MARCH 27, 1908
The Commoner.
Mr. Bryan's Chicago Speech on "Why Democracy?"
Synopsis of an address given by Mr. Bryan
In Chicago on March 19, at a meeting held at the
Seventh Regiment Armory under the auspices
of the Bryan League, Carter H. Harrison, chair
man :
Assuming that reforms are necessary what
party can best be entrusted with the work of se
curing them? I beg to present the claims of the
democratic party. What are the evils to be cor
rected? The greatest of all evils, and it is the
fruitful source of nearly all other evils, is
the domination of politics by the favor-seeking
corporations. By dominating politics they dom
inate the government, national and state. There
is no question upon which the people are think
ing which does not to a greater or less extent
involve this question. Shall the government be
administered in the interest of the whole people,
by unpurchasable, incorruptible representatives
of the people, or shall the favor-seeking corpora
tions control the elections, raise their representa
tives to power and through them exploit the
country? If the present situation is satisfactory;
if the people are contented with the distribution
of wealth, and with the predominating influence
of these combinations, then there is no good rea
son why the republican party should not be con
tinued in power, for it has created the conditions
which now exist and must have credit or blame,
according to whether these conditions are desir
able or undesirable. I think I can safely assert
that conditions are not satisfactory and in sup
port of this assertion I can point to the fact that
remedial legislation is demanded by practically
all of the democratic party, and by a very large
proportion of the republican party.
Whatever popularity the president has is
due to the efforts that he has made in the direc
tion of reform, although these efforts have been
spasmodic rather than continuous, and have not
been suported by his own party. The democratic
party can claim the right to carry out these re
forms, first, because that party is almost unani
mously in favor of reform while in the republican
party there is a very large minority, if not an
actual majority, against any and all important
reforms. While the republican party is occu
pied with a fight between reformers and stand
patters, the democratic party is ready for action,
and can move forward at a moment's notice.
Then, too, a democratic administration will,
if elected, enter office pledged to specific re
reforms named in the platform, while the re
publican party will ask the public to trust it to
carry out such reforms as may be outlined after
the election. In the one case the people know
what to expect; in the other case they are left in
uncertainty. But this is not the worst of it. A
republican president will have no straightfor
ward platform declaration, with which to draw
republican legislators up to specific reforms,
while a democratic president will have a plat
form which will commit those elected with him
to certain clearly defined measures. President
Roosevelt's trouble has been that his platform
promised nothing and, with all his great energy,
he has not been able to secure any substantial
reforms. How can a less positive or aggressive
republican accomplish more, if hampered by the
same ambiguity and uncertainty in the platform?
The democrats have the advantage, also, in
that they make a distinction between the nat
ural man and the fictitious person called a cor
poration. They recognize that man was placed
on earth to carry out a divine decree, while the
corporation was created to make money; and
this difference in the purposes of creation neces
sitates a difference in the treatment of the two.
The republicans, on the other hand, have con
fused the natural man and the corporation, and
have given to the corporations all the rights of
the natural man, besides the special rights given
the corporation by law.
Democrats believe in the natural and in
alienable rights of the individual; they believe
that the individual should be left free to exert
. himself as he will, except insofar as he must
be restrained from denying to others rights
equal to his own. Democrats believe that each
community ought to be free to act upon the
things in which it is interested, and that the
state should be undisturbed in its control of
affairs of purely state importance. Beginning
with the right of the individual, the democrat
proceeds to defend the right of each group of
persons up to the federal government, and in
sists upon the right of the federal government
to the full use of all powers delegated to it.
Guarding, as it does, the rights and interests
of the individual, the democratic party is more
solicitous than tho republican party about the
individual, and therefore is more careful to
protect him against the trespasses that have
been made upon his rights by the corporations.
The difference between the democratic posi
tion and the republican position can be illus
trated by reference to the position taken by
three prominent republicans. Take the presi
dent's position On national incorporations. Ho
favors the incorporation of railways and inter
state commerce corporations by the federal
government, and in so doing ho ignores the
right of the state to regulate corporations doing
business within the state. The president has
made this mistake, largely because he leans
to the Hamiltonian rather than to the Jeffor
sonian theory of government. He is perfectly
honest in his belief that national incorporation
would be good for the country, and when he
stated his position for tho first time, lie gave
three reasons for taking the position, and one
was that it would relieve the corporations from
the annoyance of state regulation. Now the
democrat believes that it is better for the cor
poration to suffer such annoyance as may be
occasioned by state legislation, than that the in
dividual shall bo denied the protection that
comes from state legislation. The president
would remove the control from the state gov
ernment, which is near the people, to the fed
eral government, which is farther from the peo
ple, and he would do this notwithstanding tho
fact that the senate has shown itself subservient
to the predatory interests. The democrats in
sist that the federal government has now power
sufficient for all necessary federal regulation,
and that federal regulation should be added to
state regulation, and not substituted for it. In
other words, the democrat would give to the in
dividual all tho protection that can como from
federal legislation, and still reserve to him all
the protection that can como from state legis
lation. Let me take another party man Governor
Hughes. If you will read his speeches, you
will find that they are very general when they
come to tho discussion of remedial legislation,
and very earnest when they refer to possible
injustice to the corporations. He is just now
finding fault with fines; whether he has in mind
the $29,000,000 fine, or other fines I don't know.
