The Commoner;
Sept. i9, 190a
15
protect an Industry. You can give it
a bounty out of the federal treasury,
or you can authorize Jt to take up the
collection itself. This Is the only dif
ference. Suppose that the chairman
desired to help some particular in
dustry for instance, one in the home
of my friend from New York (Mr.
Raines), who has asked the question.
He might do it in either of two ways.
He might pass around the hat here and
collect the money and turn it over to
the favored industry, or he might
simply say to the man, "I will put a
tariff upon' the imported article and
make the price so high that you can
collect the additional price for yotir
home-made .article."
Now, vhat is the difference except
that in the one case thq chairman
passes around the hat and turns the.
money over to -his' friend, and in the
other case he authorizes the friend to
pass the hat himself.
Mr. Perkins. May I ask 'the gentle
man one Question to clear up a matter
in my own mind?
Mr. Bryan. Certainly; I will bo very
glad to clear my friend's mind.
Mr. Perkins. Are you to be under
stood as opposed to a state or national
protection to be extended to the beet
sugar industry?
Mr. Bryan. I am, most assuredly.
And when it is necessary to come down
to congress and ask for a protection
on a bounty for an industry in my
own state which I should refuse as
wrong to an industry in another fState,
I shall cease to represent Nebraska in
congress. The difference between a
protective tariff and a bounty is sim
ply a difference of form.
In the one case it is open and' visible,
and in the other it is secret and hid
den. There Is the difference between
a bounty and a protective tariff that
the Bible deocribes when it speaks of
the "Destruction that wasteth at noon
day, and the pestilence that walketh
In darkness." It is the difference be
tween the man who meets you upon
the highway, knocks you down and
takes what you have, and the man who
steals into your house in the night
while you are asleep and robs you of
your treasures; and if I had to make
choice between the two I should con
sider the highway robber the more
honorable, because he does what he
dos openly and before the world.
Mr. Catchings. And he incurs some
little personal danger.
Mr. Bryan. Yes, ho also incurs some
personal danger. The great advantage
of a protective tariff over a bounty is
that it is not seen, and, as some one
has said, its greatest justification is
.that by means of it you "can get the
most feathers off the goose with the
least squawking."
Just a word, Mr. Chairman, on the
subject called up by my friend from
Iowa (Mr. Perkins). I stated that I
was not in favor of the sugar bounty.
I was opposed to its being given in
my own state; was in favor of its be
ing repealed in my own state; and
when the representative of those in
dustries was here the other day I told
him that he could rely upon me to
vote for the repeal of the bounty on
sugar at every stage In committee or
" house. And In taking that position,
Mr. Chairman, I believe that I repre
sent the great mass of the people, who
cannot come to this congress and lob
by bills through in behalf of private
interests, who cannot get together and
petition us, but whose only petitions
fall into the ballot box when they
vote, and. so help me God, I will bo
guided by those petitions just as long
as I hold this office. When that boun
ty was put on, it was opposed in thi9
house as unconstitutional.
I will read at this point from a de
cision of the United Spates supreme
court, 20 Wall., 657:
To lay with one hand the power
of the government on: the property
aot the citizen, and, with the other
to bestow it upon favored individ
uals to aid private enterprises and
build up private fortunes, is none
the less a robbery because it is
done under the forms of law and is
called a taxation. This Is not leg
islation. It is a decree under leg
islative forms.
If it be said that a benefit resulta
to the local public of a town by
establishing manufactures, the
same may be said of any other
business or pursuit which employs
capital or labor. The merchant,
the mechanic, the inn-keeper, the
banker, the bunder, the steamboat
owner, are equally promoters of
the public good, and equally de
serving the aid of the citizens by
forced contributions. No line can
be drawn in favor of the manufac
turer which would not open the
coffers of the public treasury to the
importunities of two-thirds of the
business men of the city or town.
Now I desire to ask my friend from
Iowa (Mr. Perkins), does the supremo
court state the truth, or are you in
favor of a bounty on sugar.
Mr. Perkins. If the gentleman de
sires an answer I will give it. I do
not live in Nebraska; I had no part in
the legislation of that state placing a
bounty on sugar. I do know, how
ever, that in the stato of Nebraska and
in the state of Iowa this "highway
robbery" principle which the gentle
man denounces is largely observed and
applied in all our communities.
Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I hope
the gentleman will confine that state
ment to the district which he repre
sents, and not extend it to our state.
Mr. Perkins. I say, Mr. Chairman,
that that is true in the city of Lin
coln and in the city of Omaha, as well
in the city of Sioux City. I know that
those communities are always glad
and anxious to improve every oppor
tunity to give a bounty to get a ma
terial industry into their midst Jt is
upon that principle that that great
western country has been built up and
developed as it has been, and we ap
ply the same principle In the govern
ment of this great country.
Mr. Harris. Will the gentleman an
swer a question? 4
Mr. Perkins. I am not speaking in
ray own time.
Mr. Bryan. You are welcome to all
the tim you want If you will talk in
that way.
Mr. Perkins. I have answered your
question.-
Mr. Bryan. But the gentleman has
not presented an illustration of the
principle for which he contends. 1
want him to point to an instance
where the city of Sioux City, or th
city of Lincoln, or any other city, has
voted money raised by taxation to aid
a private enterprise.
Mr. Perkins. I can say for my own
city that we voted a tax to build rail
road machine shops there on account
of the labor and money that they
would bring Into the community and
we did it not as a benefit to the rail
road company, but as a benefit to
Sioux City. There Is one illustra
tion, and I can give more.
Mr. Bryan. If the gentleman will
read the decision of the supreme court
which I have cited ho will find that
the court In discussing that question
say that in every instance where a
vote of bonds to aid a railroad com
pany has been justified it has been
justified upon the ground that a rail
road is a public and not a private im
provement. And, so far as I know,
there is no instance on record where
the courts of any state In the United
States have declared a bonus given to
a purely private Industry to be con
stitutional and legitimate.
Mr. Perkins. Take the matter of
the beet sugar industry. The gentle
man knows that communities in Ne
braska have given aid for the estab
lishment of factories for that industry.
Mr. Bryan. I will state to the gen
tleman that that was attempted In the
case that came to the supreme court
of our state from Nollgh. I had the
honor to be one of the attorneys in
the case and filed a brief against tho
bonds. The court held that tho bonds
voted wero Illegal.
Mr. Harris. I was going to ask my
friend, tho gentloman from Iowa (Mr.
Perkins), a question; perhaps tho gen
tleman from Nobraska can answor it
Do you think it will mako tho trees
grow to givo a bounty upon mapio
sugar?
Mr. Bryan. I do not know, but I
supose it is perfectly in harmony with
the "lnfanty industry" plan that was
presented In tho McKinloy bill and
previous bills. They protected the
"infant industry of boring holes Into
treos.
On this question, I wish to say, Mr.
Chairman, that tho policy of tho demo
cratic party is not hostility to Indus
tries. We welcome to this country ev
ery industry that can stand upon its
foot; but wo do not welcome tho in
dustries that come to ride upon our
backs. We do not desire to discourage
Industries; we desire to restore to
them tho "lost art" of self-support Wo
are not objecting to "infant indus
tries," but what wo do say is that tho
public treasury shall no longer stand
sponsor by the cradle of ovcry "Infant
industry" born upon American soil.
But, Mr. Chairman, to resume. 1
have said that the purposo ot tne pro
tective tariff was to transfer money
from one man's pocket to auotner
man's pocket I want to show to you
and to this committee that it is the
only purpose a protective tariff can
possibly have. Why do you impose a
tariff? You impose it upon the theory
that you cannot proauco in this coun
try tho article which you protect as
cheaply as it can bo produced abroad;
and you put tne tariff upon that ar
ticle in order that the price of the ar
ticle may bo so much increased that
our people can afford to produce it
You mean that tho man who buys that
article shall pay into tho public treas
ury the tariff upon the article, and ou
expect that this, together with the
price, will bo sufficient to protect some
body else.
Is not . that tho purposo? If not,
why did the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Boutello) ask to have tho tariff
taken off of building material when
Eastport, Me., was burned, or why
give to tho shipbuilders of Maine free
building material, as suggested by tho
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tur
ner)? How do you protect the wool
grower except on the theory that for
eign wool is made higher? But why
do you make a man pay more for tho
foreign article? It is in order that your
protected manufacturer may charge
more for his product than he couid
charge without tho tariff. That is tho
only justification; because if you say
that you cannot produce the article as
cheaply in this country as it is pro
duced abroad, what benefit is it to
have the outside article increased in
price if you do not increase the price
of the home article also?
