Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 February 1894 — WILSON ON HIS BILL. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

WILSON ON HIS BILL.

ENDS THE TARIFF DEBATE FOR THE DEMOCRATS. Brilliant Oratorical Effort and Forceful Arguments of th« Father of the Tariff Measure Borne from the Houle on the Shoulden of Hls Admirer*. Pleads for Reform. Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and father of the tariff measure which bears his name, closed the great debate on the Democratic side. He spoke enthusiastically in defense of the bill and at the close of his speech was given an ovation that has seldom been equaled in the halls of Congress. The demonstration went so far that he was lifted upon the shoulders of Mr. Bryan of Nebraska and Mr. Tucker of Virginia and borne out in triumph to the cloakroom. Mr. Wilson followed Mr. Reed, who slcsed for the Republicans. He spoke as follows: We might well rest the discussion where It was left by the gentleman from Georgia in bis strong speech. It does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that anything more is needed at this time. After three weary weeks the gentlemen on the other side have lashed around the oldtime arguments and prophecies. But history has not proved the force of their arguments, and their prophecies have never been realized, Bnt It is incumbent upon me to reply to some of the compliments whioh have been paid me In some of the arguments which have been addressed to me In the oourse of this debate. I must not apologize to my friends on the other side for my references to them, for from none of them, even in the heat of debate, have I received a word of discourtesy. But for this I

snonld delight to take up for a few moments that beautiful argument which my friend from Michigan (Mr. Burrows) brings into the House at every Congress like a oluster of wax flowerß under a glass case. I would like to reply also In the same spirit of friendship and good-nature to the gentleman from lowa (Mr. Dolliver) in reminding the House that at one point In his life he had narrowly escaped being a friend of mine In a great BChool of learning. It was a narrow escape, but judging from hls degeneration It was a miss that was as good as a mile. 1 want to say he was not a pnpll of mine. It is said of Dr. Johnson that he declared that you could make a good deal even of a Scotchman If you caught him young. And I might have been able to make something of a Democratic economist of my brilliant young friend from lowa (Mr. Dolliver) if he had come under my teaching In hls early life. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Heed] appeared in a role to-day far different from that which he usually occupies when he makes hls appearance In the House. He laid aside htß usual way of debating great public questions and gave us a set oration. But. after all, Ills main argument was that which is heard In every schoolhouse in the country; that because we have had protection in the United States for the laßt thirty years wo have drawn all of onr prosperity from a law of Congress and not from the gifts of Almighty God. Bnt the gentleman from Maine will not go farther than I will In singing the praises of our common country. I wish to remind the gentleman from Maine that we have grown great and have prospered and have Increased In nnmbers, have Increased In wealth, not because of protection, but because no law of Congress can stand In the wav of history's progress. You may frame McKinley laws, anl In the progress of humanity they will be trampled under foot. You cannot muzzle science, or banish art. You may place tariff burdens on every Industry of the country, and still enterprise will persevere and prevail over them. Men will seek in all possible ways to better their condition and to advance their own personal welfare, and In that effort all men will advance. Out of those constant troubles every Individual will endeavor to gather what comfort he can, and to rse in the scale of civilization. And this glorious progress no law of Congress can Impede; and no McKinley act or other act oan seriously prevent. But I will tell yon what yonr tariff laws are doing and what yonr tariff laws have done. You cannot permit the accumulation of wealth in this country, but you can take that wealth from tho men who made it and bestow it upon some men who did not make it. You cannot deal out prosperity to all the people, hut you can deal out wealth to part of them and poverty to all the rest. Daniel Webster said. In a speech in 1850, that fivc-slxtlis of the prosperity of the North belonged to the workingmen of the North. Can any of the representatives of the commonwealth of Massachusetts make such a glorious boast to-day? The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Beed), In his report, and again In his speech to-day, has praised the operation of the protective system because it gives quite an extensive distribution of the benefits which it bringß. Now, there is a lesson In the last census of the United States which calls upon every citizen to pause and ponder as to whether this Is a time of growing prosperity or a time of decadence. It appears, by t 1 e last census of all the men occupying farms In the country today, that one-third are tenants, living on farms owned by others; and that of all the people occupying homes (other than farms) two-thirds live In rented honses. If that Is the kind of general prosperity, if that is a proof of diffused welfare, then the protective system is entitled to the credit, because I believe it is, in a large measure, due to that system. I intended to answer a few other points made by the gentleman from Maine, but time will not permit. Let me say, however, in passing, that with hls usual skill and dexterity he added to hls armor the weapons of sarcasm and ridicule against this tariff reform movement. Mr. Speaker, if reform could be blocked and hindered by ridicule, If great causes could be laughed down, we would be to-day the slaves of England Instead of being a self-governing American people. The plain Virginia huntsmen, who in my own county met 100 strong and marched in their hunting shirts from the Potomac to the relief of Boston under old Daniel Morgan, were clowns in appearance and out but a sorry figure before the splendid troops which they met In that city. Men are not to be judged by the clumsiness of their movements, but are ennobled by that for which they fight. The continentals of Washington and the Virginia huntsmen of Daniel Morgan, while they may have been rudely dressed and may have been clumsy In their movements, bore upon their standard the freedom which we now enjoy. This Is a very old world,Mr. Speaker; but long before human history began to be written the fatal secret was disclosed that there Is no easier, no quicker, no more abundant way of getting wealth and getting power than by exercising the power of taxation over the masses of the people. That secret, when disclosed, was eagerly seized upon before the very dawning of human history, and is to-day the dominant force in all the world. Goal to Be Sought After. It was bnt 200 years ago that men were willing to fight for the idea that governments were made to serve the governed and not for the benefit of those who govern. Not yet, in all the world, have' men advsnoed to that point where the government is opersted exclusively and entirely in the Interests of all the governed. That is the goal of perfect freedom. That is the achievement of perfeot law. A&d that Is the goal to whioh the Democratic

