Page images
PDF
EPUB

SPEECHES ON

TAXATION AND BIMETALISM

I

THE TARIFF

Delivered in Congress on March 16, 1892, in the discussion of the tariff measures reported by the Ways and Means Committee of which Mr. Bryan was a member. This is known as his first speech in Congress, altho he had previously spoken for five minutes on a minor question. 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.

HE gentleman from Maine [Mr. DINGLEY]

TE

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 President, and if we can succeed in bringing to the

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 consumers, 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 conquer. He had perhaps read the Home Market Bulletin, where Mr. Draper said that "protectionists must stand together or fall separately." He

[ocr errors]

had perhaps read in that same Bulletin that 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 protection 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 regularly 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 gentleman from Maine [Mr. DINGLEY] to discuss the principle of protection. I consider myself for

« PreviousContinue »