Heart to heart appeals

Front matter

t ‘* aif ; a Hah . ie 4 tr. A Sf _e : f (4 ; — Apfpe-a Ke, y DATE DUE

| BORROWER’S NAME |

Date Due

Contents

GOVERNMENT . : ; : ‘ Ten Fundamental Propositions—Coercive and Co-operative —Three Forms of Government—Two Theories of Representative Government—Democratic or Aristocratic, Which?— Democratic Idea of Representative—No Twilight Zone— Restraining Hoggish Tendencies—Short Official Terms— Patriotism above Partisanship—The Strength of a Nation— “* Righteousness Exalteth a Nation ’’—The Divine Law of Rewards—The Ideal Republic.

A Revenue Tariff—Tariff Needed or Not Needed—The Real Home Industry—The Ground Chunk Illustration—Ulysses and the Sirens—The Cannibal Tree.

INcOME Tax . : ; ‘ : : Principle of Income Tax.

II Tariff

A Revenue Tariff

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 proportion to the benefits which he receives under the protection of the government. We believe that a revenue tariff, approached gradually, according 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 who 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.

From Des Moines Tariff Speech, 1908.

Tariff Needed or Not Needed

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 manufacturer to compete with the foreign. If it is not needed, who is going to justify it? Now, which horn 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 ?

From Tariff Speech of 1892.

The Real Home Industry

When some young man selects a young woman who is willing to trust her future to his strong right arm, and they start to build a little home, that home which is the unit of society and upon which our government and our prosperity must rest; when they start to build this 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.

From Tariff Speech, 1892.

The Ground Chunk Illustration

Whenever you see the government, by operation of law, send a dollar singing down into one man’s pocket, you must remember that the government 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 fulcrum as to 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,

Tariff 21 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 under the fence corner, then laid down a ground chunk for a fulcrum. 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 put one end of it under the infant industry that is to be raised. You look around for some good-natured consumer and lay him down for a ground chunk; then you bear down on the rail and up goes the infant industry, but down goes the ground chunk into the ground.

From Tariff Speech of 1802.

Ulysses and the Sirens

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 to the protected interests, by promises made before the election, that, hearing, they can not heed.

From Tariff Speech of 1892.

The Cannibal Tree

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 gtows 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 mysterious kind of honey. Some of the natives worship 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 number, 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 singing for joy. 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 crurshed within its folds, his companions have stood around and_ shouted, “Great is protection!”

From Tariff Speech, 1892.

Ill

INCOME TAX

Principle of Income Tax i: income tax is not only more fair in principle than a tax upon consumption, but,

through the exemption which it contains, in a measure, equalizes the injustice done by the indirect forms of taxation, since those who escape the income tax are the very ones who pay more than their quota through indirect taxation. The graduated rates, increasing with the size of the incomes, carry the approximation towards justice a little further because the larger the income the smaller is the percentage, as a rule, taken by the taxes upon consumption. The graded income tax invokes another principle of government, namely, that in the distribution of the burdens of the government, consideration should be given to the ability of the citizens to contribute; and some have gone further still and defended it on the ground that it tends to discourage large incomes. The government would not, however, have to consider the question of discouraging large incomes if it would only avoid the granting of the privileges and favors out of which abnormal incomes grow.

From “The Royal Art.”

(Note: The Income Tax amendment and law have since been secured. ) 23

IV Money

Gold, Silver and Paper

N considering money in its relation to government | two things are of paramount importance, first, that the quantity of standard money shall keep pace with population and business, and, second, that the paper money shall be issued and controlled by the government. The quantitative theory of money is now established beyond controversy, the theory being that, other things being equal, prices will rise and fall with the volume of money. The proposition is so self-evident that it is hard to understand how it could have been disputed so recently by men well informed on other subjects.

The quantitative theory puts money upon the same basis as other commodities, the relation of supply and demand being the controlling factor in fixing prices wherever natural laws are free to operate. Where metallic money is used the quantity is partly determined by production, partly by the use of the precious metal in the arts and partly by the legislation which determines the access of metals to the mints, which implies the giving of legal tender quality to the metal when coined.

The advocates of bimetalism employed in the defense of the two metals the academic argument that, as the production of the two metals does not increase or decrease exactly in the same proportion, the unit

Money 25 has greater stability when it rests upon both metals than when it rests on one metal alone, and also the practical argument that neither metal was to be found in sufficient quantity to make monometalism tolerable. An unexpected and unprecedented discovery of gold, however, has brought into use a quantity of that metal without a parallel in history, and thus secured to the world the advantages which bimetalists endeavored to bring through the restoration of silver. From “The Royal Art.”

The Financial Crisis

Mr. 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 responsibility 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 rescued the west from “the all-destroying grasp of Islam,” and saved to Europe its Christian civilization. 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 United States, and to all mankind, weal or woe beyond the power of language to describe or imagination to conceive.

From Speech on Bimetalism, 1893.

The Drummer Boy Illustration There are thousands, yes, tens of thousands, aye, even millions, who have not yet “bowed the knee to Baal.” Let the President take courage. Muehlbach 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 a retreat, but I can beat a charge. But I can beat a charge that 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 charge was ordered, the battle won, and Marengo was added to the victories of Napoleon.

