most respectfully that it is a matter of regret that he did not see proper to put upon record the reasons that caused him to make the change; that he did not stand before the American people as the only member of the court really responsible for this far-reaching and terrible judicial decision. The name of that justice is known alone to himself and to his judicial associates. Not even the clerks of the court are able to say what individual justice changed the decision after the case was first argued. The reasons that controlled him are lost to the profession and to the country, and it is simply a matter of conjecture as to why, in a case the most important, possibly, that ever came before the Supreme Court of the United States, he allowed his name and his reasons to be buried in obscurity.

Sir, the Senate of the United States has been ridiculed and maligned because of executive sessions. What would be thought of a member of this body who had changed his opinion on a great question like that before the Supreme Court who did not have the manhood to stand before the American people and declare his responsibility for that result? I can imagine now the storm of opprobrium, the charges of corruption, the wrath of the independent press against a Senator who would dare to hide his name in order to escape responsibility for a public act.

I must also be permitted to express my regret that in the argument of this case eminent counsel were not only permitted but encouraged to make scurrilous innuendoes as to the motives of those of us who had placed in the income-tax law the provision exempting savings banks and mutual life insurance companies from taxation. The reasons for this exemption were given in the Senate debate, and it is not strange that they did not weigh with paid counsel who made this attack upon the majority of Congress. Those banks and companies were exempted upon the broad and humane policy which encourages the citizen in all civilized countries to make provision for those who are dependent upon him. The same eminent counsel who attacked Congress because they had made this exemption, in the next breath assailed us as legislative communists who were making assaults upon the wealth of the country. This versatility would have been astounding but for the fact that the same lawyer a few weeks afterwards stood before a New York jury, Bible in hand, and read the parable of Lazarus and Dives to secure a verdict for his client against a multi-millionaire who was childless, upon the ground that he ought to be made to divide his estate with the poor devil who was fortunate enough to have such an advocate. (Laughter.)

I assert that in all the debates which were had in both Houses of Congress it was not suggested that the Supreme Court had not settled forever in the Springer case our right to pass the income-tax provisions which were contained in the Wilson law. Even the Senator from New York (Mr. Hill), who so vigorously opposed the income-tax provision, although his individual opinion may have been otherwise, did not pretend to controvert the fact that constitutionally we had the power to impose such a tax.

Mr. HILL. Will the Senator from Missouri allow me? I know he does not want to misrepresent me.

Mr. VEST. Not at all.

Mr. HILL. I do not intend, of course, at the present time to argue the question, but I will state that I took the position all through the debate that we had no authority under the Constitution to pass any such income-tax provision as that bill contained.

Mr. VEST. I have said that was the individual opinion of the Senator from New York, but as a lawyer he never pretended to urge that the Supreme Court had not decided that we had the power and that the Springer case was conclusive upon the question.

Mr. HILL. Of course my views are published in the speeches which I made here upon that question, in which I spoke of the Springer case, and we had considerable discussion upon it. I endeavored to draw a distinction betwee what was decided in the Springer case and what was involved in the bill then pending.

Mr. VEST. What was decided in the Springer case speaks for itself in language so plain that there can be no mistake about it. The Springer case decided without one dissenting judge-declared emphatically and distinctly and beyond the shadow of suspicion-that Congress had the power to impose the taxes that we placed in the income-tax provision of the Wilson law. I know that counsel in the Supreme Court tried to evade that conclusion, but I have read from the printed argument of Mr. Seward to show that he admitted that the Supreme Court had so decided and only attempted to escape the legal effect by saying it was a war-time decision, made by a loyal court to sustain the Government.

Mr. President, I do not propose to speak at length in regard to the effect of this decision. My sole object is to repel and repudiate with all my power and with all the earnestness of which my nature is capable the assertion that Congress was guilty of either recklessness or ignorance in enacting that statute. I say that every intelligent lawyer concluded that the question had been judicially determined. To have doubted that the Supreme Court would have followed the decisions of one hundred years would have been a reflection upon the intelligence and consistency of that great tribunal. During the individual selfishness that always comes in times of great depression, while gloom and disaster and other great issues have been impending over the country, our people have not understood the full effect of this terrible decision. It has marked a new era in our history, and I much mistake the American people if the time will not come when neither soft words nor honeyed phrases will be sufficient apology for the doctrine announced by the Supreme Court.

