Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 14, 1907)
:mmitmimmmmmkiM0im f th 1 it M 2 Jamestown, that boll was calling Iho followers of Budda to worship. Four tri-centennials might havo boon colobratod In that temple. Go to Bonaros, India, and you will And a pagoda, Two thousand five hundred years ago tho foundation was laid. Bight trl-contenniala havo passed slnco then. Go into Egypt and you will find a sphynx earvod by ouo whoso namo has long slnco beon forgotten. For somothing llko forty cVmturics its sloopless eyes havo looked out upon that vordant strip that forms tho wondrous valley of the Nile. It was there before Columbus thought of tho Now Land; it was there bofore Cicero thundered against Cataline; it was there beforo Joseph was carried down into Egypt. Tri-centonnlals havo passed since that silent sen tinel began to guard tho land of the Pharaohs. Measured by years, I repeat, this is not an old Bottlertlont; but measured by achievements, it has no equal in recorded history. ' From this triple settlement along the shores of the Atlantic, the pioneers havo gone out until they havo given to tho world a marvelous indus trial development; mado this the Intellectual leader of the world; established hero a mo,ral contor, from which good influences go out jp every other nation; and converted this young nation into a political mocca to which tho re formers of every land come to renew their In spiration. I might, with profit to you and myself, dwell upon these phases of our nation's great development. I might speak of the wonderful industry of my countrymen; I might tell you how they have opened mines; how they have bridged rivers; how they havo converted deserts into fertile farms. I might tell you how they have bound all parts of this country together with bands of steel and with copper wire; I might - tell you of a people who produce and con . sume every year something like three times the amount produced and consumed by any equal population in the world or in history. I might toll you of the schools that bring to every child an opportunity to secure an educa tion, a school system commencing with tho kindergarten and ending with the great univer sity. I might tell you of this nation's growth in altruism and of the speed of our ideas of government. Thoro is not a land in the world that has not been illumined by the light that was kindled hero three centuries ago. But tho proprieties of this occasion require that X confine myself to matters of government. It is fitting that Virginia should celebrate this day, for in matters of government Virginia has played a supreme part. During revolutionary days the Old Dominion furnished not only the first, but the greatest of our executives. Dur ing the revolutionary days Virginia furnished the greatest of all statesmen not of that period alone, but of all time, for no other states man, beforo or since, stands in the class with Thomas Jefferson. But, .not satisfied with pre senting the greatest executive and statesman, Virginia presented an orator worthy to he classed with Demosthenes, who has for more than twenty centuries been tho world's model in public speaking. As an impassioned orator, even Demosthenes was not superior to Patrick Henry. Sometimes I receive a letter from a stu dent who tells mo that he Is a born orator, and wants to know what such an one should do to prepare himself for his life work. I gen erally reply that orators must bo born like other people, but that birth is the smallest part of an orator's equipment. Men are not born orators. If I want to calculate the future of a young man in public speaking, I do not ask him whether his mother spoke well, or his father spoke a great deal; I do not think it makes much difference. An orator is a product of his time, and there are-and always will be orators when there are great Interests at stake, and when men arise with a message to deliver. There are two essentials In oratory; first that the man shall know what ho Is talking about, and second, that he shall mean what he says. You can not have eloquence without these two essentials. If a man does not know a thing he can not tell it if he is not informed him self ho can not inform others, and If he does not feel in his own heart he, can not make any body else feel. And next to these two, I would place clearness of statement. There are not jnly certain self evident truths, but all truth is self-evident, and the best service one can render ii u iu m to present u so clearly that it can be understood, for If the truth is clearly stated you do not need to defend it, it defends itself. I do not mean to say that any truth can be so clearly stated that no one will dispute it. I think it was Lord Macauley who said that if any money was to be made by it, learned men would be found to dispute the laws of gravita tion. But what I mean to say is this, that a The Commoner. truth can bo so clearly stated that no one will dispute It unless he has some reason for dis puting it, sometimes a pecuniary reason, some times a reason founded upon prejudice, or some other selfish interest, and when you find a man disputing a self-evident truth there is no use arguing with him; it is a waste of time. Argue with some ono who Is open to conviction. For instance, if you say to a man, "It is wrong to steal," a self-evident truth, and he says, J do not know about that," it is no use .to argue with him search him, and you will probably find the reason in his pocket. Next to clearness of statement, I would put conciseness of statement the saying much in a few words. Patrick Henry had all of these qualities. Ho knew what ho was talking about, ho understood the fundamental principles of the science of government; he understood human rights, and he understood the human heart. $Ie not only knew what he was talking about, but he meant what he said he spoke from his heart to the hearts of those who listened. There were learned and influential men in those days who opposed him, but when he made his impas sioned appeal to the. sense of justice he was greater than all of them. He had the power of stating a question clearly. He could strip away the verbiage, that is sometimes used to conceal ideas, ho could present tho idea clearly, and he could present a thought in a few words. No great thought has ever been more strongly pre sented, more clearly presented, more concisely presented than that great thought which he pre sented when ho exclaimed: "Give me liberty or give me death!" He might have spoken for hours, but ho could not havo added to the strength of the statement by the use of further words. He was a great orator, and his influ ence rested upon his ability to speak to the hearts of the people. He did not speak for him self, no orator can speak for himself and be elo quent. He must have a larger cause. ' If a man is to be .eloquent ho must speak for man kind; only then can he appeal to the hearts of men. A man is of little importance in this world, except as he can advance a principle, or help his fellows. Patrick Henry seized a great prin ciple and brought it into prominence. He spoke not for himself, but for all the people of this country he was the voice of the people, he was the conscience of the masses, and therefore when he spoke for them he