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 converted democratic hope into realization; he took up the banner of tariff reform and carried it to triumph. Let him continue the 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 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 be given and this Marengo will be our glory and not our shame.

From Speech on Bumetalism of 1893.

Money | 27

Blessings or Cursings—Which?

Well has it been said by the senator from Missouri (Mr. Vest) that we have come to the parting of the ways. Today 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 aggregations of wealth and capital, imperious, arrogant, compassionless. They demand special legislation, favors, privileges, and immunities. They can subscribe magnificently to campaign funds; 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 hear of average wealth, increased on every side and feel the inequality of its distribution. They see an overproduction 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 condemnation. Although the ones who most deserve the fostering 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 the party to be its champion in the present conflict. It can not 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 baittle 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 conscious that upon its choice its fate depends, come the words of Israel’s second law-giver: “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 devotion to their interests which made his party invincible 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 courage to grapple with that great enemy, and by overthrowing it, made himself the idol of the people and reinstated the democratic party in public confidence. What will the decision be today? - The 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?

From Speech on Bimetalism of 1893.

Money 29

Independent Bimetalism

I ask, I expect, your co-operation. 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 conception 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 derives its powers from the consent of the governed, secures to all the people freedom of conscience, freedom 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.

From Acceptance Speech of 1896.

(Note: The quantitative theory of money has been vindicated by events. Bimetalists pointed out that falling prices were due to a scarcity of money—each dollar buying more as the demand for money outran the supply, and they advocated the restoration of bimetalism, not as an end but as a means to an end— the only means then in sight.

An increase in the supply of money has come— without it a return of prosperity would have been impossible—but, as it came, not from the restoration of bimetalism but from an unexpected increase in the production of gold, the bimetalists have not received as much credit as they deserve for the fight they made to secure an adequate supply of money.

This vindication, however, is none the less complete. To show that the result which they desired, and for which they labored with intelligence and earnestness, has followed from causes which no one could have anticipated, I have used this illustration: Suppose the citizens of a town were divided, nearly equally, on the question of water supply, one faction contending that the amount should be increased, and suggesting that the increase be piped from Silver Lake, the only available body of water, the other faction insisting that no more water was needed; suppose that at the election the opponents of an increase won (no matter by what means) ; and suppose, soon after the election, a spring which may be described as Gold Spring, broke forth in the very center of the city, with a flow of half as much water as the city had before used; and suppose the new supply was turned into the city reservoir to the joy and benefit of all the people of the town. Which faction would, in such a case, have been vindicated?

Just such a result has followed a similar increase in the nation’s supply of money, to the joy of all— thus proving the contentions of bimetalists.) .

Vv

IMPERIALISM

Resolution for Philippine Independence

WAS among the number of those who believed I it better to ratify the treaty and end the war,

release the volunteers, remove the excuse for war expenditures and then give the Filipinos the independence which might be forced from Spain by a new treaty.

In view of the criticism which my action aroused in some quarters, I take this occasion to restate the reasons given at that time. I thought it safer to trust the American people to give independence to the Filipinos than to trust the accomplishment of that purpose to diplomacy with an unfriendly nation.

Lincoln embodied an argument in the question when he asked, “Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?” I believe that we are now in a better position to wage a successful contest against imperialism than we would have been had the treaty been rejected. With the treaty ratified a clean-cut issue is presented between a government by consent and a government by force, and imperialists must bear the responsibility for all that happens until the question is settled.

From a Speech on Imperialism.

(Note: This policy was finally adopted sixteen years afterwards when the promise of ultimate inde- 31 pendence was embodied in the Philippine measure enacted in 1916.)

Christianity against Imperialism

If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and praselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.

Imperialism finds no warrant in the Bible. The command, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” has no Gatling gun attachment. When Jesus visited a village of Samaria and the people refused to receive him, some of the disciples suggested that fire should be called down from Heaven to avenge the insult; but the Master rebuked them and said: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Suppose he had said: “We will thrash them until they understand who we are,” how different would have been the history of Christianity! Compare, if you will, the swaggering, bullying, brutal doctrine of imperialism with the golden rule and the commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Love, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that the Stars and Stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it.

Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let it be known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering

Imperialism 33 armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit ; let it be known that they are citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.

From Speech on Imperialism.

Forbidden Fruit

The fruits of imperialism, be they bitter or sweet, must be left to the subjects of monarchy. This is the one tree of which citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice of God, that bids us eat.

From “Naboth’s Vineyard.”

Apostrophe to Moses

Shame upon a logic which locks up the petty offender and enthrones grand larceny. Have the people returned to the worship of the Golden Calf? Have they made unto themselves a new commandment consistent with the spirit of conquest and lust for empire? Is “thou shalt not steal upon a small scale” to be substituted for the law of Moses?

Awake, O ancient law-giver, awake! Break forth from thine unmarked sepulchre and speed thee back to cloud-crowned Sinai; commune once more with the God of our fathers and proclaim again the words engraven upon the tables of stone—the law that was, the law that is to-day—the law that neither individual nor nation can violate with impunity! From Speech on Imperialism.

