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 oppressed "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 my protest against the false political economy taught 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 compensation for this system by exempting small incomes 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

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 、 a statesman whose ear is tuned to catch the slightest pulsations of a pocket-book, and denounce as a demagogue anyone who dares to listen to the heart-beat of humanity.

Let me refer again, in conclusion, to the statement 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 contrary by the officials in authority. Add to this high local taxation an income tax of 2 per cent. on every income exceeding $4,000, and many of our best people will 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 taxation would show these gentlemen their mistake. The custom 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 resources, could not maintain such a strain for any considerable length of time."

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 income 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 income 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 support the Government which enabled him to accumulate 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.

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 influence 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

MR.

not in connection with this bill. I have been trying for several days to get an opportunity 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 committee, 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 gentleman 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 gentleman 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