say that the Germans 
 are from tradition opposed to the regulation of 
 this traffic. Temperance is growing in Germany; 
 the Emperor has recently warned the students 
 against the evil effects of beer. 
 
 County option is not undemocratic; the time 
 has come when you will have to stop saying that it 
 is undemocratic to do anything distasteful to the 
 liquor interests. A man can be a Democrat in good 
 standing without staggering when he walks. The 
 Republicans used to question a man's democracy 
 if he did not drink. A brewer in Chicago called me 
 a degenerate because I am a teetotaller. I contend 
 that I can be a good Democrat and yet refuse to 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 339 
 
 put a glass to my lips or to set an example which 
 might lead my neighbor to ruin. No, ycu can not 
 say it is undemocratic to favor legislation on this 
 subject. Democratic States have not only adopted 
 county option, but some of them have adopted State 
 prohibition. 
 
 It is said that county option is unfair because, 
 if the county goes dry all the saloons are closed up, 
 but if it goes wet you can still have prohibition in 
 the towns and villages. That argument is entirely 
 unsound. Did not this State go wet twenty years 
 ago? And did not this State, when it went wet, 
 still have prohibition in every town that wanted 
 it? Why did not the liquor interests demand that 
 because it went wet, there should be no prohibition 
 anywhere? If it had gone dry, there would have 
 been no saloons anywhere. We have a situation 
 in this State that is similiar to the situation under 
 county option. You say it is unfair in the county 
 but not in the State ? You dare not put your argu- 
 ment to the test. When we get county option you 
 will not be willing to submit it on wbat you call a 
 fair basis. Why? Because you want to defeat 
 county option with the argument that any town can 
 have prohibition if it wants it. 
 
 And why is it not fair to have saloons everywhere 
 when a county goes wet ? Because there is nothing 
 fair about the saloon ; you do not talk about fair- 
 ness and justice when you talk about the saloon. 
 The saloon is an outlaw and a nuisance, and it lives 
 by sufferance where it lives at all. You do not de- 
 fend the saloons as an institution ; you tolerate it, if 
 you tolerate it at all, on the theory that if you tried 
 
340 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 to abolish it you might get something worse. And 
 yet the saloons exert more influence in politics than 
 ten times as much capital invested in necessary and 
 helpful industries. 
 
 Are the farmers not to have any voice in deciding 
 the saloon question ? You can not build a slaughter 
 house in your block without consulting the people 
 around you, because you can not confine the odors 
 to your own land, and yet you would establish a 
 saloon and fill the air with poison and then say to 
 the people who must breathe it and suffer from it, 
 that they have no right to protest. When you fight 
 county option you ought to have arguments to pre- 
 sent, and no arguments have yet been advanced 
 against it. The farmers have been taxed without 
 representation; they have been taxed to support 
 the paupers turned out by the saloons. I was in- 
 terested to-night in the indorsement given to the 
 eight o'clock closing law; I was on the committee 
 and voted for that resolution. I drew the platform 
 in Lancaster county, which indorsed the eight 
 o'clock law. I am glad that it passed by so large 
 a majority, but I ask you who voted for it, how 
 could you support the eight o'clock closing law 
 and then oppose county option on the ground that 
 it interferes with home rule? If you can make an 
 argument against county option on the ground that 
 it interferes with personal liberty, you can with 
 much greater force make an argument against the 
 eight o'clock law. Under county option, we say 
 to the people in Douglas county that they can de- 
 cide for themselves whether they want saloons or 
 not, but under the eight o'clock law, we tell them 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 341 
 
 what time to go home. I believe in eight o*clock 
 closing, but I believe also in county option, and I 
 submit that it is much easier to defend county op- 
 tion than it is to defend eight o'clock closing. 
 
