From that day to this, Bryan has been in the public eye everywhere. Many who heard his tariff speech predicted that it was a flash light, and would soon grow dim, and its author be forgotten; but after he made his silver speech those who thought his first an accident were compelled to admit that he possessed all the qualifications of a statesman and that he was bound to be a leader in his party.
Besides his silver and tariff speeches, Mr. Bryan spoke briefly upon several other questions, namely, in favor of foreclosure of Government liens on all Pacific railways, and in favor of the anti-option bill. He favored the application of the principle of arbitration as far as Federal authority extends. On January 30, 1894, Mr. Bryan, in a speech in favor of the income tax, brilliantly and successfully replied to the speech of Bourke Cockran delivered in opposition to that measure.
His record in Congress did not consist entirely of speech-making. He was a tireless worker for his constituents, and he secured more pensions for old soldiers living in his district than all the Republican congressmen who had preceded him. He personally attended to the wants of every constituent, and no man ever wrote a letter asking his assistance that he did not at once enlist Bryan’s active support. He was vigilant and watchful, and never missed an opportunity to do a favor.
He was exceedingly active in Congress, dodging nothing, and often speaking on the current questions. Yet nothing that he did or said in Congress comes back to plague him. It was then thought, and it has since been hoped, that in the fulness of his record something would come back to trip him. But what he said then only makes him stronger now.
It may not be amiss at this point to quote from Mrs. Bryan, who said: “Quoting from a eulogy which Mr. Bryan delivered upon a colleague in the 53d Congress, this extract will serve a double purpose, in that it gives his views upon immortality, and, at the same time, presents a passage which I think may, without impropriety, be called a finished bit of English. Mr. Bryan said ‘I shall not believe that even now his light is extinguished. If the Father deigns to touch with divine power the cold and pulseless heart of the buried acorn, and make it burst forth from its buried walls, will He leave neglected in the earth, the soul of man, who was made in the image of his Creator? If he stoops to give to the rosebush, whose withered blossoms float upon the breeze, the sweet assurance of another springtime, will he withhold the words of hope from the sons of man when the frosts of winter come? If matter, mute and inanimate, though changed by the forces of Nature into a multitude of forms, can never die, will the imperial spirit of man suffer annihilation after it has paid a brief visit, like a royal guest, to this tenement of clay? Rather let us believe that He, who, in His apparent prodigality, makes the blade of grass or the evening’s sighing zephyr, but makes them to carry out His eternal plan, has given immortality to the mortal, and gathered to Himself the generous spirit of our friend. Instead of mourning, let us look up and address him in the words of the poet:
“’The day has come, not gone;
The sun has risen, not set;
Thy life is now beyond
The reach of death or change,
Not ended—but begun
O, noble soul! O, gentle heart! Hail, and farewell.’”
Mr. Bryan was singularly free from egotism, affectation, or envy of the fame of others. That he was brilliant goes without saying, but his brilliancy was as natural and easy as to be like Shakespeare’s description of mercy:
“The quality of mercy is not strained,
It dropped as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the places beneath. It is twice blessed;
It blesses him that gives and him that takes.”
THE TARIFF
For twenty years prior to 1896 the chief tangible point of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties was the tariff question. It was, in truth, a question on which the two great parties had always differed since the days when they were known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
The Democratic party, in true accord with the principles of Thomas Jefferson, has always held that government to be best which interferes least with the liberty of the individual. The purpose of government, it has held, is to protect man in his personal rights against the unjust encroachments of his neighbors. But, according to the Democratic idea, government should not interfere to arbitrarily promote the interests of any class of its citizens at the expense of any other class. All should be left, protected against illegal encroachment, but otherwise unmolested, to work out their own salvation. In other words, Democracy believes that government to be best which governs least.
The Republican theory, on the other hand, has inclined toward the exactly opposite point of view; that that government is best which governs most. It has acted consistently on the principle that it is not only permissible but advisable for government to be made an instrument for advancing the pecuniary or business interests of such of its citizens as seem most deserving or are most fortunate in winning its ear. It was this radical difference between the two parties, involving, as it did, a basic and fundamental principle, that lay at the root of the controversy regarding tariff duties.
The Democratic party, adhering to the strict letter of the Constitution, held that the tariff should be levied for one simple purpose, and that the purpose contemplated by the Constitution—to raise revenue. With this end in view, the party contended, tariff duties should be levied mostly on such articles as are not produced in this country, and, in order to equalize the burden of taxation, be imposed rather on luxuries than the strict necessities of life.
The Republican party took a more radical position. It advocated the levying of tariff duties, not primarily for the purpose of raising revenue,—that was made a secondary consideration,—but to protect from foreign competition the manufacturing and industrial enterprises of the United States. Then, it argued, these establishments, protected by the fostering arm of government, would grow great and strong, furnishing at once employment for labor at high wages, and a “home market” for the products of the American farm and mine.
Controverting this alluring argument, the Democratic party held that government had no right to compel citizens of one class or section to contribute involuntarily to the support of citizens of some other class or section of the country. The only manner in which a protective tariff could protect, it pointed out, was by enabling the home manufacturer to charge a higher price because of the duty on foreign goods. This added price, it showed, must be paid into the pocket of the American manufacturer by the American consumer. Moreover, it declared, the farmer could only share the burden without receiving any of the benefits of a high protective tariff, the price of his products being fixed in the world’s markets at Liverpool and London. And the same thing, it held, was true of the laboring man, as the rate of his remuneration was fixed mainly by “the iron law of wages.”
When Mr. Bryan was elected to Congress for his first term this question of tariff was the all-absorbing one before the people. The Republican party, in the zenith of its power, had enacted the McKinley tariff law, the embodiment of its views on this question, levying tariff duties so high as almost to exclude foreign competition. It was in this law, undoubtedly, that most of the great trusts and monopolies since formed read their birthright.
Mr. Bryan, naturally,