party U courageously and honestly mOTlng in Its light UwUy lor tariff reform. Whenever that party and whenever the members of It are able to out loose from local and selfish Interests and to keep the general welfare alone In their eye, we shall reach that goal of perfect freedom and wrlll bring to the people of this country that prosperity which no other people in the world has erer enjoyed. 1 remember reading some tine ago, in a speech of r Robert Feel’s, when he was beginning hu system of tariff reform In Knsland. of a letter which he had received from a 'canny Scotchman*—a fisherman—in which the man protested against lowering the duty on herring, for fear, he said, that the Norwegian fisherman would undersell him: but he assured Sir Robert, In dosing the letter, that in every other respect exoept herring he was a thor-ough-going free-trader. Now, my fellow Democrats. I do not want any roan to say that you are acting in the cause of herring, not in the cause of the people. Ido not want herring to aland between you and the enthusiastic performance of your duty to your party and your duty to the American people. if time permitted I would like to take up someof the arguments against the bill among my democratic friends. The first argument Is that this bill will create a deficit, and therefore ought not to be passed. In the name of oommon sense how could you ever pass a tariff reform bill it you did not reduce the taxes under the existing laws that yon seek to rs-. form? Have gentlemen forgotten that there may be a system of tariff taxation under which the government receives little, and the protected industries receive much, and that there may be a lower system of tariff taxation under which the government receives a great de 1 and the protected industries receive but little? The McKinley law is constructed on the first line, and the pending bill is constructed on the Hue of revenue. If you take up the history if the free trad • movement In Kngland you will find that nothing so surprised the tariff reformers as to see that the more they cut down taxes and the nearer they approached free trade the more the revenue grew in spite of them. At the beginning of that movement there were l.’A O articles taxed, and at the close ofllt only seven; and the revenue was as great on the seven as it liad been on the I,’Aai. I have here the report of Robert J. Walker, as Secretary of the Treasury, showing that In the first year of the operation of the Walker low tariff In IS4« the revenue went up from $23,600,000 to tai ,600,000. llut 1 cannot dwoll on that matter. The next argument which my friends on this side are using among themselves against the hill, or to hesitate, at least, in voting for the bill, Is that the inoome tax has been added to it. I need not say to my brethren on this side that.l did

not concur In the policy of attaching the Income measure to the pending bill. 1 had some doubts as to the expediency of adding the Income? tax'measure to the pending bill. Rut when the committee decided otherwise I threw In my fortune, loyally and earnestly, with that amendment, because 1 never have been hostile to the Idea of an Income tax. John Sherman has been quoted as saying that an Inoome tax 1b olaßs taxation. It la nothing of the kind. It Is simply, as the gentleman from Georgia !'Mr. Crisp) declared, an effort-an honest effort—to balance the weight of taxation In this oountry. During the fifty years of Its exlstenoe In England It has been the strongest force there in wiping out class distinctions. It was a doctrine taught by Sumner, Walker and other New England economists that an Income tax was the most simple form of taxation. New England taught that doctrine to the South and West, and she has no right to come up to-day and complain because her own teachings baa been used against her. In all my conferences on the subject of this bill l have heard no man protest that we have been actuated by an unworthy motive,; or that tills great scheme of taxation was undertaken In any class or sootlonal spirit. Doubts Republican Sincerity. Gentlemen (addressing the Republican side of the llouBe) I doubt not your sincerity. I doubt not the love of your fellow-man which lmpclß you to champion your side of the question any more than 1 doubt that which Impels my associates on this side. I agree with tho gentleman from Maine (Mr. Heed) that the question of general welfare and the question of wages of the workingmen are after ail tho vital questions in this controversy. We are trying an experiment whether, In God’s name, we can establish a country where every man horn into It will be horn with the possibility that he can raise himself to a degree of ease and comfort and not be compelled to live a life of degrading toil for the mere no -essltles of existence. That is the feeling which animates all who through danger and defeat have steadily labored for tariff reform. We wish to make this a country where no man shall be taxed for the private benefit of another; but where all the blessings of free government, of education, of the influences of the chnreh and of tho school sha l be the common, untaxed heritage of all the people, adding to tho comfort of all, adding to the culture of all, and adding to the happiness of all. And now one word more. We are abont to vote on this question. If I knew that when tho roll is called every Democratic name would respond In the spirit of that larger patriotism which 1 have tried to suggest I would be proud and light-hearted to-day. I want to sav to my brethren who are doubting as to what they shall do that this roll call will not only be entered on the journal of tho House, but It will be entered on the history of this country, and it will be entered In the annals of freedom. This is not a battle expressly on this tax or on that tax; it is a battle for human freedom. As Mr. Rnrke truly said, "The great battUs of human freedom have been waged around the question of taxation." You may think to-day that some "herring” of your own will exouso you In op]K>slng this great movement; you may thing to-day that some reason of locality, some desire to oblige a great interest behind yon, may excuse if, when the roll Is called, your name shall be registered among the opponents of this measure; but no such excuse will cover you. The men who had the opportunity to sign the Declaration of Independence and refused or neglected because there was something In It which they did not like—l thank God there were no such men—but if there were, what would be their standing In history to-day? If, on the battlefields of Lexington and Hunker Hill there had been men who became dissatisfied, wanted this thing and that thing and threw away their weapons, what do vou suppose won d have been their feelings in all the years of their lives when the liberty bells rang on every coming anniversary of American freedom? And in the name of honor and In the name of freedom, I summon every democratic member of the House.

CARRYING WILSON FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.