Sir, the people of this country will never submit to the system of taxation which has been put upon them by the Supreme Court of the United States in opposition to its decision of an entire century. That Mr. Vanderbilt, with his hundreds of millions of dollars, should pay no more for the support of the General Government than the poorest man in the land is abhorrent to every

honest mind. The Army and Navy of the United States, the military and financial resources of the Government, must be used to defend Mr. Vanderbilt's untold millions; and yet he pays simply internal-revenue taxes and tariff import duties upon what he may choose to consume, and the poor man does the same. He pays no more to support the army and navy than I do, or any other citizen of this country, without regard to his estate or means. The people of the United States will never concede that either the State or national administration should be fixed upon a basis like this. This decision, I say, has not attracted the attention that hereafter must be given to it. The time will come when the prophetic language of Justice Brown will come home to every intelligent and thoughtful man throughout our wide domain, that by this adjudication the highest tribunal in the land has fixed upon the country "the sordid despotism of wealth."

XIV.

LABOR.

Labor being the foundation of strength, wealth, and greatness in our Re public, it is well to look at the principles and practices of the parties in regard to it. From the following utterances and history it will be seen that Democracy has been the friend of labor in the past as now.

The following from the speech of Hon. W. J. Bryan, made in Chicago on "Labor Day," shows where our candidate stands on the question:

LABOR DAY SPEECH OF HON. WM. J. BRYAN,

Delivered at Chicago, Ill., on Invitation of the Building Trades Council September 7, 1896.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I desire to thank the Building Trades Council for the opportunity to speak to the people assembled to-day. Labor day has become a fixed event among cur holidays, and it is well that it is so, because on this day, all over the nation, those who are engaged in the production of wealth meet with each other to discuss the questions in which workingmen are especially interested, and to emphasize before the world that there is nothing dishonorable in the fact that one earns his bread in the sweet of his face. I am glad to stand in the presence of those to whom this nation is so largely indebted for all that it has been, for all that it is now, and for all that it can hope to be.

I am not indulging in idle flattery when I say to you that no other people are so important to the welfare of society as those whose brain and muscle convert the natural resources of the world into material wealth.

Carlisle's Words.

I call your attention to the language of Hon. John G. Carlisle, in 1878, when he described these people as "the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country." He did not praise them too highly. "The struggling masses" not only produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country in time of peace, but "the struggling masses" have ever been, and must ever be, the nation's surest protection in time of peril.

Abraham Lincoln's Praise.

Abraham Lincoln expressed himself strongly upon this subject. In a mes sage to Congress, in 1861, he said, "Monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of the people. In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It is not needed or fitting here that a

general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point with its connection not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government, it is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital, that nobody labors unless somebody else owning capital somehow, by the use of it, induces him to labor." And then he adds, “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration." And, mark these words of his, "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. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the doors of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

These are the words of Lincoln. They were not intended to arouse animosity against capital, but they state a great truth that ought always to be remembered-that capital is but the fruit of labor, and that labor can not be destroyed without destroying the possibility of future capital.

I have quoted from two of our public men. Let me now read to you the language used by one whose words have won him the title of the wisest of men-Solomon. He said, "Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me, lest I be full, and deny Thee and say, who is the Lord? Or lest I be poor, and steal and take the name of my God in vain." Solomon desired neither poverty nor riches. He rightly estimated the dangers which lie at either extreme and preferred the-I was about to say, golden, but will call it the-golden and silver mean. Neither great wealth nor abject poverty furnishes the soil in which the best civilization grows. Those who are hard pressed by poverty lose the amibtion, the inspiration, and the high purpose which lead men to the greatest achievements; while those who possess too great riches lack the necessity for that labor which is absolutely essential to the development of all that is useful. Solomon was right, therefore, when he praised the intermediate condition, for the great middle classes are the bulwark of society, and from them has come almost all the good that has blessed the human race.

The Highest Compliment.

The highest compliment ever paid to any class of people was paid to those who are called the common people. When we use that term there are some who say that we are appealing to the passions of the masses; there are some who apply the name demagogue to anybody who speaks of the common people. When the meek and lowly Nazarene came to preach "peace on earth, good will toward men," he was not welcomed by those who "devour widow's houses and for a pretense make long prayers." By whom was he welcomed?