r
3
h
The Commoner
VQti. 14, NO. 3
w
k
i.r
y
U
i
I'1
4
m.
:
fc.
and wrong ho is not the man we want to speak
for us. Wo want him to bo on our side.
Politics is not a difficult matter to understand;
nothing complex about it. People sometimes try
to make it mysterious, but it is easily under
stood. After the campaign of 1896, 1 met a man
on the train who introduced himself, and said,
"Mr. Bryan, I voted against you but my gard
ener voted for you"; and ho added, "Maybe, you
would like to know why." I replied that I
would, and then he went on to tell mo how just
before the election he said to the gardener, "I
understand you are going to vote for Mr.
Bryan," and he answered, "Yes, sir." Then the
employer detailed their conversation. He had
inquired about different questions, and he did
not seem to think that the gardener's answer
displayed a great amount of information or
knowledge of the subject. Finally he had aBked,
"Why, then, aro you going to vote for him?"
and the gardener's reply was, "Because he is
on my side." That is why wo voto for people,
if wo voto intelligently. It is important that
tho president of the United States shall bo on
our side.
' And what do we mean by that. There are
just two sides In this world. Just two points of
view from which people look at public questions.
One is tho aristocratic standpoint and the other
io the democratic. There are two conceptions of
society; one the democratic, that society is built
from the bottom, and the other the aristocratic,
that society Is suspended from the top. There
nro two J'leas of government, one that govern
ments como up from tho people, and tho other
that they are forced upon the people by a
suporior power. The man who believes that
society is built from tho bottom will tell you
that when you legislate you must legislate for
all tho people, and he believes that their pros
perity will find its way up through all the classes
that rest upon tho masses. But tho man who
believes that society is suspended from tho top,
Hays, "Legislato for tho well to do, and then bo
patient and wait while their prosperity leaks
through on thoBd below."
This is tho strugglo everywhere between the
many who petition for justice, and tho few who
demand privileges. And it makes all the differ
ence in the world whether tho president stands
for tho people or stands for tho few. Tho first
question Woodrow Wilson asks when a new
proposition comes before him is, "What are the
interests of all the people?" Wo have a line on
him; ho is a conscientious man, whoso heart is
with tho people a man who has a' conscience,
and dares to follow it; a man who believes that
tho people have the right to govern themselves,
"that they may uso the government for the pro
tection of their rights and the advancement of
their welfare. This is the man who leads us
out into a new era.
When he entered office ho could, according to
tho constitution, have had the time from the
4th of March until December to get acquainted
with tho office and enjoy himself in the White
IIouBe. But when ho sat down at his desk, ho
Bald, "Whore is the pen?" and when they gave
him the pen, ho called congress together in spe
cial session. Ho lost no time; he took upon
himself tho burden of staying there through tho
hot months that he might begin at once tho
work of a nation's emancipation from bondage.
When ho got his messago ready, he said to that
splendid private secretary of his, Jog Tumulty,
"Let's go down to congress." And when they
heard in the houso and the senate that the presi
dent was coming down to read his message, the
timid ones said, "That is revolutionary. That
is an Innovation." And they were afraid that
precedent would be shattered, but what is a bad
precedent for except to be shattered? What use
can you make of a bad precedent except to over
throw it? When tho president finished reading
his messago, they said, "That is what everybody
should have done," and nothing more has been
said about its being dangerous for the president
to read a message to congress.
Ho said to them in substance: "Wo aro sent
hero by the people for a purpose. Ours is a co
operative government, and we must act together
ir we act at all. Now como, let's keep the
pledges that wo made." And then he helned to
prepare a tariff bill which was a much better
bill than I expected could bo prepared. I am
sanguine, if not sanguinary, and T have always
believed, since I began talking tariff thirty-three
years ago, that the tiirie would come when we
would have tariff reduction. Some twenty years
ago I helped to pass some bills that I thought
were good, but this bill is the best bill that has
been written on the subject of import duties
since the war, and it has already accomplished
something. It has disappointed tho gloomy
prophets who said that the Lord was in partner
ship with the republican party and would ruin
the country if the republican party did not write
the tariff. And how surprised some of these
honest and well meaning advocates of protection
must have been tho next morning, after the
president signed the bill, when they found that
the sun rose in the same place, that the climate
had not changed and that the fertility of the
soil had not disappeared under the influence of
tariff reduction.
He has emancipated ninety millions of people,
and made it possible for every citizen to vote as
he pleases without being terrorized by an em
ployer. Gentlemen, I care not what your views
on the tariff may have been, if you are worthy
of the name of citizen, you believe that a man's
vote is his own, and that nobody has a right to
take it from him. None of you can justify what
you have seen in this country in the campaigns
through which we have passed, when they have
put up notices in their factories, "Don't come
back on Wednesday if the republican party is
defeated." Not one of you dares to indorse
what you have seen in this country when the
employer has gone to men who have nothing
laid up for the winter and given them their
choice between surrendering their citizenship
and their bread and butter.
If Woodrow Wilson never does anything else,
he has made it possible for the laboring man to
stand erect and assert that his vote is his own.
And this new tariff law had an income tax in
it. I suppose I have been called an anarchist
for advocating an income tax more than for any
one other thing. I have been called it for
several things, but more for this. I have been
described as a demagogue and a disturber of the
peace. I have been accused of being envious of
the rich. That was when they accused me of
being poorer than I was. Now they charge me
with being richer than I am. They said I was
trying to stir up the passions of the multitude.