The gentleman from Maine (Mr.
DIngley) says that a couple of years
ago he purchased a piece of calico in
Manchester, England, and paid 5 cents
a yard for it; that the tariff on calico
was 4 cents a yard, and that if tho
tariff were a tax it would make the
price 9 cents; but that, on the con
trary, his wife purchased in a store
in this city, a piece of calico of better
quality for 5 cents a yard. Now I wish
to aslc you this: If you can produce
and sell in this country a yard of cali
co at the same price per yard at which
it is sold in England, the American
c lico .being 01 better quality, why do
you want a tariff of 4 cents a yard to
protect your calico?
I make this proposition: Either a
tariff Is needed or It is not needed. If
a tariff is needed, it Is In order to add
the amount of the tariff to the price of
the home article to enable the Ameri
can manufacturer to compete with the
foreign. If It Is not needed, who is
going to justify It7 Now, which horn
of tho dilemma will you take? Will
you say that this tariff Is needed and
used; or will you say it Is not seeded
and ought to be abolished?
If, thon, that is tho purpose of a
tariff to mane tho man who buys tht
protected article pay more for that ar
ticle than ho would pay without tht
tariff It mcana simply this, that the
law should transfer so much money
from my pocket to tho pockot of some
body elso. You cannot, my frlondi,
ralso In this way an "infant Industry"
without putting tho burden somewhere.
Whenever you see the government by
operation of law sond a dollar singing
down Into one man's pickot, you must
romombcr that tho government has
brought it crying up out of somo other
man's pockot You might Just as well
try to raise a weight with a lover
without a fulcrifm as try to help somo
particular Industry by means of taxa
tion without placing tho burden upon
tho consumer.
Back in Illinois when wo were re
pairing a rail fonco, wo would some
times find a corner down pretty low In
tho ground, and not wanting to tear
down the fern 3 wo would devise a way
of raising that fence corner to put un
aer it a now 'ground chunk. How did
wo do it? Wo took a rail, put ono ond
of It under tho fence corner, thon laid
down a ground chunk for a fulcrum.
Then we would go off to tho ond of tho
rail and bear it down; up would go tho
fence corner but does anybody sup
poso there was no pressure on that
fulcrum ?
That, my friends, illustrates just tho
operation, as I. conceive it, of a pro
tective tariff. You want to ralso an in
fant Industry, for instance; what do
you do? You take a protective tariff
for a lover, and put ono end of it -under
tho infant industry that Is to bo
raised. You look around for somo
good, fat, hearty consumer and lay
him down for a ground chunk; you
bear'down on tho rail and up goes tho
infant, Industry, but down goes tho
ground chunk Into the ground.
The reason our friends justify tho
principle is that they see tho infant
industry rise, but they forget tho mon
upon whom they are placing the bur
don. And the trouble with this coun
try is that all over tho land are tho
homes of forgotten men men whose
rights have been violated and whoso
interests have been disregarded In or
der that somebody else may bo en
riched. It Is the principle that Is in
volved In this little binding twine bill.
You see the industry that gets tho
?20,000, but you never think of tho
farmers who go down Into their pock
ets and pay tho little sums that mako
up the great amount Is not that a
fact? Is not that tho effect of tho
tariff? Therefore, tho man who Justi
fies protection as a principle must
prove three tnings: He must prove
that tho principle Is right; that tho
policy is wise, and that tho tax Is
necessary.
I desire to say that no man on that
side of the house in this session of
congress will stand up before you and
justify a law that takes from one man
ono cent and gives it to another man
if he will admit that that is the opera
tion. Take an illustration: Hero are
ten men owning farms side by side.
Suppose that nine of them should
pass a resolution, "Resolved, That wo
will take tho land of the tenth man
and divide it among us." Who would
justify such a transaction? Supposa
the nine men tell the tenth man that
ho will get It back In some way; that
it Is a great advantage to live amongst
nine men who will thus be better off,
and that indirectly he gets an ad
vantage from tho transaction?
How long do you suppose it would
be before they would convince that
man that they were right in taking his
land? Would you, gentlemen, -dare
to justify that? You would not justify
the taking of one square foot of his
land. If you do not dare do that,
t.