Destiny

History is replete with predictions which once wore the hue of destiny, but which failed of fulfilment because those who uttered them saw too small an arc of the circle of events. When Pharaoh pursued the fleeing Israelites to the edge of the Red sea he was confident that their bondage would be renewed and that they would again make bricks without straw, but destiny was not revealed until Moses and his followers reached the farther shore dry shod and the waves rolled over the horses and chariots of the Egyptians. When Belshazzar, on the last night of his reign, led his thousand lords into the Babylonian banquet hall and sat down to a table glittering with vessels of silver and gold, he felt sure of his kingdom for many years to come, but destiny was not revealed until the hand wrote upon the wall those awe-inspiring words, “Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin.” When Abderrahman swept northward with his conquering hosts his imagination saw the Crescent triumphant throughout the world, but destiny was not revealed until Charles Martel raised the cross above the battlefield of Tours and saved Europe from the sword of Mohammedanism. When Napoleon emerged victorious from Marengo, from Ulm and from Austerlitz, he thought himself the child of destiny, but destiny was not revealed until Blucher’s forces joined the army of Wellington and the vanquished Corsican began his melancholy march toward St. Helena. When the redcoats of George the Third routed the New Englanders at Lexington and Bunker Hill there arose before the

Imperialism 35 British sovereign visions of colonies taxed without representation and drained of their wealth by foreignmade laws, but destiny was not revealed until the surrender of Cornwallis completed the work begun at Independence Hall, and ushered into existence a government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

From “America’s Mission.”

The “destiny” argument is usually the subterfuge of the invertebrate who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it. It is a complacent philosophy; it obliterates the distinctions between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance.

From “America’s Mission.”

Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.

Man’s opinion of what is to be is half wish and half environment. Avarice paints destiny with a dollar mark before it; militarism equips it with a sword.

From “America’s Mission.”

He is the best prophet who, recognizing the omnipotence of truth, comprehends most clearly the great forces which are working out the progress, not of one party, not of one nation, but of the human race.

From “America’s Mission.”

American Civilization Standing upon the vantage ground already gained the American people can aspire to a grander destiny than has opened before any other race.

Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual to protect his own rights, American civilization will teach him to respect the rights of others.

Anglo-Saxon civilization has taught the individual to take care of himself, American civilization, proclaming the equality of all before the law, will teach him that his own highest good requires the observance of the commandment: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Anglo-Saxon civilization has, by force of arms, applied the art of government to other races for the benefit of Anglo-Saxons; American civilization will, by the influence of example, excite in other races a desire for self-government and a determination to secure it.

Anglo-Saxon civilization has carried its flag to every clime and defended it with forts and garrisons. American civilization will imprint its flag upon the hearts of all who long for freedom.

“To American civilization, all hail! Time’s noblest offspring is the last.”

From “America’s Mission.”

VI Trusts

Private Monopoly ERE is a plain, candid statement of the party’s H position. There is no quibbling, no evasion, no ambiguity. A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable.* It is bad—bad in principle, and bad in practice. No apology can be offered for it, and no people should endure it. Our party’s position is entirely in harmony with the position of Jefferson. With a knowledge of human nature which few men have equaled and none surpassed, and with extraordinary foresight, he expressed unalterable opposition to every form of private monopoly. The student of history will find that upon this subject, as upon other subjects of government, the great founder of the democratic party took his position upon the side of the whole people and against those who seek to make a private use of government, or strive to secure special privileges at the expense of the public. From “The Trust Question.” (*Note. The sentence: A private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable, was written into the democratic national platform of 1900 at Mr. Bryan’s request and was repeated without change in the platforms of 1904, 1908 and 1912. This sentence, setting forth the democratic policy on the trust question, had its origin in a speech delivered by Mr. Bryan on Sept. 16, 1899, at an anti-trust meeting in Chicago, when he said: “I begin with the declaration that a monopoly in private hands is indefensible from any 37 standpoint and intolerable. I make no exceptions to the rule.’”’) Man vs. The Corporation

There are many differences between the natural man and the corporate man. There is a difference in the purpose of creation. God made man and placed him upon His footstool to carry out a divine decree; man created the corporation as a money-making machine. When God made man He did not make the tallest man much taller than the shortest; and He did not make the strongest man much stronger than the weakest ; but when the law creates the corporate person that person may be an hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million times stronger than the God-made man. When God made man He set a limit to his existence, so that if he was a bad man he could not be bad long; but when the corporation was created the limit on age was raised, and it sometimes projects itself through generation after generation.

When God made man He gave him a soul and warned him that in the next world he would be held accountable for the deeds done in the flesh; but when man created the corporation he could not endow that corporation with a soul, so that if it escapes punishment here it need not fear the hereafter. And this man-made giant has been put forth to compete with the God-made man. We must assume that man in creating the corporation had in view the welfare of society, and the people who create must retain the power to restrict and to control. We can never become so enthusiastic over the corporation, over its usefulness, over its possibilities, as to forget the God-made man who was here first and who still remains a factor to be considered.