Well, when J look back at the little law we had
in 1894 laying two per cent on incomes, with no
graduation just a flat rate on all incomes above
four thousand and then look at the present
law, I am ashamed of my moderation.
We passed that law, and the supreme court
declared it unconstitutional. A supreme court
by a majority of one nullified it, and that one
majority was secured by persuading a judge to
change his opinion as to the constitutionality of
the law between two hearings of the case. The
law was not unconstitutional when it was passed.
It was not unconstitutional the first time they
heard it. Nobody knows when it became un
constitutional, for nobody knows the exact time
when that judge changed his mind. But, my
friends, one majority was enough according to
our constitution, and the law failed, and from
that day until we secured a constitutional
amendment, our country in the presence of peril
was powerless to lay its hand upon the accumu
lations of the rich, but it was always able to
draft the citizen and make him give his life for
his country.
Tho fight lasted for nineteen years, and at the
end of that time a nation had rebuked a court
and specifically authorized an income tax Two
thirds o? the members of both houses had voted
to submit tho amendment, and three-fourths of
the states of the union had voted to ratify it
and among them was the state of New York'
where the largest concentration of wealth is to
be found. When this democratic congress met
there was no doubt about its carrying out the
mandate of the people, given when that consti
tutional amendment was adopted. When thev
got through with that bill in the house! I was
m amazed to find that instead of having a two per
cent rate flat, they had graded it from one to
five, and I hoped the senators would not notice
it, for I was afraid they would lower it but to
and behold, when the senate got through" the
rate had been raised from one to five to one to
?t6Vtepn Tw? V thG S,enat0r8 Wanted t0 nake
It ten. There it is, a law, and, my friends I
want you to give me credit for one thlng.you
who thought I favored an income tax, because I
was poor, and would not have it to pay I want
mTsharkenW ' "" tm " nW' an(1 "& "
A change has come in the people of this Coun
try. Men who nineteen years ago de'nounced
those who favored an income tax now say tS
it is all right and that they are ready to pay it.
I was talking to a man the other day who had
had a conversation with a rich democrat, just
after this law was signed by the president. This
democrat had an income of $500,000 a year,
there are not many democrats who have that
and he was never afraid to let the people make
the laws that regulated his property. This man
who reported the conversation to me asked him,
"How do you like the law?" "Well," he said,
"My share will be about $30,000 or '$35,000, but
why shouldn't I pay it? Why shouldn't we pay
it if wo have the income?" What a change is
going on in this country.
One of the evidences of the new era in this
country is that the tax dodger who used to fight
justice in taxation has in many instances come
around to understand what 'is justice and seems
to be willing to bear his share of the expenses
of the government. It would be good enough to
pass such a' law as that by a majority and compel
payment, but it is far better to have them will
ing to pay, and the fact that they do shows what
a revolution has taken place.
When the president affixed his signature to
the tariff-income, tax bill, he called the leaders
about him in the White House, and said, in
effect, "Well done, thou good and faithful serv
ants, one good law deserves 'another; I would
like to have you commence on the currency bill
tomorrow." Then they commenced on the cur
rency measure, and, again I will admit that they
did better than I expected anybody to.
I knew something of the depth of the differ
ence of opinion on the currency question. I
knew there were two groups of people who, if
they discussed this subject intelligently, took
widely divergent views. -The members of one
group said that the issuirig of money was a
function of the government, and that the banks
should go out of the governing- business. The
other group said that the issuing of money was
a function of the banks, and the government
should go out of the banking business. There
were the two views, arid the line between them
was very distinct. I thought that the president
had had an easy time oil the' tariff Cdhipared
with the time he would have ''when1 he brought
congress face td face with a' currency measure.
That currency bill is a marvel of constructive
statesmanship. Let no man hereafter say that
the republican party has a monopoly on the
brains of the country, for the republican party
did not prepare that bill. For more than fifteen
years the republican leaders have talked cur
rency reform, but they have never dared to put
their party behind a law or a bill presenting
what they wanted. But when Woodrow Wilson
started out as a candidate for the nomination he
gave the country to understand what was com
ing. He made a speech at Harrisburg, Penn
sylvania, not far from Wall street, and in that
speech, months before the nomination, he said
that the greatest menace to this country was
the money trust. The papers printed it and the
next day every big financier was convinced that
Woodrow Wilson was a dangerous man, the
more dangerous because he lived down east
where he ought to know better. But he went
on and in the campaign he told the people that,
when we came to currency reform, we must pre
pare the bill with a view to protecting the rights
of all the people, and so this law was prepared,
and, in my opinion, it will stand out as a monu
ment to the political wisdom, and tho moral
courage of those who participated in its prepara
tion and passage.
It grants privileges more advantageous than
the banks have ever enjoyed before. This bill
enables banks to get money from the govern
ment without putting up bonds as security.
Heretofore the banks had to put up bonds and
in order to get the bonds they had to send more
money out of the community than they could
bring in on the bonds. Therefore a bond security
never could bo an emergency measure: instead
of meeting the emergency if had helped to create
it. But thiB' bill gives the bankers an opportunity
to use the security they have, and bring new
money into their community. The old plan had
been 'better for tho banks than for the com
munity, for the old plan enabled them to draw
interest on the bonds, and then' get money from
the government on the bonds and draw interest
on that. Because they could profit, although
the community suffered, they never changed
the law.
But Woodrow Wilson has gfiven us a law that
mitfc.a hanker in apos!ih,f:wliere he can help
the coniinunity in time of ehiergencv by adding
if V( i ii .y
"1MT1 ' "V
'',