 You will find a number of these questions that 
 will be interesting when you get beyond Judge Old- 
 ham's stage, and commence to study this subject in 
 earnest. There are people who talk about this being 
 a legitimate business ; well, it depends altogether on 
 how you define the word legitimate. I recently met a 
 farmer from one of the counties that instructed 
 against county option ; he said that -a man came to 
 him and asked him to sign a petition for a saloon, and 
 he refused on the ground that they did not treat the 
 saloon keeper fairly. The man asked him what he 
 meant and the following dialogue ensued: "You 
 want to start a saloon in this town ? " * ' Yes. * ' * * To 
 help the town?" *'Yes." ''To improve business?'* 
 ''Yes." "To increase trade?" "Yes." "Well 
 now if you are going to do all that good for this 
 town, I think they ought to give you a subsidy in- 
 stead of putting a tax upon you." If the saloon 
 is such a good thing for a town, why is it we treat 
 it as we do? Why do we require the would-be sa- 
 loon keeper to secure a petition? Why do we tell 
 him when to open and close, and how many chairs 
 he can keep in the room, and require him to give 
 bond for all the damage done? Can you not see 
 some difference between the saloon and other lines 
 of business, and does not this difference justify 
 different treatment? County option lets the county 
 decide whether to license the sale of liquor or not. 
 
 I will go a step further and ask you to bear in 
 
342 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 mind that if the people who can have saloons under 
 county option are not satisfied with that, but insist 
 on forcing them upon counties that do not want 
 them, they will arouse resentment. I know of 
 nothing that will hasten State prohibition more 
 than to have the liquor interests contend that a 
 county can not be dry even when the people want 
 it to be dry. 
 
 The issue is here and we must meet it. No party 
 is big enough to govern a State that is not big 
 enough to decide questions when they arise. This 
 question must be decided, and you must throw your 
 influence one way or another. Do not deceive your- 
 selves by thinking that you can avoid a decision by 
 silence. Do not deceive yourselves by thinking that 
 you can refer this to the districts and escape re- 
 sponsibility. The Grovernor must act, and it makes 
 la great deal of difference whether we have the in- 
 (fluenee of the State convention and the State or- 
 ganization in favor of county option or against it. 
 As one who favors county option I am not willing 
 ito have the influence of our State ticket, of our 
 State committee, and of our entire campaign thrown 
 against every Democrat who is a candidate in a 
 district on a county option platform. I do not want 
 every Democrat who stands for county option to be 
 branded as undemocratic, and as opposed to the 
 policy of his party. 
 
 More than that, there is now only one way to 
 get this question out of politics and fight our cam- 
 paign on national issues. Our platform says that 
 the tide is turning toward Democratic victory, and 
 that we can win on national issues. If so, then 
 
THE LIQUOR .QUESTION 3-1.3 
 
 victory is within our reach. The Republican party 
 has acted ; the Populist party has ac/ted ; if we act 
 with them it is not an issue. You can no longer 
 insist that you want to make this fight on national 
 issues if you refuse to remove this question from 
 the campaign. You have a chance to make the cam- 
 paign on national issues. If instead of that you 
 prefer to make it on the liquor question then cease 
 talking about national issues being paramount. You 
 are to decide whether this question is more import- 
 ant than these national questions that will become 
 paramount as soon as this question is disposed of. 
 I believe it is expedient for the party to do this; 
 that it promises victory to do it, and I see no other 
 path that gives so much promise of victory. 
 
 But I shall put it on higher ground ; it is more 
 than expedient — it is right. The Democratic party 
 can afford to do right; the Democratic party can 
 afford to take the moral side of a moral question. 
 The majority report says it is a moral question and 
 there is but one moral side to a moral question. 
 Which side will you take? Will you put the Demo- 
 cratic party on the moral side, or will you put it on 
 the immoral side? Learn from the popularity of 
 the eight o 'clock closing law the strength of a moral 
 issue. A majority of the Democrats in both houses 
 voted against it, and yet by an overwhelming vote 
 this convention commends the Governor for signing 
 it. 
 
 I am interested in the Democratic party, I owe 
 to the Democratic party all that I am, or have, or 
 hope to be. I expect to live many years 'to fight 
 its battles ; I want to strengthen that party, and to 
 
344 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 be strong it must keep step with the marching spirit 
 of the times. You must remember that temperance 
 is growing in this country and in the world. Since 
 twenty years ago, when we last acted upon the sub- 
 ject, many States have declared for State exclusion 
 of the liquor traffic, others have declared for county 
 option, others have declared for township option, 
 but here stands Nebraska chained to its law of 
 twenty years ago, and the people who passed it not 
 only will not enforce it, but disobey it at every op- 
 portunity. Let Nebraska understand that the world 
 is moving forward and not backward. 
 
