Modern Talking VS 50 Cent __TOP__

The republican champion was the first to appear upon the stand. He was escorted to appear upon the stand. He was escorted by C.H. Morrill, chairman of the republican state central committee, and his friends in the big building seemed to fill every nook and corner and each seemed to have a voice that was pitched to a peculiarly enthusiastic key. A moment afterward W. J. Bryan appeared at the entrance behind the temporary platform and the applause became a perfect cyclone of cheers, shouts and cries of the name of the democratic favorite which made the building quiver.

Modern talking VS 50 Cent

How is it upon import duties? They are collected upon what we eat and wear and use. Not only are they collected upon those things which we import, but also to a still greater extent in amount upon those things which we produce at home and consume at home. Do men wear clothing or eat food or use the articles taxed in proportion to their incomes? You recognize that that is not the case. A man with an income of $100,000 does not spend 100 times as much for food as a man with an income of $1,000, nor does he spend 100 times as much for clothing. Therefore we realize when we collect our taxes through import duties we make the man with the small income pay a larger per cent of his income to support the government than the man with a large income.

We have left an exemption of all incomes under $4,000. Why? Because those with small incomes pay more than their share through the other avenues of taxation. We do not deem it just that they pay the same proportion of this additional one-tenth, therefore the small incomes were exempt, and we said to those with large incomes, who pay less than their share, "we will tax you until those who have large incomes are brought up to a point near the same proportion as those with small incomes." There ought to be an exemption in any income tax law. We do not believe that even with this one-tenth collected from incomes over $4,000 that we now bring those with the large incomes up to their share, but I shall favor increasing the per cent we collect from income taxes rather than decreasing it for the purpose of restoring equality in the treatment of the people. [Applause.]

But only about one-half of the income tax is collected from individual incomes; the other half is collected from the net incomes of corporations. Now, my friends, do you realize that the corporation pays no tax to support the federal government? The corporation does not use liquor or tobacco. It has no small vices. It does not wear clothing or eat food, and yet you know that much of the expenses of the federal government is incurred by corporations. The chairman of the committee on judiciary stated just before the adjournment of congress that two-thirds of the business of the courts was corporation business, and that that amount of business was so swelling the work of the court that they were asking for additional judges. Is it not fair, my friends, that these corporations which call upon the general government to protect them through the courts and by the strong arm of the law should pay their share of the expenses of the government whose protection they ask? Do you realize, too, that a great many corporations enjoy special franchises, corporations like street railway companies, which have the right of way in the city, corporations like gas companies, like railroad companies, which have the right of eminent domain and who have, to a large extent, a monopoly of the business within their territory? All corporations have this advantage, that the stockholder can limit his liability, while individuals in an enterprise must back their enterprise with all the property they have. We believe it is only fair that we collect from these people 2 per cent of the net earnings, which simply means after all the tax expenses are taken out, that the corporation shall turn over 2 per cent of that which is really net earnings to the support of the federal government. In this way we are enabled to reach many in foreign lands who have investments in this country, and but for this tax would escape any contributions to the expenses of the federal government. A person in a foreign land invests his money in a corporation here, and we say by this law that those who do it shall stand upon the same footing with our citizens and shall contribute from their net income to the support of the government.

I want first, my friends to make the government a preferred creditor, and let it know right now that it is not going to get a cent if it is not going to, and not let it go on collection tolls for fifty years more. We better find it out now.

I ask my opponent if he stands upon the republican platform and is silent upon this great subject, or whether he will venture to tell these people what he will do in case, by their suffrages, he is senator. The national banks are not only seeking to have more money issued on the bonds; not only seeking to extend it from 90 per cent to 100, but seek to reduce the taxes upon the circulation, and are also seeking to have other kinds of securities substituted for national bonds. My platform speaks on the subject and I indorse its every word upon this question. It says that the right to issue paper money is an attribute of sovereignty, and whatever paper we need ought to be issued by the federal government as the greenbacks were. [Applause.]

If I am your senator, so far as I can prevent it there will never be another dollar of paper money issued by a national bank, a state bank, or any private corporation whatever. There are two objections to the issuing of money by private corporations. In the first place you violate the principle that all men are created free and equal. Whether you have a state bank or a national bank, to give the issue of money to a bank is to confer a special privilege. At this time we say, if a man holds a bond he can draw interest upon it, but if a banker holds that bond, he can draw interest upon it, and use 90 per cent of the face besides. I deny the justice of that discrimination. I believe, my friends, that no government like ours can afford to say to one man, "You must eat your cake or keep it," and say to another, "You can both eat your cake and keep it." [Applause and laughter.]

My friends, it has been said by some that if we had the free and unlimited coinage of silver that some men abroad would buy up silver cheap and come over here and have it coined at double its value and make enormous profits. When a man brings silver from abroad it is coined and handed back to him. If he gets rid of his silver it must be by contract with somebody that is willing to take it. He can give us the silver and go home if he wishes to; nobody will object to that. If he wants to give us a silver dollar for a gold dollar he give us a silver dollar for a gold dollar he must find somebody that is willing to give his gold dollar for the silver dollar. He cannot compel the giving or exchange of a gold dollar for some other dollar. If he want sto buy goods, he can only buy with his silver dollar from those who are willing to accept his silver for the goods. You can trust to the intelligence of the American people not to allow the cheap dollar to be palmed off on us. If you are afraid some man will bring a cheap dollar here and put it off on you, then you better have a conservator appointed, because we are liable to the same thing at home. If you think a man can buy our silver at 63 cents an ounce and come here and get it coined and sell if for $1.99, try the same plan at home. Go around among your neighbors and buy what they have to sell at a cheap price, and sell at a dear price, and get rich on the difference. It is an easy thing to do, but you might find somebody that would not let his property go at half price, and yet that selfishness on the part of the people has stood in the way of more fortunes than any other one thing. [Applause and laughter.]

Now a word as to the ratio. Those who favor the free coinage of the American product to not tell us at what ratio they would coin it, and yet the ratio is the first subject that greets the man who attempts to legislate on this question. You cannot make a law for the coining of the American product until you have determined at what ratio you will coin that gold and silver. If my friend takes the position in favor of the free coinage of the American product, then I ask him to tell us at what ratio he is willing to coin even the American product. If he says 16 to 1, then I say to him that the argument that some of his friends have been making, that if we do that we give a bonus to the mine owner, I say to him that the argument is as valid against the free coinage of the American product at 16 to 1 as it is against the unlimited coinage at 16 to 1. Therefore, those who favor the coinage at 16 to 1 must not argue against the mine owner's profit. Do you realize that free coinage cannot bring back to the mine owner a single cent more than demonetization took away from him? [Applause.] If the free coinage of silver brings to the mine owner a profit, it is a proof conclusive that demonetization during all those years has deprived him of it, is it unjust to him that you take away the law that has blighted his prosperity? We believe that as silver gone down, so have the prices of staples with which we compete with India. We believe that the farmer has lost $5 by the fall in silver for every dollar lost by the mine owner. We believe that the restoration of free coinage of silver at 16 to 1 will bring back to the farmer $5 of benefit where it brings back the mine owner $1. And yet you cannot bring back to the mine owner a single dollar that you took away from him. If you are going to change the ratio, at what do you fix the ratio, and do you realize what it means to change the ratio? The mine owners of silver may be willing to change the ratio and accept any ratio which will enable them to produce their silver at a profit. [Applause.] 041b061a72