carried conviction. He presented in a few words the greatest theme . that we have to deal with in -matters of govern ment. I will read you four propositions which he set forth in a few words four propositions which mean more in matters of government than any other four propositions that I know of, except the four stated in the Declaration of Independence. Let me read you these proposi tions: First, "Every attempt to rest such power (the power to levy taxes) In any other- person or persons whatsoever, other than the general assembly aforesaid has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom." "What is the principle embodied in that statement. It is that liberty is universal in its application, and that you can not strike it down in one part of the world without striking it a blow in every other part of the world. There was an American, a young man reared in the new country, hot acquainted with the clas sics; there he was warping the people of Eng land tjiat if they dared to strike down liberty in our country they wduld strike it down in their own country at the same time. He was wiser than the statesmen of England, because he understood human rights and he understood human hearts. He knew that when one denied liberty to others he attacked the foundation upon which his own liberty stood. It was an Impor tant lesson, and England learned it, and she has not attempted to govern other colonies of her own race as she had attempted to govern our colonies. She learned something from Vir ginia's great orator, and she has not forgotten the lesson up to this time. Canada today is more free because of the words Patrick Henry spoke. Australia is more free because of the fight that Patrick Henry led. New Zealand has more liberty because of the wisdom that Patrick Henry taught. - , Another thought that he expresses'. Let me read this resolution: "Resolved, That the taxation of the people by themselves or by persons chosen by them selves to represent them, who can only know' what taxes the people are able to bear and the easiest mode of raising them, and are equally af fected by such taxes themselves, is the dis tinguishing characteristic of British freedom, "and without which the ancient constitution can not exist." Now I want to refer to the last portion first. "And are equally affected by such taxes VOLUME 7, NUMBER 22 themselyes." My friends, Patrick Henry has put into few words an indictment against every colonial system that this world has known. The curse of the colonial system is that the people who make the laws for the colonics do not havo to live under the laws, and therefore tho colonies are sacrificed to the mother country. It has always been true. It was true when wo were colonies. England tried to sacrifice our industries to her industries and our people to her people. Go down into Mexico and you will find that the war with Spain grew out of the fact that Spain was sacrificing Mexico to Spain. Go Into Cuba, and you will find lhat the thing that stirred the people to revolution Was that Spain was sacrificing Cuba to Spain. Today the thing that stirs the heart of the native of India is that England is sacrificing the people of India to England. It has always been true that the mother country sacrifices . the colonies to the mother country, and we are not entirely free from Jit ourselves, for we have sacrificed the industries of the Philippines to the indus tries of the United States.' We have deprived them of their markets, we have made them sub jects of this country, and we have compelled them to depend upon our laws, and then we have refused to treat them justly because great interests in our own country demanded first consideration. In that phrase Patrick Henry put his finger upon the evil that runs through every colonial policy. The people who make the laws do not live under them. I have sometimes in the north had occasion to remind our republican brethren that they were very inconsistent when they objected to the suffrage qualifications in the south and yet would not allow the Filipinos to be citizens at all, and I have, emphasized this very point. The black man when he can not vote has this pro tection, that he lives under the law that the white" man makes for himself, and that that is a protection, but we make the Filipino live under a law that we make for him, and that we would not live under ourselves. But the two thoughts that I desire to em phasize today are expressed in this resolution taxation and representation. Taxation is the most permanent question that we have to deal with. Other questions may come and other questions may go, hut taxation like Tennyson's "Brook" goes on and on forever. We may dispute about the amount, we may -discuss fhe method, . but there will always be taxation. The power to tax is the power, to destroy, and those who can exercise the taxing power can exercise it to the destruction of those whom they tax. Now, we have two kinds of taxation, direct taxation and indirect taxation. Direct taxation is better than indirect taxation why? Because a thing that you can watch Is not as dangerous as a thing which you can not watch. The best defini tion of indirect taxation I have ever read was given by a Frenchman. He said that its chief merit was that by means of it you could get the most feathers off a goose with the least squawking, and I have sometimes thought that man had to have some of the qualities of the goose to be fond of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation is most liable to abuse because excesses are not so easily observed and, therefore, not so quickly corrected. t People bear much heavier burdens when they are collected indirectly than they would be willing to bear if they were collected directly. Now most of our taxes, nearly all" for the sup port of- the federal government, are collected . on consumption and taxes on consumption are the most inequitable that there are, because a tax Upon consumption taxes people according to what they need and not according to what they have. Our needs are more uniform than our possessions, for God was the creator of our needs and he was quite democratic in his method of distributing them. We all need about the same amount of food and we need about the same amount of clothing. It 'takes the same amount of fire to protect us from the cold, we need the same shelter. When you tax people according to consumption you make the poor man pay more than his -share and-the rich man less than his share. There are two forms of taxation that are more equitable than taxes on consumption. One js taxation in proportion to the property. If one man has a home worth one thousand dol lars, and another man has a business block worth half a million, why should they not pay in proportion to the property they own? It is property Jhat needs the protection of the gov ernment. Go into your crarts, talk to your policemen, and you will find that it is property, not human life, that most needs protection. Human life needs protection far' less than prop erty then why not tax property, if property is the chief1 object of the government's care. But there is a better form of taxation even , , ' i jM'fegi a -. .- 4M-'sart J Vi -k 'jjjssii ... w ttfrjsjTjgfafltJtufc riga'ti''--- ' ife'fc'' gfor .-,-- - - .- jc. Jj!1