 We must appeal to the young men with their 
 ideals, their hopes and their aspirations; we can 
 not hope to win them if we take the liquor side 
 of this question. When a party takes a position on 
 a new question there is a certain realignment. At 
 this time there will be less than usual if all parties 
 take the same stand. If it is made an issue, we 
 shall lose some and gain some. No one can tell 
 whether our losses will exceed our gains, but I am 
 not willing to trade men who think so much of the 
 home that they are not willing to march under the 
 standard of the liquor interests, for men who come 
 simply for a drink and will leave us when the barrel 
 is empty. If we drive out good Democrats and se- 
 cure in return men drawn merely by appetite — 
 men who put the love of liquor above principles of 
 government, we shall be weaker when the next 
 moral question is to be met. I appeal to you. Demo- 
 crats, let us be strong now that we may be stronger 
 to-morrow to meet the issues of to-morrow. 
 
 Pardon me for speaking at length, but I have 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 345 
 
 not had a chance to speak to you on this subject 
 before, and I wanted to present these thoughts. 
 They are on my mind and on my heart. 
 
 Nebraska's Democracy has been at the front for 
 nearly two score years. Look back over that record ; 
 it is a record to be proud of. The question of 
 bimetallism came up and Nebraska took the people 's 
 side, the side of justice ; she was not afraid, and her 
 courage made her prominent among the States. The 
 trust question came up and Nebraska took the peo- 
 ple's side, the side of justice; and we have seen 
 the Eepublicans of the nation forming upon the 
 line that we established. We took our position in 
 favor of railroad legislation, the people's side and 
 the side of justice ; we saw the Democratic party of 
 the nation take that position, and we saw Republi- 
 cans adopting our policy. We declared for the 
 election of Senators by the people; we took the 
 people's side, and the side of justice; and we have 
 seen three national conventions of our party indorse 
 it, and the Republican candidate for President ad- 
 mitted two years ago that he favored it himself. 
 On the income tax question, we took the people's 
 side, the side of justice, and we have seen a Re- 
 publican President take the plank out of the Demo- 
 cratic platform and put it through Congress. We 
 have seen a Republican Senator from our own State 
 embody the Democratic plank in a constitutional 
 amendment, and we see that amendment ratified 
 by State after State. 
 
 The question of imperialism came up, and we 
 took the people's side, the side of justice, and now 
 Republicans admit that we can not forever hold 
 
346 BRYAN'S SPEECHES 
 
 those people in bondage, that a colonial policy can 
 not forever be maintained. The guarantee of bank 
 deposits became an issue and we took the people's 
 side, the side of justice. We have seen three States, 
 Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, besides Nebraska, 
 adopt the Democratic idea and we have seen the 
 Republican party of the nation forced to adopt the 
 postal savings bank bill as an alternative — and by 
 adopting it, admit that after fifty years of power 
 they have been unable to make the depositors secure. 
 The question of campaign contributions came up, 
 and we took the people's side, the side of justice, 
 and we have seen Nebraska lead off, adopting pub- 
 licity before election ; we have seen the Republican 
 house indorse Nebraska's position. 
 
 On the tariff question we took the people's side, 
 the side of justice, and we have seen the Republican 
 party brought to its knees by the insurgent revolt 
 against the high tariff policy. Cannonism came up, 
 and we took the side of the people, the side of jus- 
 tice, and there were enough insurgents in Congress 
 to help us to so modify the rules as to put the 
 Speaker off the committee on rules and increase 
 the size of the committee, so as to make it represent 
 the entire country. Look at Nebraska's standard! 
 In every battle it has been on the firing line. By 
 your command I have borne it ; I have been proud 
 of you, and proud of these things for which we 
 have fought. Examine that standard; there is no 
 stain upon it ; it has never been trailed in the dust 
 since you gave it to me. I shall not lower it now. 
 We never espoused a more righteous cause than that 
 which now appeals to us ; we never faced an enemy 
 
THE LIQUOR QUESTION 347 
 
 more deserving of attack than that which is at- 
 tempting to corrupt our party and control our 
 State. If a retreat is to be sounded, it must be 
 sounded by another. I shall not do it — never, 
 never, never! 
 
f 
 
 I