He speaks of the injustice to the stockholders;
and yet, what has he said about the injustice
that the stockholders have permitted tho cor
porations to work against the general public
for a generation? Where are his speeches de
nouncing the Standard Oil trust, and the steel
trust and the other trusts? The stockholders
are not the only innocent parties. If they do
not want to run the risk of paying fines, they
can sell their stock in the law breaking corpor
ations; but the consumer, who is the victim of
the trusts, what about him? The fact that
Governor Hughes is much more anxious to pre
vent injustice to a few stockholders than to a
much larger number of consumers, indicates
the point of view from which he looks at public
questions. His veto of the two cent fare bill is
another illustration. He gave tho benefit of the
doubt to the railroads instead of giving It to
the people, although he knew that the railroads
could protect themselves from injustice in the
courts, even after he signed the bill, whereas
the people had no recourse to courts when he
vetoed the bill.
Let me give you a third illustration: Take
the attitude of Secretary Taft on the subject
of corporations. What has he done, or is he
doing to protect the public from the misuse of
corporate power? What specific legislation does
he demand for the extermination of the trusts?
None. On the contrary, he found fault with my
statement that the private monopoly should be
eliminated. He insisted that it should not be
eliminated but simply controlled; and yet he
must know that there are several trusts, any
one of which could afford to contribute ten times
as large a campaign fund as could be collected
from all individual contributors to a campaign
fund.
When he comes to the discussion of the
tariff question, he is much more concerned
about a republican victory than he is about
tarriff reform, because he is not willing to
jeopardize a republican victory by immediate
tariff reform. Notwithstanding the gross in
justice which he must know to exist, he is not
willing that a single schedule shall be dis
turbed at present, and ho knows that the re
publicans have promised before each election to
mako whatever reform wan neceiMWiry, only to
say after election that no reform wim neeowsary.
But I desire to present what I regard tui
conclusive evidence of Secretary Taffs unfitness
to deal with tho question of corporations. You
will find this evidence In a government report.
In 1905 there was issued from the government
printing office at Washington a document known
as "Committee Reports, Hearings and Acts of
Congress Corresponding Thereto." It Included
tho hearings before the committee of the house
of representatives on Inmilnr affair In tho Fifty
eighth congress. Secretary Taft wan a witness
bororo the committee and on page 10,'i will be
found the language which I am going to quote.
Thoro was in tho charter of the Manila railway
a provision that at the end of one hundred
years the railway should revert to tho Spanish
government. Tho company had claims against
the United States for occupation of the railroad
for nine months. Secretary Taft explains that
ho attempted to settle this claim by giving to
the railroad a perpetual franchise. Ho says:
"When I was out there as governor, I talked
with the manager of the company and sug
gested a compromise by which we should give
them a perpetual franchise like the franchise
already granted for the construction of railways
without guarantees, and that wo should agree
to allow them on the franchise already granted
the duties on the materials put Into the new
franchises on the one hand, and that they should
release all claims against tho United States on
tho other hand."
In another part of his testimony he slated
that the railroad paid throe or four hundred
thousand dollars a year net. This would mako
the rental of the railroad for nine months worth
from ?L'2ii,000 to $1500. 000. Now, In order to
secure a release of the claim against the gov
ernment, Mr. Taft was willing to convert a
hundred year charter Into a perpetual franchise.
There was a provision In the original charter
In regard to guarantees, and Secretary Taft says
that the Philippine Islands have always repudi
ated this obligation, so that it can not be con
sidered as a compensation. The point that I
desire to mako Is this, that Secretary Taft was
willing to fasten upon the Filipino people a per
petual franchise, and give to a railroad com
pany the power to hold this franchise forever.
On page eighty-three of tho same report,
you will find that Secretary Taft, In discussing
the bill under consideration by the committee,
favored a provision that would give the Philip
pine commission tho power to give a perpetual
guarantee of Income to a railroad. Mr. Jones
asked him:
"That leaves It to the commission to say
whether It (the railroad) shall pay anything
(of the guarantee) back or not?" And Sec
retary Taft replied: "Yes, sir, It does, and It
leaves It to the commission to make a per
petual guarantee If it would. In many of the
guarantees of England this was the form taken."
From these two quotations it will bo seen
that Secretary Taft was willing, when he was
governor of the Philippines, to grant a per
petual franchise to a railroad, and was willing,
after he became secretary of war, to authorize
the commission to make a perpetual guarantee
of income to a ra'ilroad.
Remember that the Filipinos are often de
scribed as our wards, and that we are benevo
lently described as their guardian. Remember,
too, that our occupation of the islands is only
temporary, for our government has never an
nounced its purpose to hold the islands or to
administer the government for any particular
time, and we are assured by prominent repub
licans that we can not yet tell what ought to be
done with the islands. Now a guardian is under
restrictions which are not applied to one who
acts for himself. If Secretary Taft Is willing
to give a perpetual franchise when he Is a
guardian of the Filipinos, how long a franchise
would he be willing to give if he were acting
for the American people? If he would be will
ing to bind the Filipinos forever to a fixed profit
on a railway enterprise, how would he be will
ing to bind the American people in corporate
matters?
How long is eternity? Does Secretary Taft
realize what it means to grant a perpetual fran
chise? If, for instance, Columbus had been
given a perpetual franchise in the United States
by Ferdinand and Isabella, when he discovered
America, that franchise would be legally run
ning yet. And yet neither Columbus nor the