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

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 Washington, 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 conceive 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 opportunity 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

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 language. 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. do not care anything about the geography of their positionwhen I say 'the South.' I mean by men who have no conception 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 another, they do not understand; and if you who do understand 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."

I

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 exprest 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 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 England."

Now, of course, that letter is not extemporaneous. It is a calm statement of a supposed condition that, under equal circumstances, the "omnivorous West" 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 "omnivorous West." A little farther on he says:

"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.'"

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 prestige; you can keep it or you can throw it away.” In other words, if you keep it you can have the advantage 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 "omnivorous 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 beware of that. He calls up the great "omnivorous West"-Massachusetts 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 important to the West as